Charter of Human Rights | Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law

Charters of Human Rights in Australia: an overview

State and Territory Charters of Human Rights

Following community consultations, legislative Charters of Human Rights (sometimes referred to as ‘Human Rights Acts’) have been adopted in Victoria and the ACT. For further information on developments in Victoria and the ACT, see our resources pages on the ACT Human Rights Act and the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities.

Other States and Territories have not adopted a Charter of Human Rights. However, in 2006 and 2007, the governments of Tasmania and Western Australia commissioned public consultation processes into human rights protections in those States. Both of these inquiries recommended that a Charter of Human Rights be enacted at a State level. (See the reports of the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute and the Consultation Committee for a Proposed WA Human Rights Act). The Tasmanian Department of Justice is currently undertaking a project involving further community consultations to examine a model for a Charter of Human Rights for Tasmania. However, the recommendation of the Western Australian committee has not been followed.

A Federal Charter of Human Rights?

At a national level, the ALP committed during the 2007 election campaign to conduct a public consultation on ‘how best to recognise and protect the human rights and freedoms enjoyed by all Australians’.

On 10 December 2008, Attorney-General the Hon Robert McClelland MP launched the National Human Rights Consultation. The Consultation was conducted by an independent Consultation Committee, which was chaired by Father Frank Brennan. The Committee made 31 recommendations, including that Australia should adopt a federal Human Rights Act.

On 21 April 2010, the Attorney-General responded to the Committee’s final report by launching 'Australia's Human Rights Framework' implemented by the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth).

The Act does not create a Charter of Rights. Instead, it establishes

a new Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights comprised of five members of the Senate and five members of the House of Representatives
a new requirement that a Bill introduced into Parliament must be accompanied by a ‘statement of compatibility’, which is to include an assessment of whether the Bill is compatible with human rights. (Statements of compatibility must also be prepared in respect of disallowable legislative instruments.)

The Parliamentary Joint Committee is required to:

examine Bills, Acts and legislative instruments for compatibility with human rights
inquire into any matter relating to human rights which is referred to it by the Attorney-General, and
report to both Houses of Parliament on these issues and matters.

A failure to comply with the new ‘statement of compatibility’ requirements in relation to a Bill that becomes an Act will not affect the validity, operation or enforcement of that Act or any other provision of a Commonwealth law. Furthermore, a statement of compatibility will not bind any court or tribunal.

The Legislation commenced on 4 January 2012 and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights was established on 13 March 2012. The current members are Mr Jenkins (Chair), Mr Wyatt (Deputy Chair), Senators Edwards, Humphries, Stephens, Thistlethwaite and Wright and Ms Parke, Mr K.J. Thomson and Mr Tehan.

Since its inception, the Committee has been asked to test two Bills. The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) has asked the Committee to examine the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Fair Incentives to Work) Bill 2012. In response, a hearing was held on 21 June 2012, at which ACOSS and the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations were invited to provide evidence to their concerns. The Committee is currently scheduled to meet to consider the evidence raised in the hearing and determine the next steps to be taken.

The National Congress of Australia's First People has also asked the Committee to examine the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bills. The Committee has invited the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs to provide a statement assessing the compatibility of the bills with human rights before determining how to proceed with the request.

Arguments For and Against a Charter of Human Rights

Some common arguments in favour of a Charter of Human Rights

It is commonly argued that a statutory Charter of Human Rights would expressly recognise rights not currently recognised by Australian law, and therefore also:

help promote a stronger culture of respect for human rights;
improve government policy-making and administrative decision-making from a human rights perspective;
bring Australia into line with every other liberal democracy;
better meet the obligations Australia has undertaken, under international law, to protect human rights standards such as those contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (for copies of the core international human rights treaties, see the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights); and
potentially allow Australian courts to play a broader role in protecting human rights under Australian law.

Some common arguments against a Charter of Human Rights

Some suggest that a Charter of Human Rights would be unnecessary, given the existing common law and statutory protections of rights in Australia. Opponents of a Charter of Human Rights also consider that a Charter of Human Rights could damage our current system of democratic government, for instance by

creating an undue focus on rights, as opposed to responsibilities, social justice or the public interest;
giving unelected judges too much power over important social issues;
undermining the responsibility, and accountability, of members of Parliament in respect of the protection of human rights; and
undermining national sovereignty in respect of human rights (by tying Australian law more closely to international human rights standards).

