How a human rights Act can improve life for all Tasmanians

Ability to exclude a child from school shows need for change, says Richard Griggs

ONE

year ago I launched a petition calling on political parties to commit to introducing a Tasmanian human rights Act in the next term of state Parliament.

Every Tasmanian deserves the chance to succeed and to reach their full potential. To help achieve that goal we need a government guarantee that everyone in our community has the same basic rights. To make that guarantee, Parliament needs to pass a human rights Act, as Victoria and the ACT have done.

Human rights laws do not just benefit individuals, they have broader economic benefits for the community.

When more people are reaching their full potential, there is less reliance on government and greater economic activity.

So far more than 1000 people have signed the petition, and 20 organisations have listed their support.

A volunteer campaign team has run panel discussions in Launceston, held historical lectures in Parliament House, spoken at pub forum nights in Hobart and met with University of Tasmania students studying health, law and journalism.

We have had productive meetings with the three political parties and will meet all parties and independents contesting the election.

On Monday the Labor Party committed to implementing human rights laws if it forms government next year. This is a welcome and positive step for our campaign. We will continue to communicate with the Liberals, Greens and any other parties contesting the election, encouraging them to make similar commitments. We believe all political parties should be able to commit to protecting human rights.

Twelve months ago the need for human rights laws was a long way down the community and political agendas. We’ve slowly changed that and placed the issue on the radar.

But the campaign has had its difficulties. The biggest challenge has been explaining the positive difference the laws would make to the everyday lives of Tasmanians.

It’s not enough to point to the 190-page report from the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute, which is the basis of our campaign, and say all the information people need is in there. We’ve found we need to bring the examples to life.

One example that resonates particularly strongly is the 2015 law change that made it legal for publicly funded religious schools to refuse to enrol students based on their religious faith.

Previously, the law allowed religious schools to give preference to students of the school’s faith, but only where class sizes were at capacity. This was widely accepted as a good balance between freedom of religion and the right to education.

The law now allows schools to refuse enrolment to a student at any time regardless of class size, based on their religious faith or lack of it.

The change went through Parliament with relatively little publicity and people are now upset when they hear what has occurred.

It angers people because the change cuts across what so many of us understand — that Tasmania needs to do better at getting kids into school and keeping them enrolled longer.

In many parts of Tasmania the local religious school is the

only one in the area. The idea that taxpaying parents will have their children denied access to the local school really does upset people.

Had there been a Tasmanian human rights Act in place, there are three key differences to how this issue would have been handled.

Firstly, when the new law was being drafted the government would have received advice from the public service notifying it of the impact on the right to education. At that stage the government could have chosen not to proceed or to refine its proposal to be human rights compliant.

It’s telling that the speech given by the minister when tabling the amendment in Parliament did not refer to a child’s right to education. The focus was on freedom of religion.

Secondly, all members of the Tasmanian Parliament would have had the benefit of assessing the proposal against a legislated human rights framework.

The minister responsible for the proposal would have been required to outline to the Upper House and Lower House in a written statement why the Bill was, in their opinion, compliant with the right to education.

MPs would have assessed the minister’s claims against the framework and could have voted down the proposal or amended it to make it more compliant.

Thirdly, the community would have been able to assess the performance of their parliamentarians against the human rights framework and challenge the laws in the Supreme Court if they believed the laws infringed human rights.

The court would not be able to invalidate the law, however it would be able to publish its findings which would then trigger the need for Parliament to revisit the issue.

The education laws are just one example of where Tasmanians needs human right protection. The more you look the more you find.

The campaign team looks forward to talking to more people about the need for human rights laws as we head towards the state election.

After 12 months I’m proud to report that the campaign for a Tasmanian human rights Act is really beginning to build momentum.