Aussie Lawyer Blog

Tag: human rights

  • We Back High Court Challenge to Marriage Equality Postal Vote, says ALHR

    We Back High Court Challenge to Marriage Equality Postal Vote, says ALHR

    marriage equality

    Last week, the government issued a statement that it will go on with the nonbinding, non-compulsory postal vote.

    “We back the constitutional challenge that is expected to be heard on 5th and 6th September,” said Nicholas Stewart, co-chair of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights.

    Mr. Stewart said that the organisation condemned the proposal because it was likely to cause more harm than good. It will encourage hate speech against the community members, their children and their families at large. Hence, the postal vote will not produce a statistically meaningful outcome.

    The co-chair has called upon all Australians to come together and question the government’s intention for funding the postal vote. ALHR has taken this brave step to support the current constitutional challenge to the funding of this ridiculous and divisive proposal.

    The organisation claimed that it is not right to decide human rights issues by using some Australian voters to get voluntary postal response. Mr. Stewart said that the proposal cannot be voted in or out of existence because it does not favour the fundamental principle that human rights derive from human dignity.

    Mr. Stewart also added that the Minister for Finance is not allowed by the Australian Constitution to fund such proposals.

    Please take note that no funds can be drawn from the Consolidated Fund, thanks to s83 of the Constitution.

    ALHR questioned the government’s decision to make some powerful moves beyond the Constitution. “What precedent is the government setting for the formulation of government in the future if it is prepared to embrace voluntary postal opinions on such a crucial human rights issue?” said Mr. Stewart while speaking to Aussie Lawyer Blog.

    The Australian Bureau of Statistics has also gone ahead to provide what is beyond their role.

    “I believe that the funding of the postal vote by the government is unconstitutional,” said Ryan Goss, senior lecturer in Law at the Australian Nation University.

    Mr. Gross said that the government may need to pass legislation approving the expenditure on a postal ballot unless it is able to bring the polls within a narrow range of exceptions.

    Many opinion polls have consistently shown that more than 60% of Australians support same-sex marriage. With $122 million to be spent on the exercise, ALHR views this as wastage of taxpayer money.

    “In my view, I think the non-compulsory, nonbinding vote may not provide a positive or meaningful result,” said Kathryn Cramp, co-chair of ALHR’s LGBTI committee.

    She added that the concept of a voluntary postal vote is fundamentally flawed because it cannot produce either a genuine statistical survey or an electoral vote.

    Mr. Stewart said that the postal vote will not be subject to control by the Australian Electoral Commission and will not involve all voters. Mr. Stewart noted that back in 1997; Prime Minister Turnbull himself opposed the postal vote system with an argument that it will disenfranchise voters and contravene basic democratic values.

  • We will focus on Implementing Bill of Rights, says LCA

    We will focus on Implementing Bill of Rights, says LCA

    Last week included a lot of legal activities. The major activity was that of LCA – a leading body for Australian lawyers. The Law Council of Australia has claimed that there have been many issues regarding human rights that needed immediate attention. Hence, they have decided to put the bill of rights on top of their task list.

    The LCA has stated that they will focus on the legal profession and human rights. They have put it out clearly that they are in the process of advocating for a federal charter or bill of rights.

    The Law Council of Australia has also urged the states and territories that haven’t developed their own charters to come out and join hands with the legal body.

    The reason why LCA is pushing for a national bill of rights is because many Australian states haven’t created their own charters. As a matter of fact, there are only two states that have developed a legislative instrument that outlines its citizen’s rights. The states include ACT and Victoria.

    “We are glad that our new statement is in line with the good timing of Australia’s bid for a seat on the UN Human Rights Council,” said LCA President Fiona McLeod SC while speaking to Aussie Lawyer Blog.

    In the recent past, Australia has been actively involved in human rights issues and the nation has made advancements regarding the issue.

    Now, the LCA has come out to push for awareness of human rights in every state.

    The LCA believes that Australia should be part of the UN Human Rights Council. That’s why they are endorsing a constructive and central role for the nation in the international human rights system.

    Ms McLeod said that it is important to implement and execute the commitments and legal principles on human rights. She added that this will help Australia show its boldness on the human rights bill as the nation seeks a seat on the UN Human Rights Council.

    Last week, the LCA’s council directors approved a statement prepared by the council’s human rights committee.

    “We already have a Policy Statement on Human Rights and the Legal Profession. Its main purpose is to provide a clear framework for examining the achievements of legal practice, policy, and legislation,” said Ms McLeod.

    The LCA president said that the Law Council believes all human rights are interrelated, interdependent, indivisible and universal. She added that they are ready to work with organisations that are familiarised with international law and practice in regard to human rights.

    She said that the Law Council’s tasks in the policy space, from metadata to marriage equality to asylum seekers were guided by the principles in the human rights framework.

    Hence, the Law Council will always work to ensure that government action and legislation gets implemented in line with human rights.

    The Council’s statement also urged all Australian corporations and other business entities to play their part in accordance with the UN’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.

  • Legal professionals should join hands in fighting infringement of human rights

    Legal professionals should join hands in fighting infringement of human rights

    gillian

    According to Professor Gillian Triggs (pictured), Australian lawyers need to take the human rights issue seriously and be unified towards helping human rights victims get justice.

    “The country’s concentration on human rights has been down in this ending year. I call upon all personnel in the legal profession industry to take a more unified and clearer position to effectively offer solutions on the country’s treatment of human rights,” said the president of the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).

    For the past 12 months, Professor Triggs has been offering her views on the nation’s stance regarding human rights. The AHRC president urged lawyers to make it a priority to challenge and question domestic laws that hinder implementation of international conventions. Professor Triggs said she was against the backdrop of rising executive government discretion and “regressing” human rights compliance.

    Speaking to Aussie Lawyer Blog, Professor Triggs said that Australia was simply going backward since there was a declining position of women in Australian society. She went ahead to mention that the country went the opposite way when it came to migration issues. “I would describe Australia as being reluctant in compliance with human rights,” said Professor Triggs.

    The professor said that she doesn’t think the legal industry is unified or doing its best in reducing the frequent breaches of fundamental human rights. She gave an example where Australia actively moved away from its international obligations by the recent government changes to the Migration Act. The changes did not favour some basic provisions of the United Nations Convention regarding the Refugees’ Status covered by the legislation.

    The worst part of it all is that this resulted in the deportation of people back to their native countries, regardless of whether they were refugees or not.

    Professor Triggs said that the growing ministerial powers to give determinations on fundamental issues that directly affected human rights were very disturbing but equally more of an abstract trend this year.

    A number of people got detained on Christmas Island using abusive ministerial powers under section 501 of the Migration Act,” said the professor.

    Professor Triggs said she doesn’t think the legal profession’s voice was as loud as it ought to be because the bad things were already entering into the system.

    She said the people who are asylum seekers were less as compared to the people in detention and visa cancellation cases. In addition, the professor was surprised with the increasing numbers of people in certain detention centres on Christmas Island. “This thing makes me very curious,” she said.

    Professor Triggs said more thousands of people got stranded without any clear status just because of issued determinations and the government’s failure to use the discretionary powers.

    Professor Triggs said there are approximately 13,000 people who are simply adrift in the community because they haven’t been included in the government’s record.

    When asked how she responded to the current hostility she received from some media quarters and the government, the professor said she plans to speak about human rights in Australia and stick to the Commission’s statutory mandate.