Australia Bill Of Rights Conclusion

Through the progression of history the need for the principles articulated in Engineers’ Case was both necessary and appropriate. Callinan J in Workchoices’ Case made

Upholding human rights is essential for ensuring a fair and equitable society. In 1966, Australia and a majority of the world’s nations signed on to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). After the atrocities committed in World War II this seemed like a positive step for ensuring acknowledgement and respect for the rights and freedoms of all people. However, the means of enforcing human rights is not a straightforward process. In response to ratifying the ICCPR, Australia set up the Australian Human Rights Commission. However, after a number of failed attempts, it has not followed through with implementing a

These include freedom of opinion, thought, association and freedom from arbitrary detention and are all about treating others fairly and being fairly treated yourself, and making genuine choices in daily life. Wilson says ‘Respect for human rights underpins the democratic processes of our society and is the cornerstone of a society that respects individuals and voluntary community collaboration’ (Tim Wilson, 2014). Despite this, the control the Australian Government exercised over its people in WWII encroached on all of these universally recognized human rights, and it was in 1948 after the atrocity of WWII that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was internationalised.

The “Bill of rights” has been devise as a follow-up to Parliament's earliest Habeas Corpus bill, which guard personal freedom and liberty. Now almost every colony had a bill of rights. The Bill of Rights is a situated of limits on the vitality of the administration. Firstly, the Bill

The climax of the 2008-2009 financial crises, the largest ever since the Great Depression of the 1930s, witnessed the near collapse of multibillion-dollar industries in the United States. Concerns over the economic impact of the possible collapse of these industries compelled the then administration and Members of Congress to seek legislative options to salvage them. Consequently, two of the industry biggest players in the auto industries, General Motors and Chrysler, were offered financial support by the government and in return, shareholders and other stakeholders had to make necessary sacrifices in order to fundamentally restructure their businesses and commit to the tough decision of returning the companies to financial viability. In

This has come from the Australian community and international human rights monitors who have stated that “There are still areas in which the domestic legal system does not provide an effective remedy to persons whose rights under the [International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] have been violated … [Australia] should take measures to give effect to all Covenant rights and freedoms.” There hasn’t only been a recent push for a Bill of Rights, Former Chief Justice Sir Anthony Mason wrote in 1997 that “Australia's adoption of a Bill of Rights would bring Australia in from the cold, so to speak, and make directly applicable the human rights jurisprudence which has developed internationally and elsewhere. That is an important consideration in that our isolation from that jurisprudence means that we do not have what is a vital component of other constitutional and legal systems, a component which has a significant impact on culture and thought, and is an important ingredient in the emerging world order that is reducing the effective choices open to the nation state”. Brian Galligan who is an academic expert on citizenship stated that “the old confidence in the effectiveness of parliamentary responsible government and the common law for protecting human rights has been undermined by more realistic accounts of the weakness of parliament and the increasingly residual domain of common law compared with the plethora of statutory laws.” The answer to whether Australia needs to adopt a Bill of Rights in order to protect Australian citizens is simple… yes and

Human rights are the right that any individual is entitled under their government, and it can be provided in divergent forms. Thus in Australia, there are no set of ‘Bill of Rights’, comparable to many other western countries that share similar legal values and standards. The American ‘Bill of Rights’ states that the government ensures the freedom of speech and religion, protection from torture and punishment, and the fair procedures of law . There has always been a great debate on whether Australian government should acquire a constitutional Bill of Rights. I believe that it is not necessary to obtain a Bill of Rights as it is not necessary for Australian legal system, and further, it can bring confusion, greater debate and litigations. There are other forms of human rights law introduced into Australian legal system which sets boundaries for the government to respect individual rights. Consequently, it proves the unnecessity for a Bill of Rights in Australia.

The Australian Government, unlike many liberal democracy countries, has no Bill of Rights, instead we have a constitution. This is a document stating the laws of Australia and the way our government must run. A Bill of Rights would positively enforce new, and re-instated laws to protect the rights of Australian people.

Hi fellow classmates and Miss Hope, my name is Kally and today I’m going to argue why the Indigenous Australians of our country should be offered the same human rights as each of us in this room and experience the equality, which our country lacks.

History- The Modern World & Australia Tier 3 Question. THE STOLEN GENERATIONS.

Good afternoon, my name is Stephanie Jones and I am a currently a human rights lawyer. Human rights are the basic freedoms and protections that everyone is entitled to purely for simply just being a human being. Today I would like to use this opportunity to discuss with you the greatly debated issue of an Australian Bill of Rights. Australia currently does not have a Bill of Rights, but is the current legal system coping without one? The answer to that question in my opinion is no. Australia currently is not adequately protecting individual human rights without having a Bill of Rights. While many people would argue that yes, Australia protects individual rights well enough as it is, just as many people passionately argue that Australia does indeed need a Bill of Rights for a variety of reasons which will be talked about in greater depth later on. In my talk with you today, I would like to discuss with you all what exactly a Bill of Rights is and what it aims to achieve, how a Bill of Rights has worked in other countries and some of the more popular arguments for and against having one.

Good morning everyone, I am Amy Homes from the Homes’ Law Firm, and I am here because I believe Australia must have a Bill of Rights. Australia is the only Western democratic society that does not have a Bill of Rights. ‘A Bill of rights is a document that contains a formal list of the rights of a citizen in a society which the society regards as being fundamentally important to its citizens’. The purpose of a Bill of Rights is to list and protect such rights of all humans. Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that everyone is entitled to, because we are human.

The right to liberty,according to Locke's is when people have the right to do what they please and not be imprisoned or enslaved. Australia has a satisfactory situation for press freedom. Australia also has an independent lawful human rights body, the Australian Human Rights Commission, which investigates and soothes complaints, and more generally promotes human rights through education, discussion and reporting. Universal voting rights and rights to freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination are protected in Australia. Australia’s firm political environment supports complete political method, a strong legal system, complete authority , and an independent government.

Various historians who’s expertise lies in the French Revolution have closely linked more morern takes and understandings of Human Rights to those put forward in The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789). In fact, Lynn Hunt (1996) found that “the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) closely followed the model that had been established in the French Revolution”. This paper will analyse The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (1789) in terms of the intent of the document, the origins of the document, its authors and the intended audience, political perspectives of the document and alternative political perspectives and how the document is important to understanding politics in Australia.

From this lesson, I want to learn the many skills children develop by reading and how to use books to help them read more effectively. In return, this lesson helped me to learn Pennac's “Reader's Bill of Rights”. My previous knowledge and this lesson helped me also to realize these “Reader’s Bill of Rights” should be mandatory for children who are beginning to read or are readers. Each bill has a logical reason that supports it.