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.
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.
The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities: Does it Protect and Uphold Human Rights?
Every year, thousands of people seek refuge in Australia after being forced to flee their homes. Under the UN 1951 Refugee convention, countries are obliged to protect refugees and basic human rights must be upheld. However, Australia is violating these laws. As of August 2013, a report by the Australian Human Rights
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
However, although their rights were recognised starting from 1900s, some argue that it is insufficient as Australia does not has a ‘Bill of Rights’ and the Constitution is not a document which focus on human rights (Bailey 2008; Owen 2010). Despites of the claims, there is no need for the Australian government to have a ‘Bill of Right’ as the third element of Rule of Law already ensures the protection of human rights and natural justice. Plus, having a ‘Bill of Rights’ means that it will be likely subjected to High Court’s interpretation and will not guarantee protection of 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.
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
The case of Ruddock v Vadarlis is fundamental when it comes to understanding the rights of an individual or human rights more broadly and how they are protected by public law in Australia, however this is an extremely complex issue, and this case outlined many of the protections that ensure human rights but also was one of the defining moments for human rights and public policy in the contemporary era, this cases influence stretches far, but this essay will explain how this case enshrined how Australian public law protects people’s rights. This essay will focus on the individual rights of Australians, this in itself generates a great deal of discussion and viewpoints, different ideas on exactly what rights were protected, and which rights
Ever since the 1970s Australia has welcomed people from all cultures and prides itself of being a multicultural nation. It is now one of the most culturally diverse countries on the planet with almost half of all Australians either born overseas or have at least one parent who was. The basic norms that make a multicultural society like Australia's possible are human rights. They are the standards that guide interactions between people which encourage mutual respect and equality. However there are groups and individuals in Australia who deviate away from these norms and do not treat those from other cultures with the respect and dignity they are entitled to.
A recent released Human Right Watch annual report targeted Australia’s human rights issue. The government owned media SBS repeated and cited this reported with the top-line of “Australia has ‘serious unresolved’
The Human Rights Act of 1998, also abbreviated to HRA is a national law passed in the United Kingdom and mostly came into force on 2 October 2000. Its purpose is to incorporate the rights within the European Convention on Human Rights into UK national law. This law allows the citizens of the United Kingdom to defend their rights in UK courts and states that public organisations such as the Government, Police and other public authorities must respect the people’s rights by treating them fairly and equally with dignity. Firstly, this essay will be discussing what the Human Rights Act (1998) is and its effects. Secondly, this essay will be pointing out the Articles and explaining the Act. Thirdly, this essay will be talking about the history and why this act came into place. Finally, this essay will argue the necessity of the Human Rights Act (1998).
In Australia and around the world, social justice, civil rights and freedom have constantly been a point of debate and struggle. With government and higher powers attempting to make everything work with each other and get rid of discord, they subsequently affect another person’s freedom. Advocates for rights and freedom vouch for many different things, from racial equality to homosexual civil rights, every case brings with it political opposition. Over many years of trial and tribulation the modern activist has almost overcome the struggles of previous generations. That is not to say there is no longer any struggle at all.
Human rights can be summarized as the activities and freedoms that all human beings are entitled to enjoy and only by virtue of their humanity. These conditions are generally guaranteed in the constitution of the land. They are widely felt in the area as they are divided and not limited to political, social economic and cultural rights. Some of the main principles of human rights include the fact that they are inherent, inalienable and indivisible as well. In this relation, human rights can never be taken away from an individual whereby the enjoyment of one right should not infringe the enjoyment of other. They must all be respected and maintained.
Asylum seekers or refugees have fled their countries’ due to volatile circumstances such as war, or fear of prosecution. Upon arrival in Australia they are moved to detention centres. Detention centres hold people who have come without a visa, any non-national and all unauthorised boat arrivals (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2014). These centres hold refugees for indefinite periods and in poor conditions. They are used as a spectacle to represent illegality and a threat to Australian society (Marfleet, 2007, p672).