The Growing Impact of International Law on Australian Domestic Law (Option 1) - Implications for the Procedures of Ratification and Parliamentary Scrutiny
Date:
Author:
Type: test
Organisation: Australian Legal Notes
Publisher: Publisher - Was the paper published?
OPTION 1
AUSTRALIAN LAW JOURNAL
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL NOTES
The growing impact of international law on Australian domestic law.
Implications for the procedures of ratification and Parliamentary scrutiny
No Australian lawyer could fail to observe the debate about the growing use
of international treaties as a foundation for Federal legislation, expanding
the area of Federal law-making into matters hitherto regulated by State law.
In a recent speech, delivered as an Occasional Lecture for the Senate
Department of the Australian Parliament, Justice Michael Kirby, who is
President of the Court of Appeal of
Because of the significance of this debate, extracts adapted from Justice
Kirby's lecture follow:
Controversial use of international treaties
"The controversy about the use of treaties to support Australian
Federal legislation came to the fore during the passage of the Human Rights
(Sexual Conduct) Act 1994 (Cth).1 That measure was designed to give effect
to the decision of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations in the
complaint by Mr N Toonen against Australia. Yet that Federal Law was simply the
latest of a number, under successive Governments and Parliaments. The
quandaries already existed in the 1920s when Federal Parliament enacted the Air
Navigation Act to give effect to the ratification, including on behalf of
Australia, of the Paris Convention of 1919 regulating international
aerial navigation.2 They were certainly there when the Parliament enacted
conservation legislation under which the Governor-General, pursuant to the World
Heritage Convention3 made regulations protecting an area of national park
in Tasmania leading to the Tasmanian Dams Case.4 But there was something
about the passion and emotion of the recent debate which called forth the most
strongly voiced reservations yet expressed about what was seen by some as a
worrying, even undesirable, legislative trend.
Some of the commentary was ill tempered and confused. Yet behind often
emotive language lies the expression of serious concern which requires the
attention of those who are generally sympathetic to the incoming tide of
international human rights law and its influence upon
"There is something amiss with a polity that, to achieve its aims,
enters treaties with undemocratic committees of the United Nations, ... to
overrule the processes by which it itself is governed. This was not the intention
of those who drafted the constitution; nor is it the wish of Australians today.
..."
To the same effect were the remarks of Senator Rod Kemp who concluded:6
"Involving UN committees in Australian domestic disputes will
inevitably, over time, undermine our own legal institutions. ... Australia's
major constitutional problems [are] ... the expansive use of the external
affairs power, the ruthless use of ILO and UN treaties to over-ride States and
the ceding of sovereignty to foreign committees. The present generation of
Australians do not want their laws made in
The former Prime, Mr Malcolm Fraser, also criticised the process of the use
of international conventions:7
"In one case, in December 1992, the Governor-General was asked to
ratify a treaty only hours before the dissolution of Parliament. No media
release was issued. ... [A]re Australians to be masters of their own affairs or
are Australians to give away their sovereignty to United Nations committees?
The point become all the more relevant when you look at the membership of these
committees. The membership is appointed by governments that often ignore the
decisions of the committee and yet
There are similar statements by other Australian politicians and
ex-politicians. Not all of them are members of the Coalition side of politics.
For example, the former ALP Senator Peter Walsh observed:17
"I am not and never have been a monarchist, but find it ironic that
so many contemporary Australians determined to protect us from the non-existent
threat of English tyranny, fall over each other in a scramble to surrender
Australian sovereignty to a rag-tag and bobtail of unrepresentative United
Nations committees, accountable to nobody."
There are undoubtedly questions here for serious reflection. They derive
from the democratic and federal nature of our constitution. From our
traditional willingness to leave our human rights to be determined, from time
to time, by Parliaments elected by our people and upheld by independent courts
Australian suspicion is fuelled when the obligation to change Australian law
derives from committees of the often inefficient United Nations made up of
people whose commitment to the kind of values which Australians generally share
is generally thought to be doubtful.
