A Bill of Rights for Australia? (1 Viewer)

[liger]

Getting a federal bill of rights or something similar has been an issue of contension recently especially since the introduction of the new terrorism amendment laws and sedition laws affecting our rights. Many people argue that a bill of rights would be able to create a benchmark or set a certain standard to which other laws would have to comply with. Others argue it would not really be very effective and by entrenching our rights in law, it makes them less flexible. Others argue still that a bill of rights would simply be a 'lawyers paradise' with many more opportunities for people to claim an infringement of human rights etc etc. what do YOU think?


---

Edit (12/8):

Campaign for human rights act

Campaign for human rights act
Kenneth Nguyen
August 12, 2006


GOUGH Whitlam is expected to unite with his former political foe Malcolm Fraser to campaign for a federal human rights act.

The campaign is being led by the former education minister under Bob Hawke, Susan Ryan, who said yesterday that a human rights act could be on Federal Parliament's agenda by the end of the year.

[continued - see link]

 

[TerrbleSpellor]

Re: Bill of Rights in Oz

No tolerant society needs a bill of rights. No intolerant one should ever be oppressed by one.

(PS: you're doing legal studies i assume?)

 

[withoutaface]

Re: Bill of Rights in Oz

Any bill of rights introduced now would be full of positive rights, and as such I'd be absolutely opposed to it.

EDIT: Yeah, AM, I think you just singlehandedly refuted every argument that could be made in favour of a BoR by that single quotation.

 

[liger]

Re: Bill of Rights in Oz

haha yeh i am doing legal, but this topic just really interests me anyway

 

[TerrbleSpellor]

Re: Bill of Rights in Oz

In a secular society, we have no bibles in the realm of law. Therefore, the libertarians propose a book of equal thickness to the bible; a bill of rights. Stuck down the pants of the scoundrel, it still has the same effect, ie. preventing him from getting a shoe up his arse when he clearly deserves it.

 

[withoutaface]

Re: Bill of Rights in Oz

In a secular society, we have no bibles in the realm of law. Therefore, the libertarians propose a book of equal thickness to the bible; a bill of rights. Stuck down the pants of the scoundrel, it still has the same effect, ie. preventing him from getting a shoe up his arse when he clearly deserves it.

Yeah, because it obviously takes a bible length book to say "An individual should not be prevented from exercising their liberty, unless, in the process of doing so, they infringe upon the liberty of others".

 

[TerrbleSpellor]

Re: Bill of Rights in Oz

Yeah, because it obviously takes a bible length book to say "An individual should not be prevented from exercising their liberty, unless, in the process of doing so, they infringe upon the liberty of others".

Name one bill of rights document on earth which is so short?

 

[liger]

Re: Bill of Rights in Oz

but don't u agree that we should recognise the rights in our domestic law that we claim to abide by in international agreements?

 

[erawamai]

Re: Bill of Rights in Oz

EDIT: Yeah, AM, I think you just singlehandedly refuted every argument that could be made in favour of a BoR by that single quotation.

Yes totally. Like Jonothan A with his single quote for Gibbs CJ. Totally and utterly destroys all arguments that can be made for a bill of rights. I'd hope you would know better than to actually think that all arguments for a bill of rights are useless. It's also a little presumtuous to believe that such a bill would include all kinds of awful positive rights that would destroy market principles and the ability of government of the liberal variety to dish out formal equality regardless of the practical considerations. It you were bothered to look the ACT Bill of Rights (of the Human Rights Act) is so watered down anyways other than to read as a nice statement on what should be done.

 

[TerrbleSpellor]

Re: Bill of Rights in Oz

Yes totally. Like Jonothan A with his single quote for Gibbs CJ. Totally and utterly destroys all arguments that can be made for a bill of rights.

I believe it does...

