Constitutional Bill of Rights

[--whiteskies]

hi omg i need some help with my essay. :c

i'm struggling to find some points for the following topic:

are human rights adequately protected using other methods, or does australia need to introduce a constitutional bill of rights in order to protect human rights?

i'm meant to write about it in response to the fact australia is the only nation without a national bill of rights.

thank you! c:

[tcstudent]

hi omg i need some help with my essay. :c

i'm struggling to find some points for the following topic:

are human rights adequately protected using other methods, or does australia need to introduce a constitutional bill of rights in order to protect human rights?

i'm meant to write about it in response to the fact australia is the only nation without a national bill of rights.

thank you! c:

---Express rights, implied rights, structural protections,
the high court acts as the guardian for the consistituion by interpreting its wording in order to keep it clear and up-to-date, furthermore through the process of s.128 the referendum process. it makes it very difficult to change these express rights, as evident through 8 out of 44 successful referendums since like what 1901?? but also you need to ask yourself why is it difficult?, well you got the double majority, bipartisan support. then you bring in implied rights and how these rights aim to allow for a democracy, such as political communication and without it, there cannot be representative government. then you bring in structural protections how its a right to protect the broad community as a whole. which is stats in s.7 and s.24 that again representative government cannot successfully operate without the right to vote. bring in cases for implied and structural protections. and that is like 300 words if you can expand on my points.

[Colokid]

Majority of our right in Australia are protected by legislation, so it does adequately protect our rights to a certain extent , but as legislation in not entrenched in the Constitution, it means our rights could be overridden by parliament.

So yeah we should get a bill of rights, which would allow for better protection of our rights as the rights will be entrenched and can only be changed through a successful referendum, which is difficult to achieve.

[--whiteskies]

Majority of our right in Australia are protected by legislation, so it does adequately protect our rights to a certain extent , but as legislation in not entrenched in the Constitution, it means our rights could be overridden by parliament.

So yeah we should get a bill of rights, which would allow for better protection of our rights as the rights will be entrenched and can only be changed through a successful referendum, which is difficult to achieve.

thanks heaps! c': also - you are a great explainer.

one thing - how exactly are human rights currently protected in australia?
and what are some examples of human rights cases and issues that illustrate the need to adopt a constitutional bill of rights?

heaps appreciated! c:

[M_BONG]

thanks heaps! c': also - you are a great explainer.

one thing - how exactly are human rights currently protected in australia?
and what are some examples of human rights cases and issues that illustrate the need to adopt a constitutional bill of rights?

heaps appreciated! c:

Rights are mainly protected by statutes and common law in Aus. They are not entrenched and therefore these rights can be removed by parliament or courts, without a strict process of a referendum. For example, John Howard suspended the Racial Discrimination Act during his term and used this to detain an asylum seeker. IF, for example, an equality clause was included in the Constitution, Howard wouldn't have been able to do that as easily.

That is basically the main reason why we would need a constitutional b.o.r. It outlines and heavily protects basic rights and is a point of reference. Without it, parliament and courts are free to set any rights they want. If we have rights in our constitution, these rights are given more protection and cannot be removed as easily.

[DoctorWho]

Hmm. Well take a minute to consider it. Do you think our rights are efficiently protected? Do you think we need a Bill of Rights? You can agree, disagree or remain impartial, just be sure to justify your opinion.

You can discuss:

- How rights are protected by the Constitution. (Express rights, implied rights and structural protection).
- Are these efficient methods? What are the strengths/weaknesses of them?
- How is the Constitution changed? (Referendums - discuss the degree of difficulty in changing the Constitution).
- If you disagreeing you may discuss that there are only 5 express rights and they are limited in nature.

Good luck

[--whiteskies]

Rights are mainly protected by statutes and common law in Aus. They are not entrenched and therefore these rights can be removed by parliament or courts, without a strict process of a referendum. For example, John Howard suspended the Racial Discrimination Act during his term and used this to detain an asylum seeker. IF, for example, an equality clause was included in the Constitution, Howard wouldn't have been able to do that as easily.

That is basically the main reason why we would need a constitutional b.o.r. It outlines and heavily protects basic rights and is a point of reference. Without it, parliament and courts are free to set any rights they want. If we have rights in our constitution, these rights are given more protection and cannot be removed as easily.

thanks heaps - great explanation! c':
with the suspension of the racial discrimination act - what year was that?
the united states of america has its own bill of rights, right? c:
any other examples that i might be able to use as case studies?

a friend explained it to me this way -
we do not technically have the right to freedom of speech - but because it's not illegal, we are free to exercise it.
and that the bill of rights is necessary to establish in concrete a set of rights we're entitled to? :'c

Hmm. Well take a minute to consider it. Do you think our rights are efficiently protected? Do you think we need a Bill of Rights? You can agree, disagree or remain impartial, just be sure to justify your opinion.

You can discuss:

- How rights are protected by the Constitution. (Express rights, implied rights and structural protection).
- Are these efficient methods? What are the strengths/weaknesses of them?
- How is the Constitution changed? (Referendums - discuss the degree of difficulty in changing the Constitution).
- If you disagreeing you may discuss that there are only 5 express rights and they are limited in nature.

Good luck

thanks - that definitely helped! c: i'll keep the following points in mind!

[M_BONG]

thanks heaps - great explanation! c':
with the suspension of the racial discrimination act - what year was that?
the united states of america has its own bill of rights, right? c:
any other examples that i might be able to use as case studies?

a friend explained it to me this way -
we do not technically have the right to freedom of speech - but because it's not illegal, we are free to exercise it.
and that the bill of rights is necessary to establish in concrete a set of rights we're entitled to? :'c

thanks - that definitely helped! c: i'll keep the following points in mind!

Sorry; just did a quick google search.
The Racial Discrimination Act was suspended in 2007 not to make laws on asylum seekers but the NT intervention (in monitoring indigenous communities).

The US is not the only country with a bill of rights. ALL Western democracies, except Australia and Israel, have bill of rights. It's just that some are made by parliament (statutory) and some entrenched in its constitution.

Yeah your friend is sort of right. Freedom of speech is not protected by any laws that I am aware of in Australia. It is definitely not explicitly protected by the Constitution,  However, some High Court cases, such as the implied right to freedom of politcal communication (not just free speech) can be deemed as recognition for "free speech". You can look up the Lange case on defamation in qualified privilege etc. if you wanted to get A+ on your essay etc.

[--whiteskies]

Sorry; just did a quick google search.
The Racial Discrimination Act was suspended in 2007 not to make laws on asylum seekers but the NT intervention (in monitoring indigenous communities).

The US is not the only country with a bill of rights. ALL Western democracies, except Australia and Israel, have bill of rights. It's just that some are made by parliament (statutory) and some entrenched in its constitution.

Yeah your friend is sort of right. Freedom of speech is not protected by any laws that I am aware of in Australia. It is definitely not explicitly protected by the Constitution,  However, some High Court cases, such as the implied right to freedom of politcal communication (not just free speech) can be deemed as recognition for "free speech". You can look up the Lange case on defamation in qualified privilege etc. if you wanted to get A+ on your essay etc.

what are some arguments against adopting a bill of rights -  i was wondering why australia still doesn't have one.