For further discussion on the arguments for and against a Charter of Human Rights, see Chapters 12 & 13 of the National Human Rights Consultation Report .

What Rights and Freedoms Should be Protected by a Charter of Human Rights

Most advocates for a Charter of Human Rights believe it should include the core international human rights guarantees found in international human rights (IHR) treaties ratified by Australia, in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Many of these obligations are further defined and elaborated in treaties such as:

Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
Convention on the Rights of the Child
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

For copies of these treaties, see the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Including such IHR guarantees in a Charter of Human Rights would reflect the role these guarantees already play in the Australian democratic tradition. It would also help ensure:

that a Charter of Human Rights would assist Australia to meet its international legal obligations; and
that if a Charter of Human Rights were adopted by statute, it would enjoy a strong constitutional foundation under s. 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution (the power over external affairs).

Typically, Charters of Human Rights contain rights sourced in the ICCPR. Some debate exists, however, as to how far a Charter of Human Rights should go in giving judicially enforceable protection to the rights contained in the ICESCR. For example, it was decided not to include these rights in the ACT Human Rights Act 2004 and the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities 2006, but to provide for later reviews of this decision.

In 2010, the ACT Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Research Project (conducted by researchers at the Australian National University and the University of New South Wales) concluded that the inclusion of economic, social and cultural rights guarantees in the Human Rights Act is ‘desirable and feasible’, and that the Act should be amended to include most of the rights contained in the ICESCR. The project report was tabled in the ACT Legislative Assembly by the Attorney-General on 9 December 2010. The ACT Government is currently conducting a community consultation about the possible inclusion of economic, social and cultural rights in the ACT Human Rights Act. For further information, see the Justice and Community Safety Directorate.

The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC), a Joint Investigatory Committee of the Parliament of Victoria, recently recommended that consideration be given to whether further ICCPR rights should be included in the Victorian Charter. Aside from this, SARC recommended that no further rights (such as rights contained in the ICESCR) be added to the Charter. SARC further recommended against the inclusion of the right to self-determination in the Charter.

SARC also recommended that various other changes be made to the Charter. Most importantly, SARC recommended that changes be made to the role and power of Victorian courts under the Charter (see our Victorian Charter resource page for further information).

These recommendations are contained in SARC’s report into the first four years of the operation of the Charter, which was tabled in the Parliament of Victoria on 14 September 2011. The full report is available here. The Victorian Government is currently preparing a response to this report.

Models for a Charter of Human Rights

The biggest source of debate, or disagreement, over a Charter of Human Rights in Australia relates to the role that the High Court of Australia, and other federal and State courts, should play in the interpretation and enforcement of human rights.

There are three broad possibilities to choose from in this context:

the status quo model, according to which courts have only a narrow role to play in the enforcement of human rights, largely through the application of common law principles of statutory interpretation ;
a ‘dialogic’ or ‘weak form’ model, according to which courts and parliaments share responsibility for the interpretation and enforcement of human rights; and
a strong-form model of judicial protection, according to which the courts would have broad power to invalidate legislation for inconsistency with a Charter of Human Rights.

The second model could be adopted either by way of ordinary legislation passed by the Commonwealth Parliament, or via constitutional change approved at a referendum by the Australian electorate, or a combination of both.

The third model would almost certainly require some form of formal constitutional amendment, approved by the electorate in accordance with s. 128 of the Constitution.

While Australia has significant experience with the third model in the context of federal constitutional guarantees, most commentators believe that it would be extremely difficult for a referendum proposing formal constitutional change in this area to succeed. The difficulty in securing such a constitutional amendment contributes to a focus, on the part of proponents of a Charter of Human Rights, on the second model of judicial rights protection. For many, there are also important reasons of principle that favour the second over the third rights model, given the value of ongoing legislative involvement in the definition of rights.

The debate over a Charter of Human Rights in Australia, therefore, is largely between those who favour the status quo, and those who favour some form of dialogic, or weak-form model of judicial rights protection.

To a lesser degree, there is also debate among those who support the dialogic model over what form of Charter of Human Rights is most likely to promote true dialogue, or weak-form judicial review.

