Essay On Right To Vote In Australia

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.

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

That’s why their rights should be taken away in jail. Another, reason why prisoners should not be allowed to vote in jail is because they are not in a mentally stable state. That’s why they go to jail to serve their punishment for breaking the law. Their freedom get’s taken away and that’s why their right to vote in prison should also be taken away so they can learn and become a better person in jail. Lastly, they prisoners should not vote because they don’t know what’s happening in the real world due to their isolation in prison. The democratic rights from The Canadian Charter of Rights allows citizens who are Canadian to vote if they are eighteen and up because the government believes the are more knowledgeable about election and mature. Prisoners would not be able to make a wise decision when it comes to voting because they spent most their life in jail and have less information about politics and issues. Overall, voting is huge responsibility which citizens take as an opportunity to make a great change in the

Having the right to vote is a part of being an American just like making a mistake is a part of being human. President Obama said it best “...while the people in our prisons have made some mistakes - and sometimes big mistakes - they are

This has time and time again been up to par with several pros and cons. In this, portraying the message that in which reinforces and disconnects ex-convicts to the right to vote and what they will face if they are reinstated as members of American society. Throughout this debate, individuals may discuss assumptions and proposals that give those with opinions to consider the latter— or not. According to Steve Chapman (2006), “[America lets] ex-convicts marry, reproduce, buy [alcohol], own property and drive. They don't lose their freedom of religion, their right against self-incrimination or their right not to have soldiers quartered in their homes in time of war. But in many places, the assumption is that they can't be trusted to help choose our leaders... If we thought criminals could never be reformed, we wouldn't let them out of prison in the first place (n.p.).” This enhancing the idea that prisoners are allowed to vote once reinstated into society. In contrast, Roger Clegg, J.D (2004) states, “We don't let children vote, for instance, or noncitizens, or the mentally incompetent. Why? Because we don't trust them and their

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

Voting in many countries is held in different ways. In The United States of America, voting is voluntary while the Australian citizen has to vote, it is compulsory. When an Australian citizen does not vote they receive a fine. Compulsory voting has now become a large political issue for many countries. Great Britain has seen a dramatic decline in the number of people voting in the last 15 years (Singh, 2014) and compulsory voting has become a large political and social debate. However, as with any political change, there are strengths and weaknesses. The Australian system is an excellent one to analyse as the question has to be asked when introducing compulsory voting what are the long term democratic, economic and social issues? Four key points can be outlined to consider the strengths and weaknesses of the Australian compulsory voting system. The first, compulsory voting provides a clear and accurate representation of an entire electorate. Additionally, this system may influence an increase in support for the leftist policy in a current democratic institution. Another key issue to consider is, does an active and informed citizen have a moral duty and obligation to vote to protect and further society? Key constitutional changes brought about by referendums can prove that compulsory voting is essential and needed in society for every vote to count. Lastly, compulsory voting when being a secret ballot can turn into a more compulsory “turn up” for many citizens as they can

This report will cover the history of the Aboriginal Voting rights in Australia. The Aboriginals did not gain the right to federal voting at least 150 years after the British colonized in Australia. All citizens of a nation deserve equal rights.

Since the turn of the twenty first century, in Canada voter turnout has made a significant and consecutive decline. In the last five federal elections on average only sixty-one per cent of eligible voters voted. If each eligible citizen voted in an election the government would be on par with the primary interests of the people. The easiest way to achieve this objective is by implementing a compulsory voting system. Mandatory voting systems are appealing because all citizens are affected by decisions made by the government, so it makes sense to have all those affected apart of the election process. As a result, the voting results would be more representative of the country and that would lead to an increase of stability and legitimacy.

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.

Shaw provides a good point when he states: “Going through rehabilitation and reintegration, ex-felons become part of a law-abiding society with the same privileges as others in the society, proponents for voting rights argue.” If they go through these things to become a part of society again, then why are they not allowed the right to vote? This must be an upsetting process for those felons that want to become a part of society again and actually care to make a difference. All that they want to do is to be granted one of the basic fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. I mean that’s the least they should get after going through the process that they do. It is only fair for them to obtain the right to vote again because at the end of the day they did what was required of them to become a part of society again and what is the use of that if they cannot even vote?

United Kingdom is one of the countries of European Union which bans voting among convicted prisoners (Black, Dhami, and Easter 2012, 44). According to ICPS (2013), total population of prisoners in UK,including Scotland and Northern Ireland equals to 94,136. Allowing inmates to take a part in elections became a serious political issue aftr the decision of European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the "Hirst vs UK" case, which ruled that the rights of convicted were violated by total prohibition on voting in the elections undr the ECHR. However, parliament of the country has different views - most of th goverment's representatives do not agree with court's ruling. There are still a lot of discussions, relating to this question and no common