Having a bill of rights.. Having a republic... These things are all along the same lines.. Trying to fix something that isn't broken. I don't see anyones human rights being massively abused in Australia.. So why bother changing it? We already have enough protections. Anything that changes with time, should not be restrained by a bill of rights, nor should a court have to sit there and decide volumes upon volumes of case law on how they are to be interpreted. It has no place in Australia. And if it has no place in Australia, i can see how it is then, that you would be all for it.

 

[erawamai]

Re: Bill of Rights in Oz

I believe it does...

It's obiter matey and it's not based on any legal authority. It's just simply him moralising on political outcomes before he actually cuts in and tells us the legal reason why a Bill of rights is not so great. However it's often quoted for those who like it when judges start to moralise about political outcomes and for those who wouldnt really understand Gibbs getting all legally techical later on.

For those in the thread who don't know. The main argument against the bill of rights is that it would place extensive power in the hands of unelected judges and give them power to make policy, when it should be decided by a resourceful parliament which is accountable to the people. Subsequently a Bill of Rights would infringe the rule of law and corrupt the separation of powers by tipping the scales of policy making towards the Judiciary. This has happened in NZ in relation to it's Bill of Rights.

 

[Iron]

Re: Bill of Rights in Oz

For those in the thread who don't know. The main argument against the bill of rights is that it would place extensive power in the hands of unelected judges and give them power to make policy, when it should be decided by a resourceful parliament which is accountable to the people.

Yeah, it's similar to the Republican debate in the delicacy required to not upset a constitutional power balance.
I for one think that the judiciary could do with more something. The esteem Americans hold their Supreme Court Justices in puts us to shame. It should be made clear that a judiciary has as much power as any President/PM has in affecting people's lives.

 

[liger]

Re: Bill of Rights in Oz

with the current government with the majority in both house, id find it comforting knowing that the courts have a little bit more power in their hand so they can keep some of this crazy legislation in check.

 

[Snaykew]

Re: Bill of Rights in Oz

Why? I am living happily. I am not being oppressed. I have had no incidents where I feel my freedoms have been infringed. Nothing needs to be fixed. Unless the government starts cracking down on other political parties and gaoling their members, I see no threat from our government to restrict our freedoms.

 

[TerrbleSpellor]

Re: Bill of Rights in Oz

I for one think that the judiciary could do with more something. The esteem Americans hold their Supreme Court Justices in puts us to shame. It should be made clear that a judiciary has as much power as any President/PM has in affecting people's lives.

You like the american system do you? (Then go and live there)

For those in the thread who don't know. The main argument against the bill of rights is that it would place extensive power in the hands of unelected judges and give them power to make policy,

no, the main arguement is that it protects douches who don't deserve to be protected.

 

[Iron]

Re: Bill of Rights in Oz

Why? I am living happily. I am not being oppressed. I have had no incidents where I feel my freedoms have been infringed. Nothing needs to be fixed. Unless the government starts cracking down on other political parties and gaoling their members, I see no threat from our government to restrict our freedoms.

I dont see the need either. The concern seems to be how to get the wording right, to squeeze out any power not already practically existing.
American presidents have found all sorts of creative ways to bypass the Bill of Rights anyway.

 

[erawamai]

Re: Bill of Rights in Oz

no, the main arguement is that it protects douches who don't deserve to be protected.

Who is and who isn't a 'douche' is a subjective judgment and probably couldn't be put into any document as you infer.

 

[banco55]

Re: Bill of Rights in Oz

I'm in two minds about this. Obviously it can have unintended consequences. IE some Americans have argued the first amendment means you can't regulate campaign spending. Yet on the other hand you these idiots trying to get so called "Religious intolerance" laws passed and you have John Laws being hauled before a kangaroo court for referring to someone as a pillow biter. A bill of rights would stop that rubbish in its tracks.

 

[Snaykew]

Re: Bill of Rights in Oz

Bill of rights could legalise racism, could it not?

 

[michael_77]

Re: Bill of Rights in Oz

A bill of rights is not necessary as Australia has an effective review mechanism seen in the courts. The courts provide judicial review to ensure that our civil liberties are protected.