The most important issue in this context is whether Australian courts should be given the power to invalidate legislation for inconsistency with a Charter of Human Rights (based on, for example, the Canadian experience in the Canadian Bill of Rights Act, c44, 1960), or whether their role should be limited to making some form of declaration of inconsistency or incompatibility that lacks legal effect (based on, for example, the rights charters adopted in New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the ACT and Victoria). In order to preserve legislative involvement, most commentators agree that the Parliament should have broad legal power to override decisions of the Court which do not command democratic support, by virtue of either an express power of override, or an implied power of repeal, or both.

the High Court of Australia, however, recently suggestedthat there is limited scope to adopt the ’declaration of incompatibility’ model at a national level in Australia (see Momcilovic). A majority of the Court held (by 4-3) that State courts may issue declarations of incompatibility / inconsistent interpretation under relevant State charters. However, a different majority also held (by 5-2) that it was unconstitutional for federal courts or any State court exercising Commonwealth judicial power under Chapter III of the Australian Constitution to issue a declaration of incompatibility / inconsistent interpretation. It was also held that the High Court itself could not hear appeals from the grant of such remedies.

For further information on models for a Charter of Human Rights, see:

The ACT Human Rights Act

Overview

The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) is an ordinary Act of the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly. The Human Rights Act is based on the‘dialogical’ or ‘weak-form’ model of human rights protection.

The Human Rights Act was the first Charter of Human Rights enacted in Australia. It came into force on 1 July 2004.

This historic move was made in response to recommendations made by the ACT Bill of Rights Consultative Committee, which consisted of Professor Hilary Charlesworth (Chair), Professor Larissa Behrendt, Ms Penelope Layland and Ms Elizabeth Kelly. The recommendations were made after a detailed community consultation process about how best to protect the human rights of ACT citizens. The Final Report of the consultation committee indicated that a majority of ACT citizens were in favour of an ACT Charter of Human Rights.

Key aspects of the Human Rights Act

It is in keeping with Australia’s international obligations.

The majority of human rights enshrined in Part 3 of the Charter are based on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty which Australia ratified in 1980.

The relevant rights are:

It does not limit or restrict other rights or freedoms.
The Human Rights Act expressly sets out core human rights, but this does not mean that it excludes, limits or downgrades any rights or freedoms not included in the Act. The Act expressly states that the rights recognised by Part 3 are not exhaustive of an individual’s human rights: s 7.

Reasonable limitations can be placed on a human right
Reasonable limitations may be placed on a human right where this limitation ‘can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society’: s 28.

New Bills are scrutinised to determine whether they are compatible with human rights
The Attorney-General must prepare a written compatibility statement about each government Bill for presentation to the Legislative Assembly. The Attorney-General is to state whether the Bill is consistent with human rights and, if it is not consistent, how it is not consistent: s 37. A standing committee must report to the Legislative Assembly about human rights issues raised by Bills presented to the Assembly: s 38.

Courts and tribunals must interpret legislation consistently with human rights
Acts and statutory instruments must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with the Human Rights Act, so far as is possible to do so with the instrument’s purpose: s 30. Courts and tribunals may use international human rights jurisprudence to assist in interpretation: s 31.

The ACT Supreme Court cannot ‘strike down’ a law but may issue a declaration of incompatibility
If the ACT Supreme Court finds that a statutory provision is not consistent with the rights contained in the Human Rights Act, it cannot ‘strike down’ or invalidate the provision in question, nor can the Court rule that any government acts made under the provision are unlawful. The Supreme Court may only make a declaration of incompatibility, and notify the Attorney-General of this. The Attorney-General must notify the Legislative Assembly and present a written response: ss. 32, 33. It will then be up to the elected members of the Legislative Assembly to decide what action (if any) to take.

However, this assumes that the Supreme Court is not exercising federal jurisdiction. This is because the High Court has recently held that courts exercising federal jurisdiction may not issue a declaration of inconsistent interpretation. This would be contrary to the limits on such courts under Chapter III of the Australian Constitution: see Momcilovic.

The Human Rights Commission can review the effect of laws
The Human Rights Commission has functions under the Human Rights Act of reviewing the effect of ACT laws, including the common law, on human rights and of reporting the results of such reviews to the Attorney-General: : s. 41.

How the Human Rights Act works in practice

For analysis of the impact of the Human Rights Act, including case analysis, conference papers and a vast compendium of media reports and opinions, visit the ACT Human Rights Act Research Project.

Amendments and review

The Human Rights Act was reviewed after twelve months and five years of operation.

The Act was amended by the Human Rights Amendment Act 2008, which was passed by the Legislative Assembly on 4 March 2008. The key changes made by the Amendment Act were to:

s 30, in order to clarify the interaction between the Human Rights Act and the purposive approach to statutory interpretation;
s 34, which requires the Supreme Court to notify the Attorney-General and Human Rights Commissioner when it is hearing a case involving the application of the Human Rights Act; and
s 28, which clarifies the limits that can be placed on human rights by setting out a list of factors that must be taken into account when determining whether a limitation is proportionate.

These amendments came into force on 18 March 2008.

Additionally, the Amendment Act also created a new Part 5A, which contains:

a direct duty on public authorities to comply with the Human Rights Act; and
an independent cause of action and right to remedy (but not damages) if a public authority has contravened a human right.

These two provisions came into force on 1 January 2009.

Debate over the potential further amendments of the Human Rights Act remains ongoing.

In 2010, the ACT Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Research Project (conducted by researchers at the Australian National University and the University of New South Wales) concluded that the inclusion of economic, social and cultural rights guarantees in the Human Rights Act is ‘desirable and feasible’, and that the Act should be amended to include most of the rights contained in the ICESCR. The project report was tabled in the ACT Legislative Assembly by the Attorney-General on 9 December 2010. The ACT Government is currently conducting a community consultation about the possible inclusion of economic, social and cultural rights in the ACT Human Rights Act. For further information, see the Justice and Community Safety Directorate.

The Victorian Charter

Overview

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities 2006 is an Act of the Victorian Parliament. It was the second Charter of Human Rights enacted in Australia, and the first Charter enacted by an Australian State. The Victorian Charter is based on a ‘dialogical’ or ‘weak-form’ model of human rights protection.

The Victorian Charter was the product of an extensive public consultation process. The state Attorney-General, Rob Hulls, appointed a four person Human Rights Consultation Committee to engage in a wide-ranging public discussion about how Victoria could improve its protection of human rights. This was conducted over six months in 2005. The Committee, consisting of Professor George Williams (Chair), Rhonda Galbally AO, Andrew Gaze and Professor Haddon Storey QC, held 55 community meetings all around the State, and 75 more meetings with government and peak organisations. It received 2524 written submissions from individuals and community groups. To view some of these submissions, contact the Human Rights Unit of the Victorian Department of Justice.

Based on the views it heard during this consultation, the Committee recommended that Victoria should enact a new Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities. For further information, see the Consultation Committee’s final report.

The Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act.was received assent on 25 July 2006. The Act came into force on 1 January 2007. However, Divisions 3 and 4 of Part 3 of the Act (concerning the obligations of public authorities and powers of the court) commenced on 1 January 2008.

For more information about the Parliamentary process, see the Explanatory Memorandum and the Second Reading Speech - R Hulls (4 May 2006).

Key aspects of the Charter

It is in keeping with Australia’s international obligations.
The majority of human rights enshrined in Part 2 of the Charter are based on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty which Australia ratified in 1980.The Charter also expressly directs attention to international human rights law in the interpretation of its provisions: s 32.

The specific rights protected are:

It does not limit or restrict other rights or freedoms
The Charter expressly sets out core human rights, but this does not mean that it excludes or limits any rights or freedoms not included in the Charter: s 5 . This means that other rights existing at common law or arising from other Acts of Parliament are not adversely affected by the Charter.

Courts and tribunals must interpret legislation consistently with human rights
So far as is possible consistently with their purpose, all statutory provisions must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights: s 32.

This rule of construction accords with traditional common law principles, though there is debate as to whether it expands the scope of courts to engage in certain forms of ‘reading down’. (For further information, see for example, Julie Debeljak, ‘Who is sovereign now? The Momcilovic Court hands back power over human rights that Parliament intended it to have’ (2011) 22 Public Law Review 15, available here.)

However, the High Court has recently endorsed a narrow view of s. 32 as simply codifying the principle of legality, or ordinary principles of statutory interpretation: see Momcilovic.

Reasonable limitations can be placed on a human right
Reasonable limitations may be placed on a human right where this limitation ‘can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, and taking into account all relevant factors’, including several factors listed in the Charter: s 7.

There is, however, an important debate as to the stage at which such a provision should apply (that is, should it apply before or after the interpretation requirement under s 32 is applied?). There is also ongoing uncertainty on this question, given the way in which the members of the High Court split in Momcilovic.

In addition, the Charter does not apply to abortion and child-destruction laws: s 48.

The Supreme Court cannot ‘strike down’ a law but may issue ‘declarations of inconsistent interpretation’
If the Supreme Court finds that a statutory provision is incompatible with human rights, it cannot ‘strike down’ or invalidate the provision in question. The Supreme Court may only make a declaration of inconsistent interpretation, and then refer the matter to the responsible Minister. The Minister must table a written response to the declaration: ss 36, 37. It will then be up to Parliament to decide what action (if any) to take.

