NationStates Jolt Archive

Righto, I'm sitting here in my Legal Studies class looking for a valid excuse to be on the forums, so here it is:

Australia is currently without a Bill of Rights. The only right that is protected by the Constitution is the right against arbitary confiscation of property (section 51, xxxi). So here is the question: Do you think Australia or, for that matter, any country should have a Bill of Rights?

If there are other laws that protect those rights and everybody agrees that those are robust enough, then there's not a need for an overarching Bill of Rights.

The current political climate showcase the importance of a ironclad Bill of Rights to direct governments in lawmaking and adminsitration. Anti-terror and IR reforms are clear examples where due to no specifications in ragards to what are and what are not inalienable rights, results in a situation of massive conflict.

If there are other laws that protect those rights and everybody agrees that those are robust enough, then there's not a need for an overarching Bill of Rights.

I'm inclined to agree, but in the light of this recent lot of IR and terrorism legislation, I'm begginning to doubt whether the rights in our non-constitutional statutes are able to protect our rights.

The current political climate showcase the importance of a ironclad Bill of Rights to direct governments in lawmaking and adminsitration. Anti-terror and IR reforms are clear examples where due to no specifications in ragards to what are and what are not inalienable rights, results in a situation of massive conflict.
yeah, but there's probably a good chance that after the next election, many of those laws will be repealed of altered if enough people vote right

I'm inclined to agree, but in the light of this recent lot of IR and terrorism legislation, I'm begginning to doubt whether the rights in our non-constitutional statutes are able to protect our rights.
Thirded.

I'm inclined to agree, but in the light of this recent lot of IR and terrorism legislation, I'm begginning to doubt whether the rights in our non-constitutional statutes are able to protect our rights.
'Tis true. Sometimes it's necessary to agree before hand how far one's willing to go and make it clear that it'll be no further.

The current political climate showcase the importance of a ironclad Bill of Rights to direct governments in lawmaking and adminsitration. Anti-terror and IR reforms are clear examples where due to no specifications in ragards to what are and what are not inalienable rights, results in a situation of massive conflict.

The thing about defining inalieble rights in a constitutional document is that the rights and wording have to be timeless. We may put rights in there now that are either irrelevant or socially unacceptable in a century's time. A perfect example of this is amendment 3 of the US Bill of Rights, and I don't believe that the second one is entirely appropriate nowadays either, though that is a much more contraversial topic.

If there are other laws that protect those rights and everybody agrees that those are robust enough, then there's not a need for an overarching Bill of Rights.
when our constitution was written, it was decided that there would be no need for a bill of rights as no government would do something as stupid as introduce laws that were obviously against our rights and that if this did happen, the courts can set legal precedents that get around them or rule these laws unconstitutional

Australian Consitution is that good, it still has some very valid points that still determine fair outcomes. It's a quirky one this one. Personally I believe that when Australia is ready to be a republic, then it'll need a Bill of Rights

yeah, but there's probably a good chance that after the next election, many of those laws will be repealed of altered if enough people vote right

What, you meant like the last time? Blind Freddy could have told you that Johnny was going to pass laws like this, and what did the electorate do?

Australian Consitution is that good, it still has some very valid points that still determine fair outcomes. It's a quirky one this one. Personally I believe that when Australia is ready to be a republic, then it'll need a Bill of Rights
we basically are a republic, the queen doesn't have any power at all and if we had a president like america does, you can see how we'd turn out

What, you meant like the last time? Blind Freddy could have told you that Johnny was going to pass laws like this, and what did the electorate do?
yeah, but maybe now that people see that he ACTUALLY went ahead with that stupidity, they may change their votes.
which reminds me, i should enrol to vote

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.html

The German constitution has the various rights enshrined in itself, without having a seperate bill of rights as such.
It works - but even this one isn't a defense if the courts decide in strange ways:
Article 13 (Inviolability of the home).
(1) The home is inviolable.
(2) Searches may be ordered only by a judge or, in the event of danger in delay, by other organs as provided by law and may be carried out only in the form prescribed by law.
(3) Otherwise, this inviolability may be encroached upon or restricted only to avert a common danger or a mortal danger to individuals, or, pursuant to a law, to prevent imminent danger to public security and order, especially to alleviate the housing shortage, to combat the danger of epidemics or to protect endangered juveniles.
They didn't have point 3 in there before, but they put it in so they could listen in on phone conversations in criminal investigations. I'm not happy.

yeah, but there's probably a good chance that after the next election, many of those laws will be repealed of altered if enough people vote right
I'm not commenting on whether or not these laws are right. What I am saying is that it is unacceptable to have a situation where State Solicitor-Generals and the Federal Attorney-General cannot agree on the legitimacy of legislation.

A clearly defined Bill of Rights would clear a tight line through the massive grey areas our parliament and courts now find themselves in.

yeah, but maybe now that people see that he ACTUALLY went ahead with that stupidity, they may change their votes.
which reminds me, i should enrol to vote

At least you have that option, I'm only 16.

I'm not commenting on whether or not these laws are right. What I am saying is that it is unacceptable to have a situation where State Solicitor-Generals and the Federal Attorney-General cannot agree on the legitimacy of legislation.

A clearly defined Bill of Rights would clear a tight line through the massive grey areas our parliament and courts now find themselves in.

All well and good in theory, but the thing about specifically and clearly defined rights, are that they tend to become obsolete or innappropriate over time. On the flip side, generally worded rights tend to be timeless, but they can also cause more trouble than their worth due to the neumerous interpretations. The trick is to find the balance, and that is very hard to do.

I'm not commenting on whether or not these laws are right. What I am saying is that it is unacceptable to have a situation where State Solicitor-Generals and the Federal Attorney-General cannot agree on the legitimacy of legislation.

A clearly defined Bill of Rights would clear a tight line through the massive grey areas our parliament and courts now find themselves in.
to a certain extent, except for the fact that you'd have to word them really well and you can't really change them once you put them in (in australia someting like 8/43 proposed constitutional ammendments have been passed)

The Governor-General has extensive powers.

As for a Bill-of-Rights, it will, as it has in the United States, lead to legislation by courts, not elected parliaments. It will effectively destroy the states by imposing conformity.

The drafting of Bills-of-Rights in the 18th century was primarily about protecting the people from the government, contemporary efforts are more about protecting the government from the people, and giving entitlements to special interest groups.

The drafting of a Bill-of-Rights will take Australia a step closer to judicial dictatorship. We already have a High Court Judge who publically advocated judicial activism (Sir Michael Kirby), a Bill-of-Rights will give Australia a seven-man Judicial Junta.

The Governor-General has extensive powers.

As for a Bill-of-Rights, it will, as it has in the United States, lead to legislation by courts, not elected parliaments. It will effectively destroy the states by imposing conformity.

The drafting of Bills-of-Rights in the 18th century was primarily about protecting the people from the government, contemporary efforts are more about protecting the government from the people, and giving entitlements to special interest groups.

The drafting of a Bill-of-Rights will take Australia a step closer to judicial dictatorship. We already have a High Court Judge who publically advocated judicial activism (Sir Michael Kirby), a Bill-of-Rights will give Australia a seven-man Judicial Junta.

That's a pretty big call...

to a certain extent, except for the fact that you'd have to word them really well and you can't really change them once you put them in (in australia someting like 8/43 proposed constitutional ammendments have been passed)
This is true. However unless we begin attemtping to clearly define the rights of citizens and government now, it will only become harder with time.

That's a pretty big call...
yeah, but it's more or less correct. we need ot convince people it's a bad idea and that statement is more or less true

This is true. However unless we begin attemtping to clearly define the rights of citizens and government now, it will only become harder with time.

Another very good point. The problem, of course, with this debate is that each side has a series of very valid points, so really what we have to decide is how to weigh them up.

This is true. However unless we begin attemtping to clearly define the rights of citizens and government now, it will only become harder with time.
may i point out that with this govournment, there's no cahce of getting a good bill of rights and so there's no chance of this idea working anyhow

...contemporary efforts are more about protecting the government from the people, and giving entitlements to special interest groups...
This you are going to have to substantiate with a few facts.

