UPDATE 12.20pm: VICTORIAN Attorney-General Robert Clark has refused to weigh into the debate about Victoria's human rights charter.

Mr Clark said he would reserve comment until the parliamentary inquiry into the charter had finished.

“We do not wish to pre-empt the findings of the parliamentary inquiry,” a spokesman said.

The Coalition has long campaigned against the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, saying it is expensive and delivers few real benefits.

A Herald Sun investigation today revealed rules about school fetes and bans on graffiti have been vetted at massive taxpayer expense to make sure they do not breach Victoria's human rights charter.

The investigation into how the charter operates has uncovered evidence of costly waste with "nuisance" legal checks on everyday activities such as camping and recycling.

Even bans on graffiti and fake ID equipment have been examined to check if they breach freedom of expression rights, in a move described as "bureaucracy gone mad".

Now, barristers want the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities to be expanded - and for Victorians to pay for anyone who believes their rights have been infringed.

Under Victorian law, any new legislation must be checked to make sure it does not breach human rights outlined in the charter.

So-called "compatibility statements" were drawn up for laws such as those allowing teachers to search students for weapons.

Laws about structures on leased Crown land - such as a fete stall in a school or a camping ground in a national park - were checked in case they were deemed to deny a person's right to free movement.

Rules permitting a bottle recycling scheme were screened to ensure the scheme did not breach a person's right to property - the 10c refund - if that person failed to return the bottle.

"I don't think it delivers better outcomes for citizens and I'm sceptical about whether it's worth all the money and all the lawyers," said University of Queensland law professor and charter expert James Allan.

Parliament's Scrutiny of Acts and Regulations Committee is reviewing the charter's costs and effectiveness and is due to finish its report within weeks.

The charter has cost taxpayers millions of dollars since it was introduced by the Labor Government, with legal costs for state departments and agencies increasing substantially.

A submission by the Victorian Bar - the peak professional body for barristers - says making public funds available would ensure people who believed their rights had been infringed would not have to rely on barristers taking up their cases without charge.

Critics say the ideas amount to a public "slush fund" to ensure a continuous flow of work for barristers.

Independent barrister Peter Faris, QC, said the bar's submission was an "absolute disgrace".

-----

BUREAUCRATIC MADNESS



Environment Protection Amendment (beverage container deposit and recovery scheme) Bill



"It may be argued that, under a beverage container deposit and recovery scheme, the 10 cent deposit has the effect of substantially depriving a beverage purchaser of 10 cents"



"There is no unreasonable limit to property rights."



Graffiti Prevention Bill



"Clause 6 of the Graffiti Prevention Bill interferes with a person's right to freedom of expression by making it an offence for a person to mark publicly visible graffiti on property,"



"Even though it does limit human rights, those limitations are reasonable and proportionate."



Crimes Amendment (identity crime) Bill



"The new offences raise and limit the right to freedom of expression as they criminalise seeking, receiving and imparting information (personal bank details and passwords)."



"The Bill is compatible with the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, even though it limits the freedom of expression, as the limits are lawful restrictions."



Source: Statements of Compatability as recorded in Hansard

Originally published as Taxpayers cop red-tape madness