The international perspective
As Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Human Rights in
But I also report upon the many advances which are made daily in the
rebuilding of
My reports on
Pressure is also applied to
The lesson of recent decades is that this requirement may eventually have a
beneficial effect. It gives a voice to the oppressed. It lifts the hopes of
those who would otherwise be without hope. In the one big room, the essential inter-dependence
and ultimate unity of humanity is brought home to all. In a world of
jumbo-jets, of instantaneous telecommunications, of global environmental
hazards and of AIDS we are forced to see human rights as it is: a cause of
international concern. Doubtless it has many inefficiencies and weaknesses. But
it grew out of the awful revelations of the last World War and the detonation
of the atomic bomb at
We in
The Australian path of gradualism
Some, at least, of the concerns that have been voiced by the commentators
about the growing influence of international human rights principles upon our
law can, I think, be adequately answered:
1. The international committees which are frequently criticised stand in an
entirely different relationship to the Australian legal system than the Privy
Council in
2. The United Nations committee has, it is true, members from a number of
states which do not share all of our perspectives on human rights. But the
members of the committee are elected for their individual expertise. When
serving, they do not act as representatives of their country but in a personal
capacity. They must make a solemn and public declaration to that effect. The
Toonen decision was unanimous. This suggests that, even in a matter as
controversial in some countries as the rights of homosexuals, nationality and
legal tradition had little final influence.12 The decision of the committee may
be criticised on its merits, as it has been, by experts in international law
who think that it went too far13 or not far enough.14 Some criticism was
directed to the inability of Tasmania, as such, to be heard directly by the
committee. But that was simply the result of the fact that, by the Australian constitution,
the Commonwealth is the international representative of
3. The notion that Tasmania's democratically elected Parliament should have
the right to over-ride fundamental rights, globally declared and relevantly
held applicable, begs an important question. It would have been preferable for
the people of
4. The democratic argument, and the complaint about loss of
"sovereignty" have an undoubted appeal. But it is increasingly
recognised that democracy is not simple majoritarian votes. Democracy, as it is
now practised, is a system of government which accords power to persons elected
by the majority of citizens upon the condition that they will respect the
fundamental rights and dignity of minorities. Professor Ronald Dworkin has
explained that human rights are promises to minorities that their dignity and
equality be respected by the majority.16 It seems unlikely that Australians
would accept a State law which criminally punished people because they were of
Jewish or Chinese ethnicity or because they were women or because their skin was
dark. Seen in this light, the limits of democracy are reached. Far from being a
surrender of "sovereignty", measures taken to uphold minority rights,
authoritatively declared by an expert international committee, may be seen as
an exercise of sovereignty. To talk of "sovereign States", or for
that matter "the sovereign Federation", is to indulge in metaphors
which are not sustained by the Australian Constitution as it has been
interpreted.
5. A little known change which has come about in recent years parallels the
passage of legislation through Parliament to give effect to international
standards. This is the impact of international human rights jurisprudence upon
6. For those who say that
Lessons for the future
The concerns of many Australians about respect for democracy, the
preservation of the Federal compact and local responsibility for human rights
matters must not be lightly dismissed. They are views sincerely held, strongly
argued and they have a foundation which is legitimate. How can we reconcile
what seems to be the natural tide of history, one that is often, if not
usually, beneficial, with the constitution of this country drawn up for utterly
different international circumstances and for a significantly different
Australian people?
The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Evans) who has done a great deal
to support the United Nations work in human rights has rejected the proposal
that
It is certainly our tradition that the Executive Government, succeeding to
the prerogative powers of the Crown, has reserved to itself the right, and the
duty, to subscribe to international treaties in the name of
Some important treaties have been ratified with little Parliamentary or
public debate. The Government's action of depositing the instrument of
accession to the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR before the tabling of the
instrument in Parliament was described as "extraordinary" ...
