[LINK] SMH Op-Ed: Williams Manoeuvres - Part 2

[Roger Clarke]

[This item is about a specific piece of infamy that Williams is up to 
right now, intended to further emasculate the Human Rights 
Commission.  The President of the Council for Civil Liberties, Terry 
O'Gorman, was quoted on ABC Radio News this morning on the same 
matter]


Launching a stealth attack on human rights under the cover of reform
The Sydney Morning Herald
Date: April 4 2003
http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2003/04/03/1048962879450.htm

The Attorney-General is quietly seeking to erode the powers of a 
federal body that protects us all, writes  Steve Dow.

At a time when John Howard's tactics for justifying Australia's 
involvement in war have belatedly embraced the suffering of the Iraqi 
people, his Attorney-General is quietly seizing the day to strip back 
human rights in Australia.

Last Thursday in Federal Parliament, Daryl Williams introduced the 
Human Rights Commission Bill 2003, seeking to change the name of the 
federal Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to the 
Australian Human Rights Commission. But it's more than a name change.

On March 17, Howard told Parliament he abhorred the institutionalised 
widespread and grave abuse of the human rights of Iraqis over the 
years. At home, however, Williams is looking to change the law so 
that the nation's peak human rights body must first ask the 
Attorney-General's permission if it wishes to appear as an oral 
witness in any legal case.

In effect, this move could block the commission's attempts to appear 
in major cases in which human rights are at stake, the most potent 
recent example being the rights of Iraqis and other Middle Eastern 
asylum seekers.

Human rights lawyers and advocates say the bill is Williams's payback 
for the commission's decision to intervene in court cases from the 
Family Court to the High Court, ranging from the Tampa boat incident 
and transsexuals seeking to get married to lesbians wanting access to 
in-vitro fertilisation and artificial insemination procedures.

This is not Williams's first attempt at such reform. A similar bill 
was introduced in 1998 but was defeated by Labor, the Democrats and 
the Greens. This time, the Australian Council of Human Rights 
Agencies will endeavour to enlist such political support again, but 
the support may be difficult to rally with so much other political 
white noise on screen.

Williams's announcement coincides with the expiration of the 
five-year term of the commission's president, Professor Alice Tay. 
She is understood to be negotiating to stay on until a replacement is 
found. The federal Human Rights Commissioner, Dr Sev Ozdowski, still 
has another three years of his appointment to run.

But the Williams reforms appear to aim to dilute the role of the 
president in hearing human rights disputes. New "complaints 
commissioners"  lawyers  would be appointed part-time by Williams to 
hear cases with the president. The role of these  commissioners in 
the pecking order remains unclear.

As well as that, the commission's power to recommend compensation in 
disputes will be removed. The  body will  also have to educate the 
public of its role through the slogan "Human rights: everyone's 
responsibility", a cultural shift  from helping victims towards a 
more Liberal-friendly philosophy of self-help.

Williams says the changes would better equip the commission to take 
on new  responsibilities, like age discrimination and manage the 
increasing incidence of issues which cross human rights boundaries, 
such as those relating to women with disabilities. He says the name 
change  will focus attention on the need for society to respect human 
rights.

The new structure would provide the commission with "greater 
flexibility to reach the entire community", he says, as would the 
part-time commissioners.  Presumably, with no power to recommend 
compensation, these will be able to extract nothing more than an 
apology from an offending party.

Furthermore, the moves are out of step with progressive thinking in 
other parts of the world, such as in Europe. For instance, the 
European Court of Human Rights recently prompted Britain and Ireland 
to review its marriage laws in line with human rights imperatives, 
and both Governments have taken heed.

The Williams reforms  transparently politicise the commission. If 
they are passed, the primacy of human rights as a political platform 
for dictating human treatment elsewhere can only look shaky.

Steve Dow is a Sydney-based journalist.

-- 
Roger Clarke              http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/
			            
Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd, 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA
                 Tel: +61 2 6288 1472, and 6288 6916
mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au            http://www.xamax.com.au/

Visiting Professor in the eCommerce Program, University of Hong Kong
Visiting Professor in the Baker Cyberspace Law & Policy Centre, U.N.S.W
Visiting Fellow in Computer Science, Australian National University