Taking Part in Public Life

Taking Part in Public Life

Section 17 of the Human Rights Act 2004 says that:

  • Every citizen has the right, and is to have the opportunity, to—
    1. take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; and
    2. vote and be elected at periodic elections, that guarantee the free expression of the will of the electors; and
    3. have access, on general terms of equality, for appointment to the public service and public office.

Section 17 is based on article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a human rights treaty to which Australia is a party.

Scope of the rights

Section 17 specifies several different but overlapping human rights.

Section 17(a) outlines the right of every citizen in the ACT to participate in the conduct of public affairs. “The conduct of public affairs” is not defined in the Human Rights Act, but the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Committee has described it as “a broad concept which relates to the exercise of political power [… and] covers all aspects of public administration, and the formulation and implementation of policy” (UN Human Rights Committee General Comment 25, paragraph 5).

This right covers both direct and indirect participation in the conduct of public affairs. Examples of such participation may include:

  • being a member of a legislative body, such as the Legislative Assembly, or holding executive office;
  • deciding on public issues through a referendum or another electoral process;
  • taking part in popular assemblies to make decisions about local issues;
  • being part of a community consultation with government;
  • being able to attend and ask questions at a local council meeting;
  • participating in public debate and dialogue with elected representatives (either as an individual or as part of an organisation).

Note: The terms “public affairs” and “public life” in this context refer to the political affairs and public administration of the Territory. Section 17 does not concern taking part in “community” or “social” life, cultural rights, or having access to public space or public transport (although other rights under the Human Rights Act, such as the right to freedom of movement (section 13),  equality rights (section 8) or the rights of minorities (section 27), may be relevant to those activities).

Section 17(b) says that every citizen has the right to vote and be elected at elections. However, the Electoral Act 1992(ACT) limits the ability to vote and to be eligible to stand as a Member of the Legislative Assembly to people 18 years old and older (see sections 103 and 128). Age limitations like these are common and are generally accepted to be reasonable limitations on the right to vote and be elected, which do not breach that right. The UN Human Rights Committee has specifically confirmed this (in General Comment 25, paragraph 10, regarding setting a minimum voting age).

Section 17(c) states the right of every citizen to have access “on general terms of equality” to public service positions and public office. The UN Human Rights Committee has explained that, for there to be access on general terms of equality, the criteria and processes for appointment, promotion, suspension and dismissal must be objective and reasonable (General Comment 25, paragraph 23).

The Legislation Act 2011 (ACT) defines “public service” to mean the ACT Public Service; for more information on this see the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (ACT), section 12. There is no definition of “public office” in ACT legislation. However, taking into account international human rights law and the way the term is defined in other contexts in Australia, “public office” for the purpose of this human right would include government-appointed positions in the legislature, executive and judiciary, as well as statutory office-holders.

When could these rights be relevant?

The actions of government agencies and other public authorities can both promote and limit human rights. Among other examples, section 17 may be relevant to:

  • requiring people to meet certain conditions in order to be eligible to participate in Legislative Assembly elections;
  • regulating the method by which people vote in elections;
  • regulating funding of and expenditure by political parties;
  • the drawing of electoral boundaries;
  • regulating eligibility for and access to employment in the ACT Public Service or appointment to public office in the ACT;
  • membership requirements of public bodies;
  • the suspension or removal of statutory office holders;
  • communicating information and ideas about public and political issues.

Cases

Cases on the human rights referred to in section 17 have included the following.

Participation in local council activities – Slattery v Manningham CC(Human Rights)[2013] VCAT 1869; Richardson v City of Casey Council (Human Rights) [2014] VCAT 1294

Mr Slattery was a resident and rate-payer of the City of Manningham in Victoria who had a number of disabilities. He had lived in the City of Manningham for many years, and had been an active and contributing member of the community. Mr Slattery made thousands of complaints to Manningham City Council, regarding safety and alleged corruption among other issues. The way in which he expressed these was often offensive and sometimes aggressive. The Council decided to ban Mr Slattery from attending any building that the Council owned, occupied or managed. Victoria’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal found that the Council’s actions breached the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, including Mr Slattery’s right to participate in the conduct of public affairs under the Charter equivalent of section 17(a) of the Human Rights Act.

By contrast, the same Tribunal found that that right was not breached in the case of Mr Richardson, a former councillor of Victoria’s City of Casey Council. After his time as a councillor ended, Mr Richardson frequently contacted the Council and attended Council meetings. The Council eventually banned him from asking questions at those meetings, because of his unmanageable behaviour and the time and energy this behaviour was taking from the Council’s work.

Victoria’s Civil and Administrative Tribunal decided that this ban was a justified limitation of Mr Richardson’s right to participate in the conduct of public affairs. In the Tribunal’s view, his conduct had failed to respect other people’s rights and was inconsistent with the Council managing its affairs in an orderly manner. The Tribunal pointed out that despite the ban, among other activities, Mr Richardson could still send emails to the Council, make submissions to the Council, attend Council meetings and ask two questions through other people at each Council meeting.

Voting in elections – Alger v Australia, UN Human Rights Committee Views, 13 July 2017 (Communication No. 2237/2013);Given v Australia, UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Views, 16 February 2018 (Communication No. 19/2014), as amended 10 April 2018

In each of these cases, an Australian complained to a UN committee that oversees Australia’s compliance with human rights treaties, claiming that Australia had breached their rights concerning voting.

Mr Alger claimed that Australia’s compulsory federal voting system, and the fact that he was fined for not voting, breached his rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, including his right under article 25(b) to vote at elections that guarantee “the free expression of the will of the electors”. Article 25(b) is the main source of section 17(b) of the Human Rights Act. The UN Human Rights Committee found that Australia did not breach that right in Mr Alger’s case. It said that “a voting system must allow electors to vote for any candidate or none of them, including submitting a blank or non-compliant ballot paper”. Although Australian law required Mr Alger to attend a polling place and put his vote in the ballot box, it also allowed that vote to be blank. Mr Alger had not explained why a blank vote would not have genuinely reflected his will, as an elector, not to support any of the candidates in the 2010 federal election. He had also not proven that the fine imposed on him was unreasonable or disproportionate.

Ms Given had cerebral palsy and required an electric wheelchair for mobility and an electronic synthetic speech generating device for communication. She wished to vote by secret ballot, on an equal basis with other voters, at the 2013 federal election. However, due to her limited dexterity, she was unable to mark a ballot paper and fold and deposit her ballot in a ballot box without the assistance of another person (“live assistance”). This live assistance would compromise the secrecy of her vote.

Ms Given complained to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that Australia had breached her rights under article 29(a) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Like section 17 of the Human Rights Act, and article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 29(a) sets out public participation rights including the right and opportunity to vote in periodic elections. It imposes specific obligations on Australia to ensure that people with disabilities have that right and opportunity, including an obligation to facilitate the use of assistive technologies where appropriate. The Committee concluded that Australia had breached these obligations, by failing to give Ms Given access to an electronic voting platform – even though such a platform had already been widely used in other elections in Australia – or any alternative that would ensure the secrecy of her vote.

Note:

This factsheet is not intended to be a substitute for legal advice.

Last updated January 2026.