Launch of the Rights & Responsibilities Consultation 2014 Report

Thank you for coming. It's a great pleasure to launch the report from our Rights and Responsibilities Consultation.

Like my Commissioner colleagues, the role of Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner is to look at systemic public policy issues. No Commissioner investigates complaints from the public. That is the role of the President.

On my arrival the President and I divided policy responsibilities. The President took international and asylum seeker issues. I took domestic civil and political rights.

The Act that establishes the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) gives this office little statutory power. Its power is to bring parties together and prompt conversations that may not otherwise happen and to shine a bright statutory light into dark places.

Ordinarily the Human Rights Commissioner is appointed with modest attention and given breathing room to develop their own agenda. I wasn't afforded that luxury.

Since being appointed I have been developing two work programs. The first is human rights.

The second is as defacto Commissioner for sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status (SOGII) issues.

There has never been a Commissioner that's taken on this important role before, and as many of you will know from the Commission’s structure: there is no other Commissioner responsible for this task.

When I took on the role of Australia’s Human Rights Commissioner I understood what it meant to be “Human Rights Commissioner”. I hadn’t properly thought about the “Australia” bit.

As you know, I am not short on opinion. But that isn’t enough. You can’t do this job without getting out of Pitt Street and hearing directly from Australians. So that’s what we did. “We” meaning myself and my team, notably Louise Bygrave and Siri May.

To action both roles I held two parallel national consultations throughout the second half of last year.

The Rights & Responsibilities consultation asked Australians what issues mattered to them amongst the core of liberal individual human rights and freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of association, religious freedom and property rights.

We are also holding a SOGII consultation. It is still going. The SOGII consultation is primarily focused on ensuring government programs that have an impact on people's day-to-day lives, such as health and education, treat everyone fairly and equally.

We commenced the Rights & Responsibilities Consultation off the back of our Free Speech 2014 symposium in August last year, we released a consultation paper and a survey. We received 68 written submissions and 991 survey responses. We also held numerous targeted meetings, as well as 13 public meetings in Adelaide, Alice Springs, Darwin, Canberra, Perth, Cairns, Charters Towers, Brisbane, Sydney, Singleton, Hobart, Melbourne and Lorne.

There have been some who have recently argued that the role of the Australian Human Rights Commissioner the Australian Human Rights Commission has become defunct.

If you can ignore the obvious absurdity that thinking the Commission can achieve its primary purpose without an official charged to advance it; the practical experience we had around the country showed Australians valued this opportunity. There was a strong interest in talking about the necessity to preserve individual human rights in 21st Century Australia.

What became clear in the different fora we held was how keen many people wanted opportunities to raise human rights issues that affect them and their community, and not to be rolled into partisan political debates. It was a reminder of the importance of the office of the Australian Human Rights Commissioner regardless of who is serving in it.

It's easy to think human rights are not political. But they are political ideals reflecting political values, developed by political philosophers, advanced through political tools and are entrenched in political instruments. Human rights always have been, and always will be political.

It's for this reason we deliberately consulted political parties. Political parties are often the place where you will find people interested in human rights. We wrote to major political parties and actively sought their input, including the opportunity to host fora for their members. They took the invitations up, we met with the Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia, a Greens MP in South Australia and the Young Liberals State Council in Brisbane, to name a few, and they all raised important issues.

In addition to the consultations we had the generous support of some groups who contributed case studies to give life to the policy ideas that we were exploring. I'd like to thank the following groups for contributing their case studies:

- AIMIA Digital Policy Group whose case study focused on how internet companies were ensuring preservation of free speech and responsible discourse through social media.

- United Voice whose case study focused on how the right to have free association was not enough, it also required the freedom to exercise it.

- Adelaide's Hutt Street Centre whose case study focused on the role of civil society to improve people's skills and capacity for economic and social participation, and utilise the most important property right of all, and the one available to everyone, their own physical body and intellectual property.

- Yawuru Native Title Holders whose case study focused on the legal and regulatory restrictions on the freedom to exercise property rights following native title determination.

- Ninti One who provided a case study looking at the importance of intellectual property to the advancement of Aboriginal Australia's interests.

I want to make it clear that we did everything to keep the costs of these consultations down, while ensuring we had maximum reach. I think some journalists thought we wouldn't be mindful of costs. We recently received a Freedom of Information Request on the cost of this consultation. To remove any ambiguity the expenses incurred for the four months of consultations across the whole of Australia was: $32,169.21. By any measure that is a cost effective national consultation.

We achieved a national consultation at such a low cost because we worked with community organisations that hosted community consultations. I'd like to extend my thanks to them for their logistical support, their preparedness to host us and to work cooperatively with the Commission.

While we spent months on the road we had to keep on top of, and participate, in the debates around the nation including free speech reforms, national security legislation and respect for transgender Australians.

We had lows. Sadly a poor bird got the short end of life's stick as we tore down the road from Fitzroy Crossing to Derby and flew into our wind shield.

We discovered things about ourselves, including a love for snack-sized cucumbers.

But the consultations were almost entirely inspiring filled with stories of ordinary Australians taking extraordinary action to improve the welfare, the rights and the freedoms of their fellow Australians:

- Our first stop was in Kununurra meeting Ian Trust from the Wunan Foundation. Trust and Wunan works to advance the social and economic welfare of the local Aboriginal community. Trust does his work without drawing attention to himself in the national media spotlight, but clearly understands that welfare outcomes come from the development of community, expectation, responsibility and mutual support.

- Trailblazers like Peta Ferguson. Peta is a transgender woman that runs a small non-profit, Brain Injury Matters. Off the smell of an oily rag Peta's primary task is to raise public awareness about Acquired Brain Injuries. Her organisation provides support and assistance to those that have an ABI to assist them in living a full life.

- The wonderful people at the Refuge in Alice Springs that were seeking to provide support to women facing violence, and helping to improve understanding and awareness about the unique challenges faced by transgender Australians.

- Perhaps my favourite meeting was with a group - they'll remain nameless - that organises solely for the purpose of promoting compassion toward a marginalised section of the community; yet quickly highlighted how they work around anti-discrimination laws for people who didn't quite fit into their world view. Compassion is very much in the eye of the beholder.

- And at just about every public event representatives of the Scarlett Alliance, the sex workers industry association, turned up to ensure I heard their concerns. I presume a representative is in the room. So to the Scarlett Alliance I say this: I HEAR YOU. But as you know, most of the issues you face are at a State level. I admire your persistence, and you have highlighted to me the problems you face from a human rights basis, but more importantly that they have a human and health consequences.

Systemic issues that exist across the nation are very real. Increasing restrictions on free speech from overly generous defamation laws to free association through anti-consorting laws do limit people's human rights and the freedom to exercise them. The objective of these laws is not in dispute, people have a right to their reputation and to be free of gang related violence and crime.

What is disturbing is that in an effort to tackle a legal mischief law is being used beyond its purpose and place. Governments are making the exercise of basic rights unlawful in place of actually punishing a legitimate crime.

You can read through the panoply of issues Australians raised with us in the report. We've identified the problems. The next four years will be dedicated to working with people to address them:

- First is to improve the poor understanding of human rights in Australia. Australians do care about human rights, but not in isolation. They care about them nested within a broader framework with other ideals such as fairness and justice. But there is a poor understanding of the story of human rights and freedom, from ancient liberties, to Magna Carta and the present day.

The 800th anniversary of Magna Carta provides a catalyst to improve this understanding amongst the next generation of Australians. In Grade six students are taught about Magna Carta. In grade ten they are taught about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But in between these important events is the story of revolts, revolutions and liberal intellectual inquiry that took the Western world from political and social repression and economic subsistence to prosperity, pluralism and freedom.

That story has an extremely important role in ensuring that Australians understand where we've come from to inform their thinking about where we are going.

To start addressing this gap in education the Commission is currently developing educational resources to tell the story of human rights and freedom to educate the next generation of Australians. The 800th anniversary of Magna Carta will be the launch pad for these resources, but it is very much the intention that they'll be used in schools thereafter.

- Freedom of speech remains a key issue ranging from restrictive State-based defamation laws to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. The lesson of the government's botched efforts last year demonstrate that the problems with restrictive laws needs to be explained, concerns need to be properly listened to and factored into any reform, and a broad consensus for reform needs to be proposed. Despite the rhetoric of a ‘freedom agenda’, presently the necessary political and social environment does not exist to drive reform. I will keep working to ensure there is one. 

- The tension between religious freedom in a pluralistic nation and a secular State is an issue that bubbles under the surface of political debate that must be addressed. So, today, I formally announce that we will be establishing a religious freedom Roundtable at the Commission that will meet in the second half of 2015. We are currently designing the structure, participation and parameters of the Roundtable to advance religious freedom and its interaction with public policy.

The purpose of this Roundtable will be to listen to religious communities, their concerns and seek as near a consensus as possible about how best to advance religious freedom and its interaction with public policy in 21st Century Australia. I am elated at the extremely warm and positive response a religious freedom roundtable has received from Australia's religious leadership in my meetings to date; and their enthusiasm to open an ongoing and constructive dialogue that is mindful and considerate of their concerns while recognising that the Commission equally has a responsibility to ensure all citizens are treated equally and fairly by the law and government.

- ¬As announced in my National Press Club Speech, property rights issues have consistently raised with my team. During my National Press Club speech I announced that the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Mick Gooda, and I will be co-facilitating a high-level roundtable on the freedom to exercise post-determination property rights for native title holders. Today I am proud to announce the high-level roundtable will be held from Tuesday, 18 to Wednesday, 19 May in Broome. Invitations for this high-level roundtable have now gone out and it has received an extremely positive reception.

I am acutely mindful that the Australian Law Reform Commission is about to release its review into Native Title. This process will be very different from existing reviews of native title. Our interest is solely at the legal, regulatory and policy flexibility for Aboriginal communities to exercise their property rights.

I need to stress that while Commissioner Gooda and I will co-facilitate this important event, it will be led by Aboriginal Australians for the benefit of Aboriginal Australians.

Any proposals from this forum will require the consent of native title holders, if implemented, and will not compromise the protection of the inherent legal rights of Aboriginal Australia.

- While it was not initially canvassed in our consultations, the effective arbitrary detention through the denial of liberty through restrictive practices for those in mental health care came up regularly. I am likely to focus on this issue later in my term office.

I've spoken a lot about rights. But rights come with responsibilities. Throughout the consultations Australians were deeply mindful of the fact that more energy needs to be directed to building a culture of responsibilities.

Some argued we should even have a charter of responsibilities to set out the expectations of the observance of rights. I should add that I disabused them of this notion.

In our consultations we asked for evidence of where communities were building a culture of responsibility. Sadly little information was provided. But I am not surprised. The practical reality is that the mechanisms we use to promote a culture of responsibility is informal and not directed from government or bureaucracies.

A culture of responsibility comes from the values we are taught when we are raised from our parents, friends, role models, school and religious institutions; the norms we establish in society and the expectations of normal human decency. Outside of the formal responsibility that comes with schemes like insurance, responsibility cannot be imposed by government through law or regulations.  

An understanding of responsibility has to evolve. Many people raised with us the concerns they have about the way people used and abused technology, and particularly the Internet and social media.

The internet is a wonderful expression of one of humanity's greatest achievements, but it also contains the sewer of some of our worst and most primal instincts. No one innovates to advance uncivil conduct. Yet that is what it is being used for.

When Twitter was being developed I doubt anyone thought about a community of anonymous 'trolls' with the sole purpose of being digital 'wreckers'. Many people argued we need stronger legal protection against this community, or others that leverage social media for uncivil conduct.

But what is equally obvious is that the problems of technology are best addressed by technology itself. Companies organically develop their own policies to respond to the problems that appear online and are both more capable and responsive than government ever could be.

While we regularly look for firm and structured ways to advance a culture of responsibility, it almost always needs to be advanced through a responsive and informal culture of mindfulness for others.

Finally, some thanks.

Thank you to Lucian who organised the consultation tour, Simone who did the bookings, Siri who provided the snacking cucumbers and organised the parallel SOGII consultations and most importantly Louise Bygrave.

Louise Bygrave is the Commission's senior policy advisor on human rights. More importantly she was delegated the task on my arrival as Human Rights Commissioner with, as some people might put it, 'the poisoned chalice', to help me with my work, listen to my rants and find the inner-strength to sometimes tell me “no”! Louise designed and ran the consultations, wrote the report and put up with my occasional mood swings after months of too many days on the road, not enough sleep and botched flight bookings. She even learned to live with Google Maps.

Thank you Louise and the whole team for your support and the launch of this report marks the beginning of our work, not the end of it.

Thank you.