The Australian people voted for the Liberals because they erroneously believed the interest rate bullshit, which is wrong on so many counts it is not even funny anymore.

They did not vote for them so that they would erode the system of IR that has worked for the past 50 years or so, that people know and are to some extent proud of, in favour of a system where the checkout-chick at Coles is going to have to negotiate whether she'll get a lunchbreak.
Nor did they vote to have their media shut up about anything remotely critical of the government. People want to hear what the other side says, even if they disagree with it. Sedition, dentention and all the rest of it was not what the Australian people expected from their government, and the lack of a "Bill of Rights" or whatever one might decide to call it means that they have nothing at all to protect themselves right now.

may i point out that with this govournment, there's no cahce of getting a good bill of rights and so there's no chance of this idea working anyhow

And yet we keep putting them into power...

This is yet more evidence of John's political skill. I'm pretty sure that more than fifty percent of Australians do not like him, but he's such a good politician. That, of course, is supplimented by the fact that the Labour party is a shambles...

This you are going to have to substantiate with a few facts.

The Australian people voted for the Liberals because they erroneously believed the interest rate bullshit, which is wrong on so many counts it is not even funny anymore.

They did not vote for them so that they would erode the system of IR that has worked for the past 50 years or so, that people know and are to some extent proud of, in favour of a system where the checkout-chick at Coles is going to have to negotiate whether she'll get a lunchbreak.
Nor did they vote to have their media shut up about anything remotely critical of the government. People want to hear what the other side says, even if they disagree with it. Sedition, dentention and all the rest of it was not what the Australian people expected from their government, and the lack of a "Bill of Rights" or whatever one might decide to call it means that they have nothing at all to protect themselves right now.

All good with hindsight, but back then, the choice was between John and Latham. Think of it: Mark Latham as PM.

*shudders*

All good with hindsight, but back then, the choice was between John and Latham. Think of it: Mark Latham as PM.

*shudders*
Ahem...don't vote on character people, vote on bloody content. Character doesn't matter, we live in a Parliamentary system, remember?

And yet we keep putting them into power...

This is yet more evidence of John's political skill. I'm pretty sure that more than fifty percent of Australians do not like him, but he's such a good politician. That, of course, is supplimented by the fact that the Labour party is a shambles...
it's not that johnnie's that good a politician, it's just that his opponents are incompetent nitwits

may i point out that with this govournment, there's no cahce of getting a good bill of rights and so there's no chance of this idea working anyhow
The good news is this government won't be in forever. Perticually since Howard has made The Castro Mistake and created a system where his party will not survive without him. Especially with Costello still polling around 12-30% on good days.

Ahem...don't vote on character people, vote on bloody content. Character doesn't matter, we live in a Parliamentary system, remember?

Latham's charachter and content were one thing: incompetent. He was quite simply out of his depth. Another ten years of political experience and I probably would of voted for him, but Latham was, again, completely out of his depth.

The good news is this government won't be in forever. Perticually since Howard has made The Castro Mistake and created a system where his party will not survive without him. Especially with Costello still polling around 12-30% on good days.
exactly, and if the labor party comes in like this, it'll probably modify or repeal most of the laws that the liberals put in

it's not that johnnie's that good a politician, it's just that his opponents are incompetent nitwits

Howard is a fantastic politician, but that's not whats kept him in power, It is my belief that Contello's control of the economy is completely responsible for that, and Howard's choice to keep Costello as Treasurer is what has kept him as PM.

exactly, and if the labor party comes in like this, it'll probably modify or repeal most of the laws that the liberals put in

How? the Liberals will block the legislation in the senate, unless the Labour party gets an absolute majority, which will not happen.

Latham's charachter and content were one thing: incompetent. He was quite simply out of his depth. Another ten years of political experience and I probably would of voted for him, but Latham was, again, completely out of his depth.
You know, he's only the spokesman for his party program. It doesn't matter that he is incompetent...this isn't the US, where the President actually needs to do all sorts of things.

