BILL OF RIGHTS FOR AUSTRALIA?

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 CANBERRA 001307

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV PHUM AS
SUBJECT: BILL OF RIGHTS FOR AUSTRALIA?


1. (U) SUMMARY: On the 60th anniversary of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the Government announced it
would establish a consultation process on how best to protect
and promote human rights in Australia. A committee will
canvass public opinion on whether human rights need any
additional protection in Australia, and if so, what form of
protection. The government has made clear that any proposal
must preserve the sovereignty of Parliament - which would
rule out a constitutional bill of rights that could supersede
federal law. The review will provide fuel in the "culture
wars" between the Right and the Left in Australia, with the
Right warning a Charter of Rights will put more power in the
hands of activist, unelected judges. END SUMMARY.

"MEDDLING PRIEST" CHAIRS INQUIRY


2. (U) On December 9, the Attorney General announced that a
four-member committee will seek the community's views on
human rights in Australia. A nationwide consultation process
will begin almost immediately, with the panel taking
submissions and holding town hall meetings in 30-35 cities
and towns throughout Australia. It is due to report on July
31, 2009. The committee will be chaired by high-profile
Jesuit priest and law professor, Father Frank Brennan, who
former Australian Labor Party (ALP) Prime Minister Paul
Keating once called a "meddling priest." Brennan has
attacked constitutional bills of rights, which he claims
gives judges too much power over moral issues such as
abortion and gay rights. He is said to be more neutral on a
statutory bill of rights, which would be enacted by the
Parliament. Other members of the committee are former TV
presenter Mary Kostakidis, indigenous lawyer Tammy Williams
and former Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick
Palmer. The Attorney General said "any proposal must
preserve the sovereignty of parliament." The terms of
reference for the inquiry are:

- Which human rights (including corresponding
responsibilities) should be protected and promoted?

- Are these human rights currently sufficiently protected and
promoted?

- How could Australia better protect and promote human rights?

CHARTER OF RIGHTS DOMINATES DISCUSSION


3. (U) The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
welcomed the inquiry, pointing out that Australia is the only
liberal democracy in the world without a charter or bill of
rights. The concept under consideration would likely be a
charter of rights, enacted by Parliament. A judge could rule
if a subsequent law complied with the charter but only
Parliament would have the authority to void or change the
law. Shadow Attorney General George Brandis said the need
for a charter of rights had not been demonstrated, claiming
it is "an idea that has filtered down from law school common
rooms and activist judges." Independent Senator Nick
Xenophon and Family First Senator Steve Fielding, whose
support would be needed to pass a bill if the Coalition
opposed it, are both unconvinced of the need for a charter of
rights. Even former New South Wales Labor premier Bob Carr
said it risked a "shift in power from elected, parliaments to
unelected judges. " In Victoria and the ACT, there are
charters of rights which require the state and territory
government to take into account human rights principals when
creating laws. In Victoria, the courts can rule on whether
laws are consistent with the charter, however parliament is
not bound to follow a court's ruling.


4. (SBU) COMMENT: The Rudd Government appears determined to
Q4. (SBU) COMMENT: The Rudd Government appears determined to
take a stronger approach to human rights than the Howard
Government. It has removed discrimination against same-sex
couples in retirement plans and welfare payments. It has
also moved towards signing various international human rights
conventions and protocols, apologized to indigenous
Australians, and is committed to reforming freedom of
information laws. However, this is a sensitive political
issue for a Labor government. In 1988, a referendum seeking
to include rights in the Constitution was rejected. The
Keating ALP Government was often accused of paying too much
attention to the agendas of minority groups and left-wing
"elites." The "working families" that helped Rudd get
elected do not believe Australia has a human rights problem
and are suspicious of the judiciary, particularly in relation
to "soft sentencing" for criminals. With economic
uncertainty rising, the working families are not likely to be
sympathetic to a government that spends much time on human
rights charters for Australia.


CANBERRA 00001307 002 OF 002


MCCALLUM