Login
Julian Assange’s lawyer says Australians ‘deserve’ a Human Rights Act
Jennifer Robinson, the human rights barrister representing Julian Assange in his extradition fight, said Australians have “waited too long” for the government to approve a Human Rights Act.
Naomi Neilson
Speaking at the Free + Equal Conference in Sydney, Robinson said Australia is in need of constitutional change, Indigenous recognition, a republic, and the creation of a Bill of Rights before it can “come of age as a modern, independent and just democracy”.
“We have waited too long for governments to do the right thing and to protect our rights – everyone in this country deserves better,” she said.
Robinson’s speech was delivered just months after Coalition members issued a dissenting report in response to a parliamentary joint committee’s recommendation the federal government integrate human rights into its policymaking.
The inquiry proposed a draft bill modelled closely on what was put forward by the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).
Liberal members Henry Pike, Matt O’Sullivan and Gerard Rennick claimed Australia’s democracy is “incredibly robust” and Parliament was the “best environment to defend and debate human rights”.
“Proponents of this proposal have failed to demonstrate that our current systems are not providing adequate protection of human rights or that their reform model would achieve preferable outcomes where current protection is lacking,” they wrote.
Robinson said their claims Australia has an “enviable” and incomparable human rights record was “astonishing”.
“One wonders how possessed they are with our history, or whether they even listened to the evidence before them or read the submissions, because it flies in the face of all the evidence,” she said.
Turning to Assange’s case, Robinson said the “one thing” standing between his extradition to the United States and prison conditions “that will cause his death” is the United Kingdom’s Extradition Act 2003 and its relationship with the Human Rights Act 1998.
Robinson explained the Extradition Act requires judges to “consider whether extradition would be compatible with the rights protected under the Human Rights Act”, including the right to free speech.
“In our appeal, we have argued his right to free speech would be flagrantly violated if he was extradited, because the US is arguing that once extradited … he will not benefit at all from the free speech constitutional protections,” Robinson said.
“And it was on this basis – and this basis alone, I hasten to add – that the High Court has granted us leave to appeal.”
Robinson said that in her experience from around the world, a Human Rights Act in Australia would make a “very real difference” in the protection of the rights of the country’s citizens.
“I hope you will join me in advocating for Australian human rights and educating your friends and family about why we need it and how we get there,” Robinson said.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
