As Israel’s president visits Australia, debates over protest, terrorism and antisemitism expose a significant problem: Australia lacks a coherent human rights framework.

When Israel’s President Isaac Herzog visits Australia next week, would protests carry more weight if built on legal bricks atop moral foundations? In contrast with the UK, NZ, Canada, the US and almost everywhere else, Australia doesn’t have a Human Rights Act.

It’s been reported that while in Australia, Herzog wants to talk about “the importance of taking all legal measures to combat antisemitism, extremism and terror in Australia.”

Before the Bondi killings, Newcastle University academic Dr Amy Maguire, Professor in Human Rights and International Law, wrote that Australia has a dualist legal system.

“The Australian government can consent to treaty obligations that are binding on state parties, but those obligations are not absorbed into domestic law. This limits Australia’s capacity to meet its human rights obligations, because many are unenforceable under domestic law.

“Instead, Australia has built a patchwork human rights system. The Constitution affords only minimal rights protections, including the right to vote and the right to a trial by jury for certain offences.”

A review by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights started in 2023. Opponents of change argue it would hand powers from parliamentarians to unelected judges with limited flexibility.

After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania,  Prime Minister John Howard proposed changes to gun safety legislation with bipartisan state, territory and Commonwealth support. It was also endorsed by Coalition partner and Nationals leader Tim Fischer, and Labor’s Kim Beazley, leader of the Opposition.

That praiseworthy unity........

© Pearls and Irritations