The Role Of Human 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.

Data Protection Act 1998 – gives individuals the right to know what information is held about them, and those that processes personal information must comply with eight principles, which makes sure that personal information is fairly and lawfully processed; processed for limited purposes; adequate, relevant and not excessive; accurate and up to date; not kept for longer than is necessary; processed in line with your rights; secure; not transferred to other countries without adequate protection;

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

Unfortunately, individuals are dehumanized by police officers by way of discrimination. One example of unfair treatment from law officers is the racial discrimination in England and Wales uncovered by a shocking survey, “Police forces were threatened today with legal action as the Government’s equality watchdog said Black and Asian Britons were still being unfairly

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

Human Rights Act 1998 – Gives further legal status to the standards on Human Rights that was set out in 1948 with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This highlighted the principle that all humans have the same rights and should be treated equally. This act also sets out the rights of all individuals and allows individuals to take action against authorities when their rights are affected.

`Do Queensland’s ‘tough new laws’ of 2013 that ‘target the illegal activities of criminal bikie gangs’ violate the human rights of motorcycle club members and other members of the public?

The Australian Government, unlike many liberal democracy countries, has no Bill of Rights, instead we have a constitution. This is a document stating the laws of Australia and the way our government must run. A Bill of Rights would positively enforce new, and re-instated laws to protect the rights of Australian people.

Ratifying the Convention meant Australia recognized the disadvantage experienced by disabled individuals and made a commitment to improve their lives, ensuring they were able to enjoy all human rights and freedoms (United Nations, 2006). It is a basic human right that all individuals live free from discrimination and disadvantage (Australian Human Rights Commission, n.d.). However, disabled Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander people are denied this basic human right and continuously exposed to multiple forms of discrimination (Aboriginal Disability Network, 2012, p. 11). Discriminated against for being Aboriginal and for their disability (Aboriginal Disability Network, 2012, p. 11). By ratifying the Convention Australia committed to creating greater opportunities for disabled individuals to partake in all aspects of political and social life (United Nations, 2006).

In 2013, an altercation between outlaw motorcycles gangs the Bandidos and the Finks outside of Aura Tapas and Lounge Bar in Broadbeach, Gold Coast prompted the Liberal Government to pursue reform. This came in the form of three acts passed by Queensland parliament which are “The Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment Act, The Tattoo Parlours Act and The Criminal Law (Criminal Laws Disruption) Amendment Act”[1]. The concerns regarding these acts passed by the Liberal Government are that they could be breaching people’s human rights with the Acts targeting specific people based on their acquaintances instead of something that they have done. These apprehensions have been mentioned by Commision President, Professor Gillian Triggs who has

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 report highlights a continuous period where police officers and their employers are subject to the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, The Disability Discrimination Act 1995, 2005 and the Equality Act 2010. It takes place at a time where the police service has been labelled as ‘institutionally racist’ (Macpherson, 1999) and at a time when studies show that racism, sexism and gender are a significant factor within the dominant and highly influential police occupational culture (Loftus, 2008). The purpose of this report is to examine the equality and diversity procedures carried out within the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS- the largest Police Service in England and Wales) in comparison to UK legislation and Policy.

Therefore, the inability of the family to have their detention reviewed by a court violated article 9(4). The Human Rights Committee said that domestic review of the lawfulness of detention ought to include deliberation of Australia’s obligations under the ICCPR. The Human Rights Council found an added breach of article 2(3) (the right to an effective remedy), despite this breach not being affirmed explicitly by “A”. Australia rejected the Human Rights Committee’s interpretation of the Covenant and declined to compensate the “A” family. The Human Rights Council has deemed this response from the State Party unsatisfactory.

today we call them human rights" (McShea 34). The issue of whether or not to

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).