Sorry, but it was obvious that this kind of shit was going to come from too many people voting Howard. The people that did are directly responsible for this mess, and hiding behind the other candidate's failings is not an option.
Could've voted Democrats.

You know, he's only the spokesman for his party program. It doesn't matter that he is incompetent...this isn't the US, where the President actually needs to do all sorts of things.

Sorry, but it was obvious that this kind of shit was going to come from too many people voting Howard. The people that did are directly responsible for this mess, and hiding behind the other candidate's failings is not an option.
Could've voted Democrats.

I didn't vote. I'm only 16. I have a friend who's sitting next to me who says that voting is not about choosing the best politician, but choosing the lesser of two evils. With hindsight, and if I were of voting age, I would have voted Latham. At that time, however, I would have voted Johnny, simply because Mark wanted all the troops out of Iraq by Xmas 2004

A bill of rights is all good and dandy but it is only as effective as the court that will enforce and confirm it. In North America the courts are now the real law makers and have the power to just ignore the standing law and rewrite it to their beliefs. Not too bad in the States since their Judges are elected, thought this leaves room for the law to be bought, but in Canada the judges are all appointed by the government, often as a form of payoff for political favours.

So great have a Bill of Rights just make sure your judicial system will uphold the intent of the Bill.

How? the Liberals will block the legislation in the senate, unless the Labour party gets an absolute majority, which will not happen.
depends on how much of the senate will be liberal, there is a chance that the other parties will be a major factor in this

At that time, however, I would have voted Johnny, simply because Mark wanted all the troops out of Iraq by Xmas 2004
And that would be bad?
I can understand if you don't want the Yankees out, because it would hurt the Iraqi population..but Australian troops don't make a difference. I'd rather have them moved to Afghanistan, where they would actually matter.

A bill of rights is all good and dandy but it is only as effective as the court that will enforce and confirm it. In North America the courts are now the real law makers and have the power to just ignore the standing law and rewrite it to their beliefs. Not too bad in the States since their Judges are elected, thought this leaves room for the law to be bought, but in Canada the judges are all appointed by the government, often as a form of payoff for political favours.

So great have a Bill of Rights just make sure your judicial system will uphold the intent of the Bill.

I don't have very much faith in that happening. This brings up a good point: the current system is designed not to have a Bill of Rights. If we were to get one, huge amounts of other stuff may have to change, probably requireing further referendums. Maybe a Bill of Rights might only be a good idea if we become a Republic...

And that would be bad?
I can understand if you don't want the Yankees out, because it would hurt the Iraqi population..but Australian troops don't make a difference. I'd rather have them moved to Afghanistan, where they would actually matter.

I'd like to argue the point, but it's not really necessary to the current topic. Oh, what the hell:

Australia went in, and they have a responsibility to help until everyone else leaves. It is our international resposibility.

Do the doctrines of parliamentary sovereignty apply in Australia? In other words, can Parliament repeal or alter any of its own legislation?

Do the doctrines of parliamentary sovereignty apply in Australia? In other words, can Parliament repeal or alter any of its own legislation?

Absolutely.

Australia went in, and they have a responsibility to help until everyone else leaves. It is our international resposibility.
Noted, but I won't hijack the thread.

Noted, but I won't hijack the thread.

I'd tell you to start a new one, but I daresay that topic has been done to death neumerous times over.

Absolutely.

So doesn't that mean the Ozzie Parliament could easily repeal a hypothetical Bill of Rights just as easily as it made them... That's what's stupid about the UK Human Rights Act, it could be abolished tomorrow.

Does Australia have any ability to entrench legislation?

So doesn't that mean the Ozzie Parliament could easily repeal a hypothetical Bill of Rights just as easily as it made them... That's what's stupid about the UK Human Rights Act, it could be abolished tomorrow.

Does Australia have any ability to entrench legislation?

Not the Parliament by itself, but with a referendum we can add things to our constitution and make them unalterable except by another referendum. The idea with a Bill of Rights is that it would be in the Constitution.

So doesn't that mean the Ozzie Parliament could easily repeal a hypothetical Bill of Rights just as easily as it made them... That's what's stupid about the UK Human Rights Act, it could be abolished tomorrow.

Does Australia have any ability to entrench legislation?
you can only repeal the law if the repealment legislation gets through parliament, which would require a majority support to repeal in both houses

Not the Parliament by itself, but with a referendum we can add things to our constitution and make them unalterable except by another referendum. The idea with a Bill of Rights is that it would be in the Constitution.

I see, thanks for clearing that up. I think the Britist constitution could do with some trimming... what with it being nearly a thousand years old...

I see, thanks for clearing that up. I think the Britist constitution could do with some trimming... what with it being nearly a thousand years old...

Did you know that the Australian Constitution is actually a piece of UK statutory law?

Not the Parliament by itself, but with a referendum we can add things to our constitution and make them unalterable except by another referendum. The idea with a Bill of Rights is that it would be in the Constitution.
you know, it took me this long to notice that we both live in the same city <i was paying attention, eh?>

So doesn't that mean the Ozzie Parliament could easily repeal a hypothetical Bill of Rights just as easily as it made them... That's what's stupid about the UK Human Rights Act, it could be abolished tomorrow.

Does Australia have any ability to entrench legislation?
Passing it as a constitutional amendment by way of a referendum. Which nearly always fail, regardless of the issue.

it more complicated then that the rights of a person is protected by the state not the Commonwealth the colonies wanted to keep power over there subjects.

Thats why it isint in the consitution because there are in state laws so really we dont need one trust me if we didnt have anything protecting our citizens do you think we would be so popular for immigration

(even tho we treat foreigners like dogs Trust me we sure are racist over here)

The reason the consitution is rarely changed is because you need a 60% majority in every state which is a hard thing to get thats why we didnt become a republic in 2000 (tho i am a monarchist) and to be frank the changes the government wants to make are usally stupid or would give the government to much power.

Sorry for the spelling i type too fast and i make mistakes.

Did you know that the Australian Constitution is actually a piece of UK statutory law?

I didn't! But isn't that effectively meaningless after the Australia Act of 1986? Now we can't tell you what to do... Bah humbug...

Did you know that the Australian Constitution is actually a piece of UK statutory law?
of course it is, how else could they give up our country? not that they are allowed to repeal it now

Did you know that the Australian Constitution is actually a piece of UK statutory law?
Yes. However after the Western Australia secession it became standard ruling that after the passage of the Australian Constitution Act that all power over the Constitution was released.

you know, it took me this long to notice that we both live in the same city <i was paying attention, eh?>

Hey cool! I have a whole bunch of mates who are also from Adelaide on here: Funky Beat, Lashie, Offensive Language and Commie Catholics are the main ones.

You know, he's only the spokesman for his party program. It doesn't matter that he is incompetent...this isn't the US, where the President actually needs to do all sorts of things.

Sorry, but it was obvious that this kind of shit was going to come from too many people voting Howard. The people that did are directly responsible for this mess, and hiding behind the other candidate's failings is not an option.
Could've voted Democrats.
It ALWAYS matters if the political leader of your country is an incompetent! Here in Canada our last PM, Cretian, is a complete moron and has damaged our international reputation possibly on a permanent bassis. A moron leading your country can do so much damage to all aspects of your country as proven by the Gomery report on the preformance of the Liberal government over the pass few years. Not to mention that if the leader of the party is an idiot, incompetent and/or a moron then it is a pretty good indication that the rest party is just as bad if not worse.

As for your countries politics I am not familiar enough to make a coment either way. But please take an example from our F&#@ ups!

Anyhow, have we actually gotten any further in our original discussion about the Bill of Rights?

Hey cool! I have a whole bunch of mates who are also from Adelaide on here: Funky Beat, Lashie, Offensive Language and Commie Catholics are the main ones.
never came accross them, all my mates stopped going on these forums ages ago. next thing you know, it'll turn out we know each other

of course it is, how else could they give up our country? not that they are allowed to repeal it now

Your wrounge the reason they gave us independence is because of our white australia policy the british empire wanted nothing too do with a country of racist bastards.