Parliament also clearly retains power to override the human rights set out in the Charter through an express declaration in a new Act: s 31.However, the High Court and other courts exercising federal jurisdiction may not issue a declaration of inconsistent interpretation or hear appeals from a decision to issue such a declaration. This would be contrary to the limits on such courts under Chapter III of the Australian Constitution: see Momcilovic.

New Bills are scrutinised to determine whether they are compatible with human rights
All Bills introduced into Parliament must be tabled with a statement of compatibility, which outlines whether the Bill is compatible with human rights and the nature and extent of any incompatibility: s 28. The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee must report to Parliament as to whether a Bill is incompatible with human rights: s 30.

One important issue, which was raised but not settled by the decision of the High Court in Momcilovic, is whether these statements must be made after, or before, s. 7(2) of the Charter (concerning reasonable limitations on rights) is considered.

Public authorities must respect human rights
Public authorities must act in a manner consistent with human rights and give relevant human rights due consideration during decision making. The term ‘public authority’ includes private sector bodies that are established by statute and have functions of a public or governmental nature. It also includes private sector bodies that perform functions of a public nature, when ‘exercising those functions on behalf of the State or a public authority’: ss. 4, 6(2)(c), 38(1).

The Victorian Court of Appeal has held, however, that challenges to administrative action based on ss. 6(2)(c) and 38(1) of the Charter can only be heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria (or possibly, lower courts). Administrative tribunals such as the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) do not have jurisdiction to hear Charter challenges based on s. 6(c): see Director of Housing v Sudi.

How the Charter works in practice

In the Courts: The Human Rights Law Resource Centre maintains a database of domestic, comparative and international human rights cases which are relevant to the Victorian Charter: HRLRC Caselaw Database

In Parliament: See a compilation of all the statements of legislative compatibility with the Charter that the Victorian Parliament has thus far made: Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission’s Register of Compatibility Statements.

Amendment and review of the Charter

The report of the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee (SARC) into the first four years of the operation of the Charter was tabled in the Parliament of Victoria on 14 September 2011. The SARC Report is available here. Information on SARC’s review of the Charter is available here.

The majority of the SARC favoured retaining the provisions of the Charter regarding the scrutiny of new law, with modifications as recommended in the SARC Report. The majority also favoured ‘removing the obligations of public authorities and returning the courts and tribunals to their traditional role’ (SARC report, p x). The latter course of action would include repealing the provisions concerning the interpretation of laws (s. 32) and the power to issue declarations of inconsistent interpretation (s. 36).

The minority of the SARC favoured retaining ‘the current Charter framework with the significant reforms and simplification recommended in chapters 3, 4 and 5’ of the SARC Report (p x). These recommendations include:

that s. 32(1) be redrafted ‘in a manner that both clarifies that it is limited to traditional approaches to interpretation and makes its meaning accessible to local users, without undue recourse to overseas judgments’ (recommendation 24)
that consideration be given to amending s. 36 to give an independent non-judicial body, such as the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, ‘the functions of identifying statutory provisions that the Supreme Court has interpreted in a way that limits a human right and forwarding those provisions to a parliamentary committee (such as SARC) for reporting to the Parliament, as well as to the Minister responsible for the statutory provision’ (recommendation 31).

In a media release, the Victorian Premier stated that ‘[t]he views expressed in the SARC report are those of the cross-party committee members and not necessarily those of the Coalition Government’. Premier Baillieu further acknowledged that ‘[t]he SARC report, and many of the submissions made to SARC, indicate that the Charter of Human Rights has delivered benefits to Victoria, and should not be repealed’. The Government is currently preparing its response to the SARC report.

Other useful links

Law Institute of Victoria, ‘Charter of Human Rights’.

Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, ‘The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities’.

Charterblog : the accessible and informative blog of Dr Jeremy Gans.

Other Charters of Human Rights Around the World

This page provides links to the legal frameworks governing human rights, and accompanying web resources, for countries that share similar heritage, legal systems and constitutional traditions to Australia.

The Centre for International and Public Law at the Australian National University has also published papers about the UK, South African, New Zealand and Hong Kong Charters in Comparative Perspectives on Bills of Rights .

Canada

The Canadian Bill of Rights Act, c44, 1960 was a statutory Charter of Human Rights that was superseded by the constitutionally-entrenched Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms .

