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


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.


RSS 2.0

Legally correct but morally reprehensible

By John von Doussa - posted Wednesday, 15 October 2008

Five years ago I began my term as the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, confident in the ability of the common law and a robust democracy to protect human rights. I leave convinced we need a major legal and cultural overhaul in order to deal with the human rights challenges of the 21st century.

I have spent almost a half a century in the legal profession and over a decade on the bench of the Federal Court.

It is no secret that the mandatory detention regime caused deep discomfort in parts of the federal court judiciary. In 2003, I held that the detention of Mr Al Kateb - a stateless Palestinian man locked in immigration detention - was lawful despite evidence that there with no foreseeable end to his detention. Ultimately, the High Court confirmed that nothing in the Migration Act or the Constitution prevented indefinite detention.


As a judge, I was not asked to understand the emotional trauma of the detainees that appeared before the court. I did not know the conditions in which asylum seekers were detained - nor did I ask. Although international law prohibits inhumane and arbitrary detention, Australian law does not.

The results are troubling. As a judge, I felt the decision at which I arrived was both legally correct and morally reprehensible.

As President of the Commission, I was repeatedly confronted with the sorts of human rights problems I did not see sitting in a Court building. I stood in the Management Security Unit at Villawood Immigration Detention Centre - a small, bleak space where long idle hours corrode the mental health of detainees. At Baxter I saw children - the same age as my own - and witnessed in their disturbed manner the profound damage wrought by long-term detention.

It is sometimes said that the best human rights protection is the fair-mindedness of the Australian people. Without doubting the capacity of Australians for compassion, the absence of legal remedies means that human rights abuses are not always made public. Many minds had already disintegrated in long-term detention before the story of Cornelia Rau hit the front page.

I suspect the reality is that members of the judiciary, like people on the street, have little occasion to engage face to face with the human rights problems faced by their fellow Australians.

When I was a judge, although I sometimes had doubts about the laws I was required to apply, I did what many people do and placed my faith in Parliament to correct the harshness of the law.


At the Commission I soon realised my faith in current parliamentary processes to protect basic rights was naïve. We frequently scrutinised the human rights compatibility of new bills. As the President, I saw major legislation - including counter-terrorisms bills and the package of bills to enable the Northern Territory intervention - rushed through Parliament with grossly inadequate consideration of the impact of these laws on basic rights.

In 2005, I warned new counter-terrorism laws were in danger of reflecting a police state where sweeping police powers were immune from effective challenge. While there was a need to introduce new laws to deal with the threat of terrorism, some new offences and powers were so broad in scope, they almost invited abuse. The potential of these laws to be misapplied in ways that ruin reputations and trample on basic rights was confirmed last year by the arrest and detention of Dr Haneef.

Now, after five years at the Commission, I can no longer in good conscience support the familiar refrain that rights are best protected by the common law and parliament.

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

Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

12 posts so far.

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

About the Author

The Hon John von Doussa QC is the President, Acting Sex Discrimination Commissioner and Commissioner responsible for Age Discrimination Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by John von Doussa

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

Article Tools
Comment 12 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy