Research Paper On Human Rights In Australia

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

Australia’s bid for a seat on the council should be seen as an insult to the promotion and protection of human rights. With countless breaches of human rights on its record Australia is far from suitable for a position on the Human Rights

In relation to the Charter, my advice is that Josh’s conduct is not protected and the cancellation of his parole by the Adult Parole Board was not in breach of the Charter. Moreover, the conduct of Dianne and Cary is initially protected by the Charter however due to the limitations placed upon human rights it can be argued that Dianne and Cary’s conduct are indeed in breach. Additionally Victoria police in partner with AX6 are in breach of numerous rights set out in the Charter, which will be discussed in further detail.

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

Currently, human rights in Australia are protected in different ways. Unlike most other similar liberal democracies, Australia has no Bill of Rights to protect human rights in one single document. Instead, some rights can be found in the Constitution, our common law and legislation which includes acts passed by the Commonwealth Parliament or State or Territory Parliaments.

The processing of these crimes help to embed the key of legal knowledge in the mind of a child hoping to shape their future actions. NSW age of criminal responsibility is defined by statute as 10 years of age, which is recognised in Children’s (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW). Meaning that a child under 10 years of age cannot be charged for a crime. The basis of this is the recognition of the immaturity and exposure of children and their inability to form the requisite criminal intent known as mens

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.

In Australian criminal law any children under the age of 10 are considered to be incapable of committing a crime. This means that NO child under ten can ever be convicted of a crime. Between the ages of 10 and 14 we presume that children do not understand enough to have been responsible for the crime, but this can be proven otherwise in a court of law. This is important, because it means that any child who is convicted of a serious crime has been found by a court of law to be mentally capable of committing the crime. On the Affirmative it is important to establish that these children knew that what they were doing was wrong, and therefore should be held to the same standard as adults when they commit these crimes.

Across Australia, children under the age of 10 cannot be charged with a criminal offence because they are believed to be immature, while people 10 or over are believed to be criminally responsible and can be charged. Australian youth justice system says that young people should be imprisoned only as a last resort. South Australia started the Young Offenders Act in 1993 to improve its juvenile justice system. The purpose of the Act was to make courts provide juvenile offenders with care and a variety of programs that helps them be able to become responsible members of their community. The Act that helps the youth to be able to stay in their communities so they can be with their families, hold a job, and go to school. Western Australia, juvenile justice follows the Young Offenders Act of 1994. The YO Act calls for non-legal ways in which the juveniles who are sent to court will be disciplined. Courts only use imprisonment as a last resort. The goal of the YO Act is to rehabilitate youths and try to keep minors out of trouble with the law, which costs over $190,000 per year per juvenile. In Western Australia they have several other options for juveniles besides imprisonment, such as fines, community service and participation in treatment programs and intensive supervision. They also provide a new program called the Intensive Supervision Program, it allows juveniles

All people are entitled to various basic rights which should not be desecrated under any situation. Some of these rights include political rights, civil liberties and most importantly the right to physical safety and life. Human rights bodies articulate for tolerance, justice, human dignity and mutual respect for all people. Human rights are protected by ensuring that all people receive humane and decent treatment. Denying people their basic rights are violating them and it’s a terrible offense which can face a strict legal response. Everything that violates people’s rights or prevents them from enjoying ought to be eliminated with immediate effect.. Many people from all over the world cannot access some services due to poverty.

In spite of the fact that there is much controversy when regarding human rights and the degree to which the authorities are determined to get actively involved in stopping significant crimes from being committed, its components basically remained the same. The European Court of Human Rights has the authority to determine the outcome of a trial involving a violation of human rights and all judges coming across such a case need to take into consideration the court's decision.

The Constitution of India is imbued with the spirit of promoting and protecting the human rights of its constituents. But, merely incorporating a comprehensive bill of rights will not deliver the goods. And, although Article 32 of the Constitution assures an individual the right to move the Supreme Court of India for the enforcement of his/her rights, other constraints (like court fees, large back log of pending cases, and the intricacies of legal procedures leading to inordinate delay in justice) make the legal option difficult and almost unapproachable for the ordinary person. The implementation of laws that guarantee constitutional rights can be overseen by special administrative or institutional measures. The Indian Government has set up many special institutions under different acts of parliament and the primary task of these institutions is to give effect to various constitutional rights, particularly the rights of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. One such important institution is the National Human Rights Commission. In order to understand the powers and functioning of this commission it is necessary to know the various Indian Laws relating to Human Rights.