Daily Bulletin

The Conversation

  • Written by The Conversation
imageThe Law Reform Commission has likely given George Brandis much more than he was expecting in the review of rights-limiting laws that he asked for.AAP/Mick Tsikas

In its interim report on what Attorney-General George Brandis calls “traditional rights, freedoms and privileges” (common law rights), the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) has given Brandis – and the government – cause to reflect on the adage “be careful what you wish for”.

What, one wonders, did Brandis expect when he asked the ALRC to review the ways in which federal laws limit common law rights, other than a thorough and thoughtful account of just how far the laws go in limiting people’s rights?

To be fair, the question is in two parts: what rights are limited by federal laws, and are those limits justified? The ALRC answered the first question comprehensively (short answer: a lot of rights are limited by a lot of laws). It is now turning to the question of justification.

What the ALRC has done is say, effectively:

Here is a (long) list of laws that limit rights; please tell us if those limits require justification. Oh, and by the way, tell us about any rights-limiting laws we’ve overlooked.

The government has to be on the back foot. It has been the champion of many of the rights-limiting laws that the ALRC identifies.

There has been no shortage of people and organisations lining up to make submissions on ways in which federal laws limit rights. The ALRC has marshalled those submissions and its own extensive research and consultations to raise extensive and serious questions about the rights-compatibility of Australian laws.

Why did Brandis ask for the review?

Brandis’ terms of reference set a very uncertain scope for the ALRC’s review. His list of traditional rights, freedoms and privileges (inexplicably omitting a right to liberty) is similar to but not the same as others’, such as James Spigelman’s. This is unsurprising.

For all their history, common law rights are a loose and undefined collection of statements by judges, in different terms in different places at different times, that have never been treated as a coherent body of law.

As a result, the ALRC has had to make sense of the idea of “traditional rights, freedoms and privileges” as a point of reference for assessing laws. As the ALRC says itself, its first task was to ask:

What are traditional rights, freedoms and privileges? What is their source and where are they to be found?.

In making sense of common law rights as an agreed and stable set of standards by which to evaluate laws, the ALRC has turned to international human rights – the very place that Brandis and the government are trying to avoid. The ALRC has invoked in particular the scrutiny of legislation, against international human rights standards, conducted by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR).

Brandis’ referral to the ALRC may well have been an attempt to establish a bright dividing line that would keep international human rights at bay. As he said in November 2010 in the committee process that led to the PJCHR’s creation, he is:

… very sceptical of the wholesale invocation of the international jurisprudence that comes with human rights.

Brandis has a stated preference for:

… the accumulation of rights through both the common law and statutory protection, going back literally centuries.

What did it find?

Awkwardly, however, the ALRC’s researched and considered view is that it is not an either/or proposition:

Many [common law rights] are now found in international covenants and declarations … [c]ommon law rights overlap with the rights protected in … international instruments.

Disconcertingly for the government, this, says the ALRC, gives an important role to the Australian Human Rights Commission in working:

… for the progressive implementation of designated international conventions and declarations.

The suggestion of international influence on Australia is as unpalatable to this government as it was to the last conservative government. But the clear implication of the ALRC’s report is that there is little future in Brandis’ vision that we:

… define human rights in relation to existing Australian domestic law and have the international instruments, if at all, as a subsidiary source of human rights.

Rights can be in competition. A law might limit free movement and association, for example, to preserve public safety. The common law has no clearly established and accepted way of resolving the competition. So, the ALRC had to ask:

How might this be done – by applying what standard and following what type of process?

Again, the ALRC turns to international human rights law for guidance, noting its clearly articulated and widely practised approach of assessing the proportionality of limits on rights.

This only compounds the relevance of international law to rights in Australia, unwelcome not only to Brandis and Prime Minister Tony Abbott, but perhaps also to PJCHR chair Philip Ruddock, who told the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security that he has:

… always had some difficulty in understanding what “proportionate” means.

Having made some sense of how to work with common law rights, the ALRC – in 16 chapters and more than 400 pages – sets out the many laws that put these rights at risk. To take an example, laws that “may be seen as interfering with freedom of speech and expression” include: criminal laws, secrecy laws, contempt laws, anti-discrimination laws, media broadcasting and communication laws, information laws and intellectual property laws.

In the criminal law, for example, concerns are raised about:

  • the so-called “advocating terrorism” prohibition (already found to be an unjustified limit on free speech by the PJCHR);

  • the law for proscribing terrorist organisations;

  • the laws against incitement and conspiracy; and

  • secrecy laws – some of which the ALRC has already found to be an unjustified limit on free speech.

And so the report continues, setting out the many laws “that have been criticised for unjustifiably limiting common law rights or principles”. It records rights or principles that are at risk as including freedoms of speech, religion, association and movement; property rights; non-retrospectivity of laws; fair trial and procedural fairness; burden of proof; right to silence; privilege of legal communications; and the right to judicial review.

Brandis has been given all that he asked for and, I suspect, much more than he was expecting. He must now answer the implicit question in the ALRC’s detailed account of rights-limiting laws: how can the limits be justified?

Simon Rice is legal adviser to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Authors: The Conversation

Read more http://theconversation.com/brandis-receives-long-list-of-rights-limiting-laws-now-can-he-justify-them-45645

Writers Wanted

Tokophobia is an extreme fear of childbirth. Here's how to recognise and treat it


The forgotten environmental crisis: how 20th century settler writers foreshadowed the Anthropocene


The Conversation


Prime Minister Interview with Ben Fordham, 2GB

BEN FORDHAM: Scott Morrison, good morning to you.    PRIME MINISTER: Good morning, Ben. How are you?    FORDHAM: Good. How many days have you got to go?   PRIME MINISTER: I've got another we...

Scott Morrison - avatar Scott Morrison

Prime Minister Interview with Kieran Gilbert, Sky News

KIERAN GILBERT: Kieran Gilbert here with you and the Prime Minister joins me. Prime Minister, thanks so much for your time.  PRIME MINISTER: G'day Kieran.  GILBERT: An assumption a vaccine is ...

Daily Bulletin - avatar Daily Bulletin

Did BLM Really Change the US Police Work?

The Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement has proven that the power of the state rests in the hands of the people it governs. Following the death of 46-year-old black American George Floyd in a case of ...

a Guest Writer - avatar a Guest Writer

Business News

Nisbets’ Collab with The Lobby is Showing the Sexy Side of Hospitality Supply

Hospitality supply services might not immediately make you think ‘sexy’. But when a barkeep in a moodily lit bar holds up the perfectly formed juniper gin balloon or catches the light in the edg...

The Atticism - avatar The Atticism

Buy Instagram Followers And Likes Now

Do you like to buy followers on Instagram? Just give a simple Google search on the internet, and there will be an abounding of seeking outcomes full of businesses offering such services. But, th...

News Co - avatar News Co

Cybersecurity data means nothing to business leaders without context

Top business leaders are starting to realise the widespread impact a cyberattack can have on a business. Unfortunately, according to a study by Forrester Consulting commissioned by Tenable, some...

Scott McKinnel, ANZ Country Manager, Tenable - avatar Scott McKinnel, ANZ Country Manager, Tenable

News Co Media Group

Content & Technology Connecting Global Audiences

More Information - Less Opinion