In Victoria there is no longer any reason to hold such concerns. On the contrary the adoption of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, has ushered in a new era in which at least some human rights, namely civil and political rights, must now be an integral consideration in any action undertaken by the State Government including any public authority or its agents.

It remains to be seen, however, how the Charter will impact the lives of ordinary Victorians. For many of us, human rights are things that are violated in other countries – the abuse at Abu Ghraib, the detention of David Hicks. We do not readily identify the denial of rights within our own backyards. And if we do, it is typically groups like refugees and indigenous Australians who are seen to suffer most.

What I suggest here is that the Charter has the potential to seep much deeper into the lives of ordinary Victorians. It will do this in ways that will provide us with a new language not only to identify suffering and disempowerment within our community, but also to provide a process through which to address and resolve such issues.

The first point to stress is that the human rights provided for under the Victorian Charter are not the same kind of rights that exist under, for instance, the United States Bill of Rights. They are not a trump card that we can play to defeat and destroy the rights and interests of others. Rather they are fashioned from the European notion of rights which, as Lord Steyn explains, rejects ‘a singleminded concentration on the pursuit of fundamental rights of individuals to the exclusion of the interests of the wider public’. Our rights must coexist with the rights of other Victorians. This means that we also have a responsibility to respect and protect the rights of others and that our rights are not unlimited.

At the same time, if our rights are to be restricted by the Government, the Charter requires that a process be undertaken which seeks to strike a fair balance between competing demands and minimise any interference with our rights. Where the Government fails to undertake this process it will be in breach of its obligations under the Charter.

The case of Hatton v United Kingdom which was decided in the European Court of Human Rights provides a good illustration of what this process requires. The United Kingdom Government sought to extend flights from Heathrow airport between 4am and 7am. This would have had a severe impact on the capacity of local residents to sleep and enjoy their home life. It was argued that this was a violation of their right to respect for privacy and home life. The Court agreed. It said that the failure of the Government to sufficiently assess the impact of the noise and consider all possible alternatives so as to minimise interference with the privacy and home life of the residents meant that it had failed in its obligations to strike a fair balance between the economic interests of the State and rights of the residents.

Importantly for us, the Victorian Charter also includes a right to respect for privacy and home life. It is not difficult to see how the reasoning in Hatton v United Kingdom could be employed in matters relating to planning and development in Victoria, whether it be in relation to a new freeway, shopping precinct or toxic waste dump. The Victorian Charter will also enable the identification and labelling of practices experienced in everyday contexts that may have previously escaped our attention or left those who were victims of such practices without a means or language to voice their concerns. Several examples of such practices have been identified by the British Institute of Human Rights in the context of the operation of the United Kingdom Human Rights Act.

In one case, hospital staff refused to clean or move a mentally ill patient who was being held in seclusion and kept soiling himself. They argued that it would only happen again. Local volunteers used the United Kingdom Human Rights Act to argue that this was a violation of the man’s right to protection against degrading treatment – a right which prohibits treatment that humiliates an individual. In response to these arguments the patient was moved to a new and clean room.

In another case, a home for elderly people had a policy of refusing to provide residents with bed pans between lunchtime and teatime. A local support group also invoked the United Kingdom Human Rights Act to argue that this was a breach of the residents’ right to respect for private life – a right which requires steps to ensure respect for the physical integrity and dignity of all persons including the elderly. Once again, in response to these arguments the policy was changed.

Examples of a similar nature abound. They demonstrate that human rights can become a language through which to respond to the abuse and disempowerment of vulnerable members of our community at a very local level, whether in a nursing home, hospital or school. But as Eleanor Roosevelt reminded us in a speech to the United Nations in 1953, ‘[w]here after all do universal rights begin? In small places close to home so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, the farm or office where he works… Unless rights have meaning there they have little meaning everywhere.’

This message holds true of the Victorian Charter. It demands from each of us respect for the rights of others and the creation of a culture that recognises the basic entitlements of every Victorian irrespective of his or her status. They must be seen and observed not only in detention centres and foreign prisons but in the nooks and crannies of our everyday life. This is the potential that the Victorian Charter offers and it is incumbent not just on the Government and its agencies but on all of us to ensure its realisation.