Australian 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.

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.

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

Faith Bandler was one of the most prominent figures promoting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders civil rights in Australia, and played a significant role in the success of the 1967 referendum. Bandler’s background and early life significantly influenced her later activism, causing her to question injustices against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Bandler spent most of her adult life promoting the cause of ATSI civil rights and racial equality, and was involved in a number of key events, one of the most significant being the 1967 referendum. Bandler’s legacy is extremely important in Indigenous Australia’s and Australia’s history, and her life will continue to impact millions.

The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities: Does it Protect and Uphold Human Rights?

In 1967, a landmark event occurred for the Indigenous Community of Australia. They were no longer declared Flora and Fauna This means that Aboriginal people would be considered a part of the landscape and not humans in their own right.. In 1967, a Referendum was held by all members of Australian society voting on the issue of allowing Indigenous Australian to be a part of the census and thereby able to vote and be counted as part of Australia’s population. This achieved not only citizenship for Aboriginal people, but put the issue of Indigenous Rights on both the political and social platforms. This essay will look at the lead up to the Referendum, how Aborigines and their supporters communicated their belief in their rights to the

In October 2008, resulting from the Australian Human Rights Commission’s (AHRC) report; Same-sex: Same Entitlements, a suite of major law reforms passed federal parliament. This included the Family Law Amendment (De facto Financial Matters and Other Matters) Act (Cth), which recognised relationships that exist outside the traditional heteronormative concept of marriage. Prior to these reforms, there were several different definitions of ‘partner’, ‘couple’,

Despite the international prominence of human rights laws, Australia remains the only Western democracy without either a constitutionally entrenched or legislative bill of rights. Human rights can be defined as inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms that all individuals are inherently entitled to. Although human rights are protected to an extent through domestic legislation, the common law, the doctrine of the separation of powers, the rule of law, the Australian

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.

At the point when the Australian Constitution was being drafted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people groups were rejected from the talks concerning the production of another country to be arranged on their inherited grounds and regions. The Australian Constitution additionally explicitly victimized Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people groups. The Australian Constitution did not – and still does not – make satisfactory arrangement for Australia's first people groups. The Australian Constitution has neglected to secure Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights as the principal people groups of this country. For instance, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, has been traded off on three events: every time it has included Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander issues. As of late, the Constitution did not keep the suspension of the RDA for the Northern Territory Emergency Response. Hence, it was incapable in shielding people groups from the most major of all flexibilities, the opportunity from segregation and discrimination. Recognition of laws custom to the Indigenous through common law rules for the recognition of local custom or communal native title is very brief and underwhelming, and is incompetent to face the questions raised by the Commission’s Terms of Reference. Arguments in

The Australian legal system doesn’t have a bill of rights so it must protect individual human rights in other ways. Individual human rights consist of civil, economic and social rights. The law protects these in four ways: through common law, the Australian Constitution, ordinary legislation and International Law. The common law protects human rights through judges making court decisions within cases that involve human rights. This is prevalent in cases that are heard in the superior courts where the decision later becomes a precedent for similar cases.

A Bill of Rights is a declaration that lists the fundamental individual rights and freedom a citizen has, typically issued by their national government. To this day, the Bill of Rights is being heavily debated on whether or not it should be enforced in Australia. In a rapidly progressive society, though a Bill of Rights may seem necessary depending on an individual’s morals and ethics, Australia should not employ the Bill of Rights to its citizens. Employing the Bill of Rights will contribute insignificant progress to the development of Australia. This is due to common and statutory law is already enforcing majority of rights, a bill of rights can prove to restrict human rights more.

In addition to National and State laws Australia is a founding member of the United Nations and a party to major Human Rights Treaties. The right to vote without discrimination, is set out in the International Covenant on Civic and Political Right (article 25) and the International Covenant on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (article 5). Both these treaties bind the Australian Government. The right to vote is also set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (article 21) which Australia signed in 1948. There is debate whether Australia’s current approach to deny prisoners the right to vote where they have been sentenced to imprisonment for more than three years satisfies its treaty obligations. The Australian Human Rights Commission holds this view.

Human rights are universal rights that we are entitled to. It is a freedom that is guaranteed based on the principle of respect for an individual. As mentioned in the preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights are a “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all member of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice, and peace in the world” (Kent, page 80). When asked what our rights are, we tend to get different answers and meanings. Some people recite the rights that they know; but let’s face it, not everyone knows all of the rights that they truly have. The rights we have consist of many things such as the right of having an adequate food supply. The right to