Introduction to Special Issue on Human Rights

Abstract

The federal government refused to embrace the recommendations of the Brennan Report in April 2010, so that Australia remained the only common law liberal democracy without a bill of rights. There were extensive pre-emptive justifications for this stance, based in the theory that the common law provided sufficient protection, and that consequently a bill of rights was unnecessary. Chief Justice Spigelman had been a considerable proponent of this view, with support from Chief Justice Gleeson and his discussion of the principle of legality, the requirement that Parliament speak clearly and unequivocally if legislation is to overturn common law rights. The Commonwealth Attorney-General, Mr Robert McClelland, signalled where the matter would finish many months before the final announcement, when he addressed the Castan Centre for Human Rights on 17 July 2009 in terms of the utility of the common law as a protection for human rights. These public utterances beg the question as to what it is that is being protected, and how the common law is alleged to perform the necessary work.