Outgoing President of the Australian Human Rights Commission Rosalind Croucher spent a good deal of her National Press Club address outlining the case for National Human Rights Act.
Croucher calls the act the “centrepiece of our national human rights reform agenda”.
First, parliament would consider more directly how their law-making affects people’s freedoms and rights, and more robust scrutiny processes of the parliament would require intense focus on whether laws breach rights, whether this is appropriate, and whether there are better alternatives.
Second, where laws and policies affect discreet groups such as First Nations people or people with disability, a Human Rights Act would require that their views have been sought and fully considered, and government would be accountable for how they sought such engagement and what they did in response to it. This goes to a fundamental problem in law and policymaking in Australia - a lack of participation by affected communities.
Third, a Human Rights Act would create clear expectations for public officials, who would be duty-bound to fully consider human rights impacts, and who would be accountable for how they do this. Robodebt is a perfect example of a failure to do this, and where the potential for that scheme to egregiously affect people was wilfully ignored.
Fourth, a Human Rights Act would set out what rights in the community everyone should enjoy, supplemented with education and other support - this builds a culture of rights awareness, what I’ve called “rights-mindedness”. The importance of this cannot be overstated. If you approach the task of designing laws and policies with the lens of, “How will this advance people’s rights?” or, “How do I ensure that this law does the least harm to members of our community?” - it will inevitably result in better decisions and better outcomes.
And if all else fails, the Human Rights Act provides a remedial framework to administrative review and, ultimately, the courts.