“Charter” extension creates red tape, not rights

Provisions of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006
that come into force tomorrow impose new administrative requirements on
public bodies and new rules that will further increase delays and costs in
our courts.

The new rules are also likely to be used to try to overturn the decisions
of democratically elected bodies on a wide range of policy issues, ranging
from the public display of offensive works of art to homework or “yard
duty” for school children.

However, the Charter gives no rights to better services from the Brumby
Government to citizens waiting months for pain-relieving surgery or those
unable to squeeze on to overcrowded trains, or those struggling to get
early intervention or respite care for their special-needs child.

From tomorrow, it will be “unlawful” for any public authority to act in a
way incompatible with a “human right,” as defined in the Charter.

As well, whenever an issue arises in a court about whether an existing law
is compatible with a “human right,” either party can ask to have the issue
referred to the Supreme Court. Every time such an issue arises in Supreme
Court or County Court proceedings, the parties must notify the
Attorney-General, who has the right to intervene in the proceedings.

The “human rights” included in the Charter are specified in sweeping terms,
such as “the right to freedom of expression” or “the right to move freely
within Victoria”, but those “human rights” are in turn made subject to
broad limitations, such as “such reasonable limitations as can be
demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.

Imposing such poorly defined obligations on public authorities will create
huge administrative burdens and extra costs for taxpayers as bodies
struggle to work out what these new rules actually require them to do – on
top of all the existing laws and regulations that already apply to them.

The changes are also likely to let public authorities claim “human rights”
as a reason for restricting the services they provide, just as they already
use claims of “privacy laws” to avoid questions about poor service to
citizens or accountability by individual public servants.

The new provisions will also allow disgruntled citizens to challenge many
well-established laws. Earlier this month, an article in the Law Institute
Journal pointed out that a local council may in future be in breach of the
Charter if they took action against an artist who erected a large and
offensive sculpture overlooking neighbours” homes, in breach of planning
laws.

Similarly, school rules requiring students to do “yard duty” “or even
homework “could be challenged as breaching the prohibition against
“compulsory labour”.