The Issues Of The Australian Government

In the 21st Century many things have been called into question. Among those things is the adversarial system that Australia’s Rule of Law system follows. The argument stands that the adversarial system is too aggressive in its approach to the legal system. Would Australia benefit more from the adversarial system changing into the inquisitorial system or would it be more beneficial to create a hybrid of the two. This essay will aim to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of both the current system of adversarial and the more European system of inquisitorial. Highlighting why it is important to begin moving away from a traditional adversarial system drawing evidence from the Family court of Australia, the Netherlands and Nigeria’s current

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

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

The Australian Constitution is a rich amalgam of various classical political principles. The concepts of the Rule of Law and the doctrine of the Separation of Powers evident in Montesquieu’s Spirit of the Laws are both salient examples of political theses that are central to Australian Constitutional Law. The structure of the Constitution itself and decisions of the High Court of Australia unequivocally validate the entrenchment of the doctrine separation of powers in the Commonwealth Constitution . In particular, the High Court has applied this with relative rigour with respect to the separation of judicial power. The separation of the judicial power is fundamentally critical to upholding the rule of law. The High Court in Wilson v Minister for Aboriginal Affairs noted that “the separation of the judicial function…advances two constitutional objectives: the guarantee of liberty and, to that end, the independence of Chapter III judges” . Kitto J in R v Davidson also identified that the judiciary should be subject to no other authority but the law itself . This is a critical aspect ensuring the concept of legal equality is upheld. Therefore, its role clearly extends to providing checks and balances on the exercise of power by the legislative and executive arms of government . This ensures the liberty of the law and limits the abuse of the judicial system. Judicial Power is defined as “the power which every sovereign must of necessity have to decide between its subjects

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

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

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 inception of the Constitution Act, 1982 is inarguably a highly significant event in Canada’s political history, and has impacted the political and legal landscape in numerous ways. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms regulates interaction and communication between the government and individuals, granting them with much needed protection of their rights and freedoms. Needless to say, these rights and freedoms are a critical part of the democratic political system and it is believed by many that the Charter is one of the most important legislations in Canada, as it allows laws that infringe the rights and freedoms of individuals to come under scrutiny and removed if necessary. Despite these protections that are guaranteed by the Charter

There has been debate within the Australian Government about whether the defence of provocation should be changed or abolished. Over the years this defence has undergone changes through interpretation in cases and through legislative amendments. “Provocation; a totally flawed defence that has no place in Australia criminal law irrespective of sentencing regime”. These are the words of Andrew Hemming, a Senior Lecturer of Law within the School of Law and Justice at University of Southern Queensland. He states that provocation laws should be completely abolished throughout the whole of Australia not just in a few jurisdictions (Hemming, 2010). The current provocation laws in Queensland allow criminals to unethically downgrade their sentence

Amidst the information age, the Australian public faces perhaps the defining societal challenge of the 21st Century, the unprecedented governmental surveillance of metadata. Metadata surveillance refers to the recent legislation passed in March of this year, which sees compulsory retention of information by Australian telecommunication corporations, the individualised communications data of each Australian citizen.

The work entitled "An International Assessment of Journalist Privileges and Source Confidentiality" reports the case Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Corporation in which the High Court "has found an implied constitutional 'freedom of communication between the people to exercise a free and informed choice as electors, but no Australian court has yet accepted this as requiring special protection for news gathers sources. However, in New South Wales, a state in Australia, the Evidence Act stipulates that revelation of sources is 'in the paramount interest of justice." ( p.124)

In Australia, certain protection is given to political speech as it is rendered necessary for the system of representative government to have free speech:

The human right to express personal opinion publicly without fear of any punishment is one of the greatest achievements of our civilisation. However as usual this freedom might be overused, so a government has to control the quality of information and implications of speech.

The freedom of peaceful association is a right that is possessed by everyone. However despite the significance of this right, and as is the case with other human rights, it is absent from the Constitution of Australia. In the present paper, an attempt has been made, first of all to analyse the effect of consulting laws on the freedom of association in its social, logical, political and cultural contexts. As mentioned above, there is no explicit right to freedom of association that has been provided by the Constitution of Australia. However during the last decade, a view has been expressed by the High Court of Australia that the Australian Constitution contains an implied freedom of communication regarding the political matters of public

After experiencing a difficult time in New Order era (1966-1998), when the civil rights to freely obtain information had been abused by the government at that time, a glimmer of hope emerged when the government enact a new Act regarding Public Freedom of Information in 2008 (Act number 14). But just as too good to be true, the hope was only short lived. It seemed that the government is