Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

On rights and duties: Australians already have them both protected

By Ken Parish - posted Sunday, 15 July 2001


Pufendorf believed that, from a moral standpoint, duties were more important than rights. That approach also characterises the attitude of most of the world's great religions, and most cultures apart from modern Western materialist ones. It is also an increasingly common theme of contemporary political discourse. As British Prime Minister Tony Blair put it in 1997: "A decent society is not based on rights; it is based on duty... Our duty to one another...To all should be given opportunity; from all, responsibility demanded." New Labor based its "mutual obligation" approach to welfare on that proposition, and Australia's Howard government subsequently adopted a welfare policy bearing the same label (although with a rather attenuated content).

However, while one may readily concede that rights and duties are correlative, it is less easy to see how this realisation can workably be incorporated into a national constitution. The countries that have tried have tended to be socialist or communist regimes, whose constitutions for ideological reasons place primary emphasis on duties and collective and economic rights, and less on individual civil and political rights. Marx (like Edmund Burke, somewhat ironically) believed natural rights were abstract and unhistorical. Like many other writers, Marx identified individualism with egoism; the tendency to think in communal or collectivist terms with altruism. Socialist society, therefore, should be altruistic, based on a philosophy of fulfilling human needs. Political and civil rights, seen as cornerstones in non-socialist states, were to be subordinated to social and economic needs and to ideological considerations.

The result, at the risk of caricature, is that socialist States tended to be conformist, authoritarian, and provide little incentive for achieving individual excellence or increasing productivity. Western capitalist nations, on the other hand, with constitutional regimes emphasising individual civil and political rights, have tended to be characterised by winners behaving like Gordon Gekko and losers competing to cloak themselves most convincingly in the garb of a victim, in the hope of striking pay-dirt with a compensation claim. This is the "rights culture" in action, and it isn’t a pretty sight.

Advertisement

Most Australians would find both of these extremes unattractive. We have instead developed a society that strikes a more satisfactory balance between competing rights and duties than almost any other society in the world. A range of factors has contributed to that outcome, but our constitutional and political arrangements are among the most important. Most Australians understand this, even if they can't articulate it. That is why they are sceptical of constitutional change.

Australia's Constitution protects key civil and political rights. Express guarantees and freedoms have been supplemented by other rights implied, somewhat controversially in recent years, by our High Court. The most important of these is the right to political free speech (and probably movement and association), defined broadly and applying at both Federal and State levels.

However, resolution of the inevitably competing interests of holders of rights and duties is necessarily a controversial and inherently political exercise. It is multi-factorial in nature, and involves the making of ongoing policy and value judgments. Although the courts properly have a central role in resolving bilateral disputes over rights and duties, their broader ramifications can only be balanced at a political level. For that reason, Australia’s primary reliance on legislative human rights protections is preferable to a constitutional Bill of Rights, where the focus of decision-making is decisively shifted to the judiciary. Australian laws provide comprehensive coverage of a huge range of human rights, ranging from anti-discrimination and environmental laws to public housing, pensions and basic medical care. Legislated freedom of information and independent merits review of administrative decisions affecting individuals provides an additional layer of assurance (greater than any comparable country).

The risk of Mill's 'tyranny of the majority', whereby an unpopular minority may be victimised, is minimised in Australia by a unique combination of political and legal arrangements, including those described above. The Senate is the key to those arrangements, and therefore the principal institutional guarantor of human rights. The Senate electoral system is a State-based proportional representation model with Senators serving 6 year staggered terms (except after a double dissolution election). It therefore provides a high probability of significant minority party and independent representation, so that Federal governments are unlikely to command an absolute Senate majority. This significantly inhibits governments minded to abrogate rights. Thus, the Howard government, despite its landslide 1996 election victory, had to rely on Independent Senator Brian Harradine to get its native title amendments through the Senate, and he insisted on amendments which have subsequently proven very successful in preventing State governments from abolishing key native title rights such as the "right to negotiate" on mineral claims. Similarly, the Prime Minister has so far been unable to secure Senate support for legislation to reverse a recent Federal Court decision allowing single women access to IVF programs.

The Senate and Joint Parliamentary Committee system is the other major plank in Australia's human rights protection regime. The Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (established in the wake of the controversial High Court decision in Teoh's case) examines international covenants before ratification, assessing what changes may be needed to Federal and State law to ensure that Australia lives up to its international obligations. Despite having a majority of Government members, the Committee’s reports have frequently been critical of Government actions in relation to treaties.

The Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee examines all Bills presented to Federal Parliament to ensure they do not infringe human rights standards. It issues Alerts Digests on Bills introduced during the previous week, giving Ministers an opportunity to comment and respond before it makes a final report to the Senate. Ministers generally afford the Committee considerable respect (except Paul Keating, who notoriously regarded the Senate as "unrepresentative swill").

Advertisement

The Senate’s principal role in acting as a check on human rights excesses by the Executive has recently been considerably enhanced by the High Court’s 1998 decision in Egan v Willis. This decision breathed new life into the rather tired notion of responsible government, holding that Ministers are responsible to Parliament as a whole, and particularly to the Senate (or State upper house). Ministers can therefore effectively be held accountable by a House they do not control, and forced to answer questions and produce documents before Senate Committees.

The combined effect of these mechanisms is to give Australia a level of protection of human rights at least as secure as any country in the world. I would readily concede that Australia's human rights record is not perfect. The Commonwealth’s detention regime for refugee asylum seekers and the Northern Territory's mandatory sentencing laws are obvious contemporary blots on our record. Both initiatives, however, were substantially copied from the United States, whose Bill of Rights some would like us to emulate.

Sir Harry Gibbs recounts an amusing story that Sir Arthur Fadden used to tell of an incident when he was representing Australia at celebrations held for the inauguration of a West African nation, which had just received its independence from Britain. The US Secretary of State, who was also present, said rather patronisingly to a black man standing nearby, "You must be very proud to have been granted your freedom". To which the black man replied, "I ain’t got no freedom. I'm from Alabama".

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Ken Parish is a Darwin-based lawyer and former Labor member of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. He now teaches (mostly public law subjects) at Charles Darwin University, where he founded Australia's first fully online external law degree program. Ken is no longer associated with any political party, describing himself as a "committed sceptic".

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Ken Parish
Related Links
Northern Territory University Law School
Article Tools
Comment Comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy