Café

The Hardest Sermons You’ll Ever Have To Preach
Reviewed by Hans Kristensen
Little Black Books: Science and God
Reviewed by Andrew Laird
Making the Most of the Cross
Reviewed by Lesley Hicks
Higher Ground
Reviewed by Andrew Laird

Victorian Rights charter should be wound back, says government report

9:09pm Thursday, 15th September 2011

The Victorian Charter of Rights needs major modifications according to the government committe that has been reviewing it. The Victorian Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC) has suggested that the contentious aspects of the charter should be removed. The Australian Christian Lobby welcomed the Changes while Isaiahone, a group of christians that argues for human rights, is less keen on the report.

The ACL would like to see the whole charter repealed, while Isaiahone believes that winding it back will hurt the vulnerable.

ISAIAHONE:

Despite the lengthy report by the SARC it remains unclear how the Charter’s effectiveness in protecting the vulnerable can or would be replaced by alternatives. A submission to the review by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) is particularly interesting in this respect. PIAC is very familiar with community advocacy. Its submission compares (real life) case studies between NSW (no Charter) and Victoria.

In Victoria a woman who was sole carer for her elderly parents received a notice from the local council that accommodation she had arranged for them was contrary to planning approvals. The woman’s parents were very unwell, one having recently had a stroke, the other with dementia. The woman’s representative wrote to the council asking that it consider the Charter’s right to privacy and family life. The council must by law consider rights set out in the Charter. It responded by granting extra time to make other arrangements for her parents. This did not mean planning regulations were changed or disrupted, nor was costly litigation involved. The Charter facilitated a review of a decision at a local level which considered the needs of frail, elderly people.

PIAC considered the woman’s situation if the same scenario had taken place in NSW. It was much more likely, according to PIAC, that her complaint would have needed to go through a formal dispute resolution system. Unlike in Victoria, public authorities have no legal responsibility to consider human rights of the vulnerable. In PIAC’s view, unless a public authority exercised discretion gratuitously, it is likely that the woman would have had to take her case to the NSW Land and Environment court to review the council’s notice. This would be extremely stressful and costly. Many such cases aren’t pursued by applicants because of personal circumstances such as resources, stress and other pressures.

The PIAC submission gives three more comparative case studies which illustrate how the Charter’s oversight of government services provides efficient and effective ways to assist people in their dealings with government. This is one of the Charter’s functions which would be removed if the majority recommendation of the SARC report is accepted.

The advantages of a Charter-based process might appear small, indeed the Government majority of the SAR committee considered them so. But cumulatively across the thousands and millions of interactions between the public and government services it becomes very significant. It is clear from submissions to the Inquiry that welfare agencies overwhelmingly support the Charter for its benefits to their clientele. A short list of quotes from agencies is on the IsaiahOne website. By contrast submissions from some Christian groups stand out as the most prominent section of the community calling for the repeal of the entire Charter including its oversight of government services. The majority SARC report rejects a complete repeal.

Read on at http://www.isaiahone.org

ACL's Rob Ward:

At the very least, the options presented in the report provide for the removal of the more contentious aspects of the charter, including the threat of judicial activism and the potential diluting of parliamentary authority through ‘declarations of incompatibility’.

Ensuring that people are treated fairly and that fundamental rights are not trampled on by public officials is important. Strengthening the role of the Ombudsman and providing other remedies form a vital part of any reform in this area.

Whilst ACL welcomes the changes proposed, we believe the best way to remedy the pitfalls of the charter is to repeal it. With the review report now public, the Parliament will consider the SARC recommendations over coming months.

Last year the former Rudd government rejected a federal charter of rights following strong community opposition that it would hand power to unelected judges. ACL has previously written about its concerns regarding the Victorian charter here.

Read on at http://www.acl.org.au