The Importance Of Bill Of Rights In Australia

Together these legislations formed the fundamental rights and freedom of an individual. These affect the rights of everyday life of an individual including what they can say and do, their beliefs, right not to be tortured and right to a

Human Rights Act 1998 – is an Act that gives legal effect in the UK to certain fundamental rights and freedoms contained in

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

This section provides a summary of the main findings of major reviews that have been conducted of the effectiveness of the Human Rights Act by the government, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Commission. The reviews indicated that the HRA had largely had a positive impact on public service delivery and the enjoyment of human rights. However there are a number of barriers to the HRA 's effectiveness: significant misconceptions about the HRA are held by sections of the media, general public and at times public authorities (including by frontline staff in public authorities on when the HRA is not relevant), a need to improve understanding and application of the HRA by public authorities, and a need for better leadership on human rights issues by the government and the Commission.

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 rights and freedoms of Aboriginals have improved drastically since 1945 with many changes to government policy, cultural views and legal rules to bring about a change from oppression to equality. Unfortunately on the other hand, some rights and freedoms have not improved at all or have even worsened.

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 need for Australia to play a leadership role in promoting human rights within the Asia-Pacific region to promote regional stability;

Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people are considered to be one of the most disadvantaged groups in Australia (Aboriginal Disability Network, 2012, p. 10). This disadvantage is further enhanced if an individual has a disability (Aboriginal Disability Network, 2012, p. 10). As a result of this disadvantage, disabled Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people face many complex disability and exclusion issues. For the purpose of this essay education and access to culturally competent services will be discussed, along with social marginalization and the continued denial of basic human rights despite Australia ratifying the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Human rights are the rights of humans, regardless of nationality, gender, race, or religion. We should all have this in common as we are all part of humanity. However, Indigenous people did not always have these rights (Ag.gov.au, 2015). Aside from basic human rights, Indigenous people also have their own rights specific to their culture. Before 1967, Indigenous people had different rights in different states and the Australian federal government did not have any jurisdiction over Aboriginal affairs until Australia’s constitution was amended for this purpose in 1967 (Moadoph.gov.au, 2015). Between 1900 and the present time, there have been significant changes to the rights of Indigenous Australians. The effects of the European Settlement on the Indigenous people of Australia have been devastating. When white people began arriving in Australia, the Aboriginal people believed them to be ghosts of ancestor spirits. However, once they realised the settlers were invading their land, the Aborigines became, understandably, hostile (Slater & Parish, 1999, pp.8-11). In 1788, the total Indigenous population was believed to be between 750,000 and one million. By 1888, the Indigenous population was reduced to around 80,000 Australia wide (Korff, 2014). The three main reasons for this dramatic decline were the introduction of new diseases, violent conflicts with the colonisers, and settlers acquiring Indigenous land (Digital, 2015). In 1848, the Board of National Education stated that it

The Commonwealth of Australia believes that everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, water, and housing. Australia acknowledges adequate housing as an essential for human survival as supported in documents such as Australia's National Human Rights Action Plan. “Human rights provides us with a language and a framework that can help shift the debate from one of welfare and pity to one of rights and empowerment.” (Graeme Innes, former Human Rights Commissioner)

Human rights are considered to be inborn freedoms of every person, regardless of nationality, status, gender, ethnicity, colour, religion or language. Although human rights can be acknowledged as a multitude of things depending on ones subjective perspective, one can draw a conclusion and state that that all persons should be treated with respect and dignity. However, what usually poses the problem is the application of these norms. The overlapping of social identities and the supremacy of one over another might cause different ways of inequity. This example of such intersectionality can be observed in the Canadian residential schools where the indigenous people were subjected to forced Christianization.

Human rights are inalienable, no matter what ethnicity or culture one belongs to. Every human is entitled to their Human Rights. For a large period of time in Australian history Indigenous Australians were discriminated against, abused and denied their Human Rights. The Bringing Them Home Report significantly advanced the rights of Indigenous Australians as it began the reconciliation process which recognised the injustices which had been done to Indigenous Australians involved in the Stolen Generations, and set out a list of recommendations to create equality in Australia. Whilst an apology was given to the Indigenous Australians the concept of reparations still remains a major topic in the Bringing Them Home Report

In Australia human rights have been honored and legislated in most sectors of society with the majority of the population living prosperous lives without much predicament. Moreover, the general populace has the ability to copiously exercise their human rights without opposition. Thus, Australia is well known for possessing one of the highest wellbeing rates in the world. However, this wasn’t, and arguably is still not the case for Indigenous Australians. Indigenous Australians have been statistically proven to fair much poorer in general wellbeing and thus their rights and freedoms (as the two are irrefutably intertwined) in comparison to their non-indigenous Australian counterparts. In regards to this, the content of this paper shall be

The United States Constitution, the highest law in the land, is the foundation of the entire government. In December of 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified by three-fourths of the states and was therefore added to the Constitution, becoming law. Out of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights, the section regarding freedom of expression within the first amendment and ninth amendment protect a large portion of the freedom enjoyed by the citizens of the United States. These amendments are different in what they protect: the First Amendment regarding free speech provides protection for a single, identified right, whereas the Ninth Amendment is far vaguer and is therefore less powerful. The free speech phrase has protected far more over US