Australia close to a charter of rights

Australia is one step closer to adopting a charter of human rights after a
government-appointed committee decided the country needs one.
But the recommendation has sparked fierce criticism from some opponents who are
demanding any final decision be put to a referendum.
The Rudd government appointed the National Human Rights Consultation committee,
which travelled to 52 places around the country holding public consultations.
Headed by Jesuit priest Frank Brennan, the committee also sifted through more than
35,000 submissions - a vast majority of which support a human rights act.
The final report, released on Thursday, said Australia "has a patchwork quilt of
protection for human rights" that could be improved through human rights
legislation.
It also recommended a joint committee on human rights review all laws to ensure they
protect human rights.
And that the federal government appoint a human rights minister and review its
policies to ensure they also uphold human rights.
The committee said the act would enshrine rights already expected under
international obligations and make any breach eligible for compensation.
It's welcome news for social and legal groups that say it will better protect the
rights of minority groups like the homeless, indigenous, refugees and children.
But opponents, like the federal opposition, say it will shift important decision
making powers from elected parliamentarians to unelected judges.
Opposition legal affairs spokesman George Brandis wants the Rudd government to
reject the move, and if not, put any final decision to a referendum.
He said the consultation process was driven by only a small group of lawyers and
political activists, including online group GetUp! which claims its members made up
more than 10,000 submissions.
"It (the recommendation) hasn't arisen from any widespread community view," he told
reporters in Canberra.
It would turn High Court judges into "overtly political figures" who can judge on
politically sensitive issues and clog up the courts with claims.
"There's no doubt, at all, that lawyers would be laughing all the way to the bank if
this were to be enacted."
The criticism was echoed by former NSW Labor premier Bob Carr who said judges would
be able "to effectively strike down federal parliament legislation".
But the Australian Human Rights Commission says a human rights act should be adopted
immediately, and there is no reason to hold a referendum.
"The Australian people want it, the Australian government should now accept that and
act on it," commission president Cathy Branson QC told AAP.
Ms Branson also rejected the notion that judges would get too much power.
"It absolutely protects the power of the Australian parliament to make any law that
it can now make."
The Australian Greens, The Australian Council of Social Service and not-for-profit
legal policy group PIAC also want the government to act without delay.
Australia is currently the only western democracy without a legislated charter of
rights.
The Rudd government says it will respond to the report by the end of the year.