Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

The Australian Democrats support the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Democratic Plebiscites) Bill 2007. This bill is a remarkable bill in two respects: it promotes direct democracy and it makes explicit inalienable civil and political rights in Australian law. The bill will therefore represent a milestone for Australia. The people of Australia regularly express their democratic will through elections and on rarer occasions through constitutional referenda, but, for the first time in its 106-year history, the federal government is supporting direct democracy initiated by the people in its legislation. The bill allows for plebiscites—the direct vote of qualified electors to some important public question—to occur under the aegis of the Australian Electoral Commission, and no state or territory law can gainsay it. The purpose of the bill is to allow the AEC:

… to undertake any plebiscite on the amalgamation of any local government body in any part of Australia.

That is in the explanatory memorandum. But the bill appears to be open-ended in that it is for:

… the purposes of conducting an activity (such as a plebiscite) under an arrangement …

That is at item 1. Who knows what that could imply for future questions considered important by groups of citizens? After all, direct democracy means that it is initiated by the people, and their initiatives could surprise many.

That the conservative Howard government should be so democratically innovative is a surprise to most. Long term, it matters not a jot that the coalition’s motive is immediate and self-interested. They seek to make mischief between Labor leaders Beattie and Rudd over the Queensland Premier’s poorly timed desire to force through large-scale local council amalgamations. The resistance to this state Labor move is believed to threaten federal Labor’s campaign to win coalition seats in that state. What matters long term is that the precedent and process for the formal direct expression of popular will have arrived in Australia.

The second area of welcome democratic innovation is with respect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, otherwise known as the ICCPR. The ICCPR was ratified by Australia and came into force for Australia in 1980. The ICCPR was actually initiated and passed on 16 December 1966 but generally came into force on 23 March 1976. It is gratifying that the bill refers to the inalienable rights enshrined in the ICCPR in respect of article 19 and article 25(a). Article 19 provides:

... that people should have the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to freedom of ... expression.

Paragraph (a) of article 25 provides:

... that every citizen shall have the right and opportunity, without unreasonable restrictions, to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

This explicit reliance on rights comes from a coalition government whose resistance to a bill or charter of rights is legendary. Although there has been many a campaign for a bill of rights in Australia, there is stronger support for a legislated charter of political rights and freedoms. The Australian Capital Territory is the only Australian legislature so far to act on this front. It would be better if there were one Australian standard in this vital area.

Unlike citizens of a number of other countries, Australians do not have their rights and responsibilities reflected in the Constitution, nor mostly in legislation, which is why we have seen minorities such as Indigenous Australians, Australian women and homosexual Australians compelled to seek international help in addressing unjust treatment and discrimination. Antiterrorism security concerns in the United States resulted in the PATRIOT Act, which restricts a number of rights and liberties; however, that legislation sits amongst the United States constitutional guarantees of the Bill of Rights. These guarantees ensure that all citizens shall be secure in their persons and protect them against unreasonable search and seizure. The United States constitution provides Americans with the right to due process and the right to a fair and speedy public trial, among other things. These constitutional guarantees known as the United States Bill of Rights provide the background against which legislation like the PATRIOT Act is interpreted. In the United Kingdom, the Human Rights Act 1998 acts as a control measure against which the courts can interpret legislation. Australia has no human rights act to provide an equivalent safeguard.

If Australia is going to enact legislation which impacts stringently on its citizens’ human rights, as it presently does, it is essential that it makes it either constitutionally or legislatively clear that there is an overriding safeguard and respect for those human rights. The Australian Democrats have attempted to establish a comprehensive human rights standard for Australia and introduced the Parliamentary Charter of Rights and Freedoms Bill 2001.