Australia 's Present Laws Regulating Human Rights

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.

After looking at other example of Bills of Rights around the world, with America having theirs for 224 years, Canada having implemented theirs for 30 years and the UK for 17 years, Australia needs to consider each nation’s Bill of Rights’ respective strengths and weaknesses when considering our own Bill of Rights in order for it to best suit the current and future society. Canada adopts something of the middle ground between the strongly entrenched rights in the United State’s constitution and the United Kingdom where the British parliament remains supreme with a weak level of right entrenchment, making it perfect for the situation in Australia.

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.

In this essay I will examine the development of Australian society and subsequent rights given to Australian citizens, thus addressing the guiding question as quoted at the top of the paper.

Human rights violations occur all around the world whether it's the genocide of millions because of beliefs or if it’s the fact that people are left with restrictions that others are not affected by, similar to the segregation that previously existed in the United States . One violation of human rights that occurred in Australia that has caused controversy was the sterilization of disabled women in Australia. This sterilization caused an uproar because of the violation of a woman’s right to produce offspring, regardless of her mental status. This forced sterilization on the mentally disabled women of Australia became a situation in which the UN became involved because of the violation of human rights. Globally, it it considered inhumane to

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

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

Australia pride itself on its strong human rights record and its standing as a good global citizen. However deeper analysis and according to recent situation that how boat people are being treated shows that Australia has failed to fulfill with its international human rights obligations in a number of areas. This is making the things complicating and has tendency towards receptionist and relativist arguments as regard as these international obligations. Especially, much of the focus in Australia and the country’s

Now I shall talk about how the Australian Constitution. It’s common knowledge to know that a constitution is pretty much the law of the land and a foundation of the laws that rule there. Constitutions are very important for countries to have. Helen Irving explains in The Oxford Companion of Australian Politics that, “Its Preamble records the agreement of the six Australian colonies to federate in 1901 and to remain together as ‘one indissoluble federal Commonwealth’.” The Australian Constitution was written as a bill when the colonies met in 1890. The constitution has a full draft by the end of 1891 but colonial parliaments failed to pass it (Irving).

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.

They believe that those laws should govern the behaviour of all, all the while respecting what is known as the ‘rule of law’ and ‘procedural fairness’ because these processes express one of the core values on which was founded - that of the fundamental equality between persons. (Cannold, 2011) The legal society of Australia, often behaves as such, with reform happening where needed in order to keep up with the changes (both value-based and physical) that occur in society. This law reform process is executed through various formal and informal methods, through both the legislative process, and other means through the public body, such as protest, petition and the ever-present 24 hour media cycle. Law reform, particularly legislative reform, has been touted as a means of facilitating progressive chance. (Armstrong,

On December 10th 1948 the United Nations created Human Rights to protect society, keep people safe and ensure equality. Not following one right can hurt our people, and enforce unfair behaviour. Australia is one country that doesn’t carry out all the articles of Human rights therefore doesn’t allow people to have all the rights they are entitled to. One human right that Australia doesn’t believe in is article 16 which states that “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality, sexual orientation or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family”. Australia doesn’t believe in marriage equality which hurts and ruins many people especially they gay and lesbian community that this affects.

With regard to the broader debate on human rights in Australia, the necessary actions that are required are also no brainers. We lack the necessary unified voice as & level of knowledge on, the topic as a population however, which means we fail to lobby our Government effectively. Regardless, the Government has proven time & again that they are not open to the creation of a Bill of Rights, or any legislative instrument that might reflect more of what we as Australians see to be basic human rights for all who live, visit, and wish to live

The Human Rights Act (1998) consists of sixteen fundamental rights that everybody is entitled to from birth or since the act was put into place. These sixteen rights are set out as ‘Articles’ and along with these Articles there are also ‘Protocols’ to extend and adapt new rights into the Human Rights Act. There are three main effects of the HRA: Firstly, it has subsumed the rights set out by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into British national law; if in any given situation there is a breach of rights, this allows people to take their cases to British courts instead of seeking justice from the European Court of