Human Rights Act Myth Busters

Introduction

On 8 October 2009, the National Human Rights Consultation Committee, which had been commissioned by the Rudd Government to consider human rights in Australia, handed down its report recommending the adoption of an Australian Human Rights Act.  This was a landmark moment, representing Australia’s best chance to become the last western nation to adopt comprehensive human rights legislation.

At the time, the Government accepted the report but delayed its response, creating a vacuum which has been filled by a spirited debate.  In the course of the debate, we believe that some of those opposed to a Human Rights Act for Australia have perpetuated myths about human rights legislation.

In response, the Castan Centre has prepared a number of “myth-busters”, each of which focuses on one of these claims.  One new myth buster will be added to this site each weekday until further notice. 

If you would like to read all of our myth busters, but don’t want to check back each day, then you can get them via any of the following:

• Via Twitter.  To receive a link to each new myth buster via twitter, follow us at http://twitter.com/CastanCentre
• Via Facebook: To receive a link to each new myth buster via Facebook, become a fan at: www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Castan-Centre-for-Human-Rights-Law/79529128041?ref=ts
• Via email: send an email to castan.centre@law.monash.edu.au and we’ll include you on our daily myth-buster email list.

Myths

Myth 1: The proposed Human Rights Act would shift decision making to unelected judges

Myth 2: Judges would be able to effectively change the law under a Human Rights Act

Myth 3: Judges would use a Human Rights Act to bully politicians into changing laws to comply with human rights

Myth 4: Human rights are too political for judges

Myth 5: Human rights are too vague for judges

Myth 6: A Human Rights Act would be a lawyers’ feast

Myth 7: Our human rights are adequately protected already

Myth 8: The Report recommending a Human Rights Act is not reflective of the majority of Australian views 

Myth 9: The Human Rights Act would be a "rogues' charter" that protects terrorists and criminals

Myth 10: The introduction of a Human Rights Act will only protect minorities to the detriment of the majority

Myth 11: A Human Rights Act would be nothing more than the fulfilment of the Left's agenda

Myth 12: A Human Rights Act will be too costly 

Myth 13 – We need a referendum before enacting a Human Rights Act

Myth 14:  A Human Rights Act will mean that same sex marriage will be legalised

Myth 15: A Human Rights Act will impinge on Religious Freedom