Frank Brennan and Janet Albrechtsen: a contrast in style

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.

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.”