Should australia have a bill of rights essay

Bill of Rights

It would have given the courts the power to strike down legislation passed by Parliament on the ground that the laws were inconsistent with the Bill of Rights. This is the system in the United States where the Supreme Court regularly upholds challenges to laws which infringe various entrenched constitutional rights, eg, the right to bear arms. However, I would argue that the American experience has not been positive.

In that country, freedom of religion has become freedom from religion. Moreover, the constitutional right to bear arms has stood in the way of sensible gun law reform in the US. A US-style Bill of Rights removes the power to determine how a society operates from a government elected by the people and places it in the hands of an unelected group of judges who are not accountable to the people.

Does Australia need a bill of rights?

The system also politicises and corrupts the judiciary. Judges should be appointed because of their competence, integrity and independence, not because of their adherence to some political philosophy or ideology. If judges are to be the final arbiters of our rights, it is not surprising that those with the power to appoint judges will choose those who share their ideology. In , the Hawke Labor government tried a different tack. The activism of the High Court of Australia in the s and early s probably dampened public enthusiasm for a Bill of Rights.

  • Should Australia have a bill of rights?.
  • essay great people never die?
  • Check out how works.
  • george orwell best essays.

They have abandoned proposals to place the judiciary above the Parliament. The Canadian and New Zealand models do allow Parliament to pass laws which infringe rights within certain limits. Australian developments. It is based on the New Zealand model and has been followed by a similar Bill not yet passed in Victoria. They deal with:.

Whilst one might agree in general terms with the sentiments which underlie most of the foregoing rights and freedoms, they are very broad and general concepts. When one comes to determine the extent of, say, the right to life, one immediately becomes embroiled in philosophical and religious issues which should be the subject of genuine debate in the community, not set in stone and left to the arbitration of the judiciary. However, a declaration does not render the infringing legislation invalid and the legislature can choose to ignore a declaration of incompatibility.

If it is not, no Bill of Rights will preserve it. When it does there is no constitution, no law, no court that can do much to help it. While it lives it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it. Home Events About Contact Us. Should Australia have a bill of rights? The purpose of this paper is to present the arguments for and against a Bill of Rights.

Guaranteed or declared individual rights are no longer largely a European phenomenon as they were thought to be by English and Australian common lawyers when the Australian Constitution came into operation at the beginning of the 20th century.

  • Should Australia Have a Bill of Rights?.
  • Constitutional Law Essay- Bill Of Rights Arguments | BLB - Constitutional Law | Thinkswap.
  • interpretive essay rubric grade 5.

A Bill of Rights is now a central feature of the constitutional or public law arrangements of other major jurisdictions which share the common law tradition — the United Kingdom itself, the United States, Canada and New Zealand, to name four of them. They are the countries with which we most frequently compare ourselves. They share our legal, historical and cultural heritage and a system of democratic government. Yet they have found it necessary or desirable to temper the will of the majority by providing for additional protection for individual rights for the very reason that neither the common law nor the political process sufficiently protect them.

The emphasis on protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the end of World War II arose out of the need to protect minorities and individuals from discrimination and oppression on racial, religious and other grounds and to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals from the overriding exercise and abuse of state power.

Why do we need a bill of rights? - Centre for Policy Development

Although the threat of terrorism has rightly caused countries to make special and wide-ranging arrangements for security, we have seen how readily the political process has been prepared to compromise basic individual rights and to countenance procedures which are inconsistent with basic elements of the rule of law. Government proposals for lengthy detention of suspects without any or speedy access to the courts and an apparent reluctance to accept meaningful judicial review of the detention of suspects have been features of the so-called War against Terror.

  • Please turn JavaScript on and reload the page.;
  • foundation for critical thinking publisher.
  • thesis statement for indian removal act.
  • Should Australia have a bill of rights? – Australian Family Association.
  • Human rights in Australia.
  • The Federal Parliament and the Protection of Human Rights;

Politicians have a powerful survival instinct. They are anxious to keep on side with popular sentiment, even more so when popular sentiment has been fanned by media-fuelled anxiety about threats to security. So the political process is willing to compromise on basic rights and on the rule of law so as to convey the impression that politicians are seen as tough on terrorism.

What human rights protections does Australia have?

In the result, statute law may override common law protection of fundamental rights and basic elements of the rule of law. This willingness to compromise on basic rights is not confined to threats to security, where the justification may seem stronger. Such a situation may happen infrequently but the fact that it can happen was enough to persuade the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and New Zealand to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms, either by constitutionally-entrenched guarantees or statute.

A constitutionally entrenched Bill would certainly give more power to judges than they have. It would enable the judges to override Parliament. But a statute-based Bill, which I favour, would not have that result; it would leave the judges with their ordinary role of interpreting the laws made by Parliament, but in the light of the Bill of Rights. A Bill of Rights in this form can be changed by Parliament. Parliament also has the capacity, by specific and clear language at any time, to override or qualify statutory rights.

But if Parliament takes this course, it must confront the impact of its proposed law on the rights protected by the Bill and deal with that impact specifically. The experience in other countries also confirms the lesson of history — that the rights of individuals are better protected by judges than by politicians.

Politicians and administrators are primarily concerned with the exercise of government power and policy. Judges are primarily concerned with the rights of individuals.