The proposed amendments to Victoria's Charter of Human Rights will effectively bring it to an end, with its proponents arguing it will erode the rights of citizens in the state. Briana Everett reports

The Scrutiny of Acts and Regulation Committee's (SARC) Final Report of the Review of the Victorian Charter tabled in Parliament on 14 September rejected the Law Institute of Victoria's (LIV) argument that the Charter should be expanded to include social and economic rights as well as a right to damages.

While not proposing a complete repeal of the Charter, the report found that the Charter had not led to dramatic changes to the courts system and that key provisions applying to the courts were subject to major uncertainties about their meaning and operation.

"We believe that the issues identified by the committee could be resolved by recommendations to strengthen and clarify its operations in the courts," said LIV president Caroline Counsel, urging Attorney-General Robert Clark not to adopt the SARC's recommendations.

According to Counsel, the amendments put forward by the SARC will amount to a "wholesale wind-back" if adopted.

"The majority proposals sound an effective death knell for the Charter as we know it, if implemented by the Victorian Government," said Counsel. "In the limited time of the Charter's operation, the overwhelming evidence available has demonstrated the value of the Charter to ordinary Victorians."

The Charter has enabled thousands of Victorians to a live a better life, according to Australian Lawyers' Alliance president Greg Barns.

"The beauty of the Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities is that it has enabled thousands of Victorians to live a better life as a result of government departments having to comply with human rights obligations," said Barns.

"It has advantaged people with disabilities, elderly Victorians, students with learning disabilities and the homeless, since it came into force in 2006."

According to Counsel, the SARC's final report proposes that the Charter be wound back to only scrutinise new laws. This, she said, would mean any obligations on public authorities would be repealed, as would any interpretative role for the courts.

The PILCH Homeless Persons' Legal Clinic (HPLC) also expressed concern over the SARC's report last week, claiming that the proposals may increase the number of homeless Victorians.

"Reducing the role of courts and tribunals will make government less accountable for human rights compliance," said HPLC manager and principal lawyer, James Farrell. "There will be very little incentive for public bodies to consider people's rights and weigh up their hardships because there will be no consequences of not doing this."

On 6 June, the HPLC made a submission to the Inquiry into the Charter, highlighting that improved accountability for public authorities, resulting from a role for the courts, provides better outcomes.

"This gist of our submission was that the clearest benefits from the operation of the Charter have been through the obligations imposed on public authorities, because their decision-making processes and service delivery are informed by human-rights considerations," said Farrell. "They're making better decisions and people get better outcomes. If the Charter is changed to remove those obligations, then those benefits fall away and that would be a tragic result for vulnerable Victorians, including people who are homeless."

According to Farrell, HPLC has used the Charter in 20 cases to prevent 42 people - including 21 children - from being evicted from social housing into homelessness.

"In these 20 matters, the Charter played a role in bringing about better, fairer outcomes for individuals, families and children," he said. "It also brought about more transparent decision-making and prevented Victoria adding 42 people to an already overstretched emergency accommodation system."

The Government now has six months to respond to the SARC's report.