Your wrounge the reason they gave us independence is because of our white australia policy the british empire wanted nothing too do with a country of racist bastards.

I think you are being far too lenient towards the British government. The reason Australia was "given" indepednedece was because the Australians wanted it, and a political union would be impractical in the 1930s.

Besides, what could we do to stop them?

Anyhow, have we actually gotten any further in our original discussion about the Bill of Rights?
in a way, not that it's changed anyones thoughts on the matter

It appears to me that Australia will be forced to write a new constituion, as it seems inevitable that they will become a republic.

It appears to me that Australia will be forced to write a new constituion, as it seems inevitable that they will become a republic.
we are essentially a republic, so there's no point in becoming one. i doubt the new constitution would be better than the current one

Go to the muesium of immigration in Melbourne it clearly defines one of the main reasons for our independence was that britain didnt want anything too do with our white australia policy.

(and if australians are going "you stupid foreigner" im not i was born here by english parents besides a real australian is a aboriginal)

Sorry if i sound hursh but when i dad remarried to a asian women we get strange looks of disgust then they look at me like a freak.

It appears to me that Australia will be forced to write a new constituion, as it seems inevitable that they will become a republic.

Why dont we make the governor general the head of state think about it he has no real power in the government and it would tie in with our history of being a colony (we could also change his title too Surpreme-governor).

Why dont we make the governor general the head of state think about it he has no real power in the government and it would tie in with our history of being a colony (we could also change his title too Surpreme-governor).
he essentially is, it's just that he isn't elected so our PM represents us (and no, the GG should not be elected or be the supreme-governor)

Sudan has a bill of Rights.,
It didn't help

Bill Of Rights are unnessecary in countries such as Australia, due to the fact we have a democratic government, a free press and our government listens to the people. Public Outcry actually is effective, especially on issues that interfere with freedoms

The U.S. has huge court problems due to the Bill Of Rights, and similar or less amounts of freedom than Australia.

(Out-of-context: You know, it's probably not the best idea to disclose your age on the internet... nor the city you live in.)

I suppose Howard may be a sign that Australia needs to draft up indelible rights, as it would seem that we have an issue with things not being stated as 'indelible' coming under review. It's a fine line, though, as unless you make a law some 500-page document explicitly stating what it is, you may find loopholes.

The U.S. has huge court problems due to the Bill Of Rights, and similar or less amounts of freedom than Australia. Not really. The U.S. has the Freedom of Information Act, as well as NON-COMPULSORY VOTING! :eek:

*bump*

The minute you put "our rights" into words, two things will happen: (1)lawyers will descend on them and start defining away until there's nothing left, and (2) the populace will decide, "Good, that's sorted, then," and go back to sleep.

Our current lack of system works, propped up on one side by traditionalists who won't let go of a right once it's been won and on the other by assorted lunatics, ratbags, etc who have an obsession about a particular need and hang in there until it's either accepted or dies out from total lack of support.

The eccentrics (lunatics, ratbags) are the people who keep us awake. So long as it's possible to erode a right, there will be authorities trying to do it and idealists, dreamers and what-have-yous trying to save it. That keeps us in enough of a ferment to rescue us from being a too-stable, unchangeable society.

We're conformist enough as it is. Freeze the concept of "rights" into the position it occupied in November, 2005, and by November, 2035, it will be a dead-weight on a society trying to adapt itself to circumstances we can't imagine yet.

Don't believe me? Thirty years ago, the "right" to breathe clean air didn't exist. Thirty years from now, will the "right" to as much water as you want still be available? Property "rights" changed as units became popular; airspace "rights" are in flux; the simple "right" to sunlight on your home is moot in the face of high-rise developments. Do you have a "right" to privacy from Google's satellite pics that can show which cars are parked in your drive?

No Bill of Rights? :eek:

never came accross them, all my mates stopped going on these forums ages ago. next thing you know, it'll turn out we know each other

*waves*

Hi!!!! um, yeah... that's bout it... hehe that'd be cool if we knew one another

*bump*