"without any public debate or even public awareness of its existence, let
alone its scope and significance".22 The growing body of treaty law has an
increasing impact on Australian law. It therefore seems legitimate, in some
way, now to involve the national Parliament in the superintendence of Executive
action in respect of treaties. The old rule may have been apt for a time when
international law was in its infancy. But nowadays, in economic matters as well
as those relevant to human rights, the growth of international treaty law is
extremely significant and growing even more important. In 1961 Prime Minister
Menzies announced that, in general, the Australian Government would not proceed
to ratify or accede to a treaty until it had lain on the table of both Houses
of Federal Parliament for twelve sitting days.23 Whilst the politics of
resistance to Parliamentary scrutiny are understandable and I would regret a
move to the United States requirement of advice and consent of the
legislature, which has proved such a reinforcement of isolationism, there is
surely an intermediate position. Parliamentary scrutiny is not the same as
Parliamentary approval. Scrutiny could be part of the larger function of
raising Australian awareness of the growing body and importance of
international law. As that law comes to sustain Australian statutes (such as
the Sexual Conduct Act), Australian Executive action (such as the
Tasmanian Dams regulations) and Australian court decision (such as, in part, Mabo),
it is appropriate that the actions of the Federal Executive in ratifying
treaties should be assisted by the consideration of the representatives of the
Australian people. I do not believe that Australians favour an isolationist
country. Still less do I believe that they are unaware of the important moves
which I have described, in the international community, for the better
protection of human rights everywhere. The Australian people can be trusted, as
can their representatives in Parliament, to understand that it is possible to
reconcile our Federal constitution and the growing province of international
law. In their genius, the Founders provided the means to do so. It takes
legislators and judges of understanding to ensure that the constitution
continues to serve
The external affairs power in the Australian constitution appears, both by
express terms and by its location in the document, are an element of a
constitution which is Federal in its basic character. Although the grant of
power is large indeed, it is not uncontrolled. It is the function of successive
Parliaments and of the High Court, to chart the boundaries of the power in new
circumstances. Amongst the new circumstances are the growing sense of national
identity of Australians, the changing role of
FOOTNOTES
* President of the Court of Appeal of
1. See eg (1994) 3 Human Rights Defender 1; (1994) 5 HIV/AIDS
Legal Link 1.
2. See The King v Burgess (1936) 55 CLR 608.
3. Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage (UNESCO).
4. See The Commonwealth v
5.
6. R Kemp "Let's Make our Own Laws" Herald
7. M Fraser "UN Poses Biggest Threat to our Sovereignty", The
Australian,
8. P Walsh cited in M Fraser op cit n 7.
9. See Commentary, "The United Nations Commission on Human Rights: 50th
Session" (1994) 52 The Review (ICJ), 66.
10. A F Bayefsky, "Making the Human Rights Treaties Work" in L
Henkin and J L Hargrove (eds) Rights: An Agenda for the Next Century,
ASIL,
11. United Nations, Human Rights Committee, Communication No 688/1992.
Nicholas Toonen and
12. H Charlesworth "Protecting Human Rights" (1994) 68 Law Inst
J (Vic) 462 at 463.
13. See eg A Funder "The Toonen Case" (1994) 5 Public Law Rev
156.
14. See eg G Selvaner "Gays in Private, the Problems with the Privacy
Analysis in Furthering Human Rights" (1994) 16
15. See Dudgeon v
16. R Dworkin Taking Rights Seriously, 1977, 205.
17. See eg M D Kirby, "The Bill of Rights Debate", Australian
Lawyer, vol 29, December 1994, 16.
18. (1992) 175 CLR 1, 42.
19. See M D Kirby, "The Australian Use of International Human Rights
Norms" (1991) 16 UNSWLJ 363.
20. See for Amnesty's criticism of Australia (1994) 3 Human Rights
Defender, 1.
21. See Australian Senate, Estimates Committee, Hansard,
22. See A Twomey, Parliamentary Research Service Bkgrd Paper No 27, 1995 Procedure
and Practice of Granting and Implementing International Treaties
23.