A searchable database of Canadian Charter cases is available.

Visit the websites of Just Society , Canadian Heritage or Canadian Human Rights Commission for more information.

European Union

The European Convention on Human Rights is enforced by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. For judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, including a searchable database , see the Court’s website .

Ireland

Chaper XII of the Constitution guarantees the protection of fundamental rights. See also the Human Rights Commission Act 2000 .

New Zealand

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is supplemented by New Zealand ’s Human Rights Act 1993 .

These Acts are administered by the New Zealand Human Rights Commission , which also provides information to the community.

South Africa

The South African Bill of Rights 1996 is entrenched in the South African Constitution. An interesting feature of the South African Bill of Rights is that it incorporates a number of economic, social and cultural rights, in addition to the more conventional civil and political rights.

The Constitutional Court of South Africa provides an overview of human rights protections.

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom is home to two very early Charters of Rights: the famous Magna Carta and the 1689 Bill of Rights . Despite these early landmark documents, the safeguarding of human rights was entrusted chiefly to the common law and Westminster system of government until the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK).

For official information about the UK Human Rights Act, see the Ministry of Justice website. An archive of information about the Act is also available at the Department for Constitutional Affairs website.

Additionally, see the Doughty Street database for analysis of UK Human Rights Act cases up till 2002. Two leading human rights advocacy groups, Liberty and Justice , are excellent sources of information on the Human Rights Act.

In 2007, the UK Government announced a proposal to introduce a Bill of Rights to supplement the Human Rights Act 1998 and further protect human rights. For further information, see the Joint Committee on Human Rights ’ 2008 report, A Bill of Rights for the UK?

The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission is also engaged in a public consultative process about whether Northern Ireland needs a Bill of Rights.

United States

The United States’ 1789 Bill of Rights entrenches basic human rights in the US Constitution .

For historical information about the drafting of the Bill of Rights visit the US National Archives and Records Administration website.

Recent News

July 2012

Federal

Speech delivered by the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights at Recent Developments in Constitutional Law: Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies Conference, 21 July 2012

Clare Kermond, 'Battle over TV's boycott of GetUp', Sydney Morning Herald, 20 July 2012

Victoria

Woman challenges policy refusal to destroy protect footage, ABC News, 11 July 2012

June 2012

Federal

Patricia Karvelas, Watchdog to test cuts to single pensions, The Australian, 21 June 2012

Statement by the Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights on behalf of the committee made in the House of Representatives, 20 June 2012

Lisa Martin, 'Macklin must justify human rights: groups', The Herald Sun, 20 June 2012

Patricia Karvelas, 'Gillard asked to let inquiry assess bill's legality', The Australian, 16 June 2012

May 2012

Federal

Statement by Matilda Bogner, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, calling for the Stronger Futures Bills to meet Australia’s human rights obligations, 22 May 2012

March 2012

ACT

Louis Andrews, ‘Human rights bid for ACT education’, The Canberra Times, 29 March 2012

ACT Government response to the Australian Capital Territory Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Research Project Report, March 2012

Victoria

Farrah Tomazin, ‘New laws to bolster human rights charter’, The Age, 18 March 2012

Victorian State Government response to the Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee’s Review of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, 14 March 2012

Premier’s liberal halo has slipped, The Age, 10 March 2012

Philip Lynch & Spencer Zifcak, Baillieu's commitment to a fair Victoria is on the line, The Age, 10 March 2012

Farah Farouque, Liberals split on rights charter, The Age, 9 March 2012

Andrea Petrie, Mokbel may challenge bill, The Age, 1 March 2012

Pia Akerman, Judge seeks answers on Mokbel's High Court considerations, The Australian, 1 March 2012

February 2012

Federal

Patricia Karvelas, National Congress of Australia's First People accuses ALP of race laws, The Australian, 8 February 2012

Victoria

Chip Le Grand, Tony Mokbel team mull loophole challenge, The Australian, 29 February 2012

ACT

Time the law moved to stop parents smacking their kids, The Canberra Times, 18 February 2012

Tasmania

State’s human rights squeeze ‘misconceived’, The Examiner, 7 February 2012

Greens’ rights charter push, The Examiner, 5 February 2012

Dinah Arndt, Budgetary constraints stall human rights charter proposal, The Examiner, 4 February 2012

News archive

Previous news items (from September 2011 onwards) are available here.

For an archive of earlier news items, see the ACT Human Rights Act Research Project