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

Frank Brennan and Janet Albrechtsen: a contrast in style

By Stephen Keim - posted Monday, 19 October 2009


The campaign against the Act during the Consultation process was far more strident and appeared to receive much more newspaper and other media space than did the campaign in favour.

Along with Ms Albrechtsen, Mr Kelly and Mr Brandis, repeated criticisms of the concept of a Human Rights Act appeared from Bob Carr, Chris Merritt (columnist), Andrew Bolt (columnist); politician, John Hatzistergos; and Professor James Allan. The Australian Christian Lobby also ran an apparently well-organised and well-financed campaign against the concept.

It is an equally valid approach (to Ms Albrechtsen’s “don’t count the votes against me approach”) to conclude that those who argued in favour of what became the Committee’s recommendation for a Human Rights Act for Australia struck a reverberating note with a lot of interested people. Despite the many column inches available to the opponents, their arguments sank with only flotsam to indicate they once existed.

Advertisement

Ed Coper, in the same edition of The Australian, argues convincingly that those who seek to invalidate the response of the public to the Consultation (and the overwhelming support for the concept of a Human Rights Act) have failed to realise how important new communications technology is in encouraging members of the public to become involved in public debate.

Ms Albrechtsen’s final casting of the die was to quote Frank Brennan as a critic of the Victorian Charter of Rights. The speech to which Ms Albrechtsen was referring may be accessed here. The speech did not criticise the Victorian Charter. Rather, it was an impassioned plea for the Charter to be implemented more effectively in the context of the imposition of an obligation (which Brennan opposed) in s.8(1)(b) of the Abortion Law Reform Act requiring doctors, conscientiously opposed to providing abortions, to refer patients wanting an abortion to another doctor who did not have the conscientious objection.

Ms Albrechtsen may have understood this better if she had read either the speech or the Report of the National Human Rights Consultation. At page 49 of the Report, after discussing concerns expressed to the Consultation about the doctors’ conscientious objection issue, the Committee says: “Despite the strong concerns religious groups expressed in relation to these three matters, it is arguable that the Victorian charter did not give rise to any of these problems, uncertainties or disputes for religious Victorians. Faithful application of the charter might even help protect the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief, which is provided for in the charter.”

  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.

13 posts so far.

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

About the Author

Stephen Keim has been a legal practitioner for 30 years, the last 23 of which have been as a barrister. He became a Senior Counsel for the State of Queensland in 2004. Stephen is book reviews editor for the Queensland Bar Association emagazine Hearsay. Stephen is President of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights and is also Chair of QPIX, a non-profit film production company that develops the skills of emerging film makers for their place in industry.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Stephen Keim

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 13 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy