INTERPRETATION
In the article, Professor Hilary Charlesworth advocates Australia adopting a formal bill of rights – a statutory one rather than a constitutional one. Charlesworth identifies the three main opposing arguments to an Australian bill of rights including that our current democracy is effective, the possibility of lawyers manipulating a bill of rights to their own advantage and finally that it would be antagonistic to the Australian democratic system.
The rest of the Professor’s argument is then focussed on rebutting the third criticism, which presents the idea that Australian democracy and the judiciary system will be undermined by granting the judiciary power in place of an elected parliament. Charlesworth systematically breaks down this criticism by examining the “legislative human rights record”, the “distortion of the judicial role” the claim presents and by finally examining “eliding constitutional and statutory bills of rights”.
The core purpose of the argument is to refute the claim that adopting a bill of rights will interfere and be in opposition with the ethos of the Australian democracy, asserting that it would actually enrich the country’s democracy.
ANALYSIS
Charlesworth chooses to found her argument on three statutory bills of rights that are currently in use in the United Kingdom, Victoria and The Australian Capital Territory. Charlesworth’s use of these sources relies on the assumption that they improved human rights in their respective
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.
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
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is without a doubt one of Canada’s most important section entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights enacted into the Canadian Constitution as part of the Canada Act in 1982. However, the Charter was Canada’s second attempt to protect the rights and freedoms of its citizens all throughout the country and on every level of government. The Canadian Bill of Rights, which preceded the Charter was enacted in 1960. However, being only a federal statute rather than a full constitutional document, it had no power and application to provincial laws. In addition, the Supreme Court of Canada only narrowly interpreted the Bill of Rights, therefore rarely unlawful laws were declared inoperative and continued to exist. As a result, the ineffectiveness of the Bill of Rights led to many movements to improve the protection of rights and freedoms in Canada. However, similar to its predecessor, the Charter is not without faults, and loopholes. In some cases, it has even infringed upon certain liberties and democratic rights and freedoms. In other cases, the Charter has incited conflicts between liberty and democracy and raised questions that speculate whether it is truly democratic.
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
Vickie Lee Roach was a prisoner whose ability to vote had been taken away by Commonwealth legislation. She argued that the legislation breached her constitutional rights and argued her case in the High Court. Roach’s disqualification from voting violated both the Australian Constitution’s requirement that parliament be “directly chosen by the people” (s7 and s24) and the Constitution’s implied freedom of political communication. The constitutional phrase ‘the people’ was intended to be as broad
Section 51 (xxix) of the Constitution of Australia grants exclusive power to the Commonwealth to legislate with regard to external affairs. Since its inception, through the development of case law, the external affairs power has been found to consist of three limbs:
The “Bill of rights” has been devise as a follow-up to Parliament's earliest Habeas Corpus bill, which guard personal freedom and liberty. Now almost every colony had a bill of rights. The Bill of Rights is a situated of limits on the vitality of the administration. Firstly, the Bill
The adversarial nature of Australia’s court system deal with facts and legal implications. Here lies the establishment of such principles that make the law
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 piece Advance Australia … within reason, was conveyed on the 5th of January by Amy Mackintosh, at the annual “University of Students for Youth Political Activism’ meeting held at The University of Melbourne. Mackintosh steadily argues the reasons why Australia should not have become a republic, and how the country should stay as a monarchy. The tone of the speech is very colloquial and even sarcastic, with the middle part being more analytical and serious. The speaker gives the impression that the argument for Australia to stay as a Monarchy is unbiased and logical.
In the excerpt from Rights Talk, legal scholar Mary Ann Glendon, a strong supporter of individual rights, argues that the current “rights talk” in America has shifted the focus from the real meaning of rights to one which impedes compromise and promotes hyper-individualism. Glendon argues how, although individual rights are important, Americans have to be more realistic and less artificial when it comes to their rights. It has become more difficult to discuss and exchange ideas about matters of high public importance. Respect toward personal and civic responsibilities has diminished because of an expanding catalog of rights. Little thought is given to the true importance of a right, as well as to how simplistic rights talk affects American
The Bill of Rights is a list of limitations on the power of the government. Firstly, the Bill of Rights is successful in assuring the adoption of the Constitution. Secondly, the Bill of Rights did not address every foreseeable situation. Thirdly, the Bill of Rights has assured the safety of the people of the nation. Successes, failures, and consequences are what made the Bill of Rights what they are today.