Will Australia ever have a bill of rights?

[onur369]

Thoughts? Why or Why not?

[eeps]

Yes, I believe at some point we will have a bill of rights. As I recall from Unit 3 AOS 2, when we studied Canada in comparison to Australia there were a lot of potential benefits in having a bill of rights. It makes it more difficult to change rights in the Constitution (which is generally seen as a good thing) and it can cover a greater number of rights than what we currently have. The major difficultly/hurdle I see is achieving a successful referendum (to get a bill of rights) - as the statistics show, only 8/44 referendums have been successful in recent years.

[MJRomeo81]

I can't see it happening in our system. Rights change over time and a bill of rights would make it too hard to reflect changing values (eg: the second amendment in the United states). Having the majority of our rights in legislation/common law allows the legislators to keep up with what the people want, and in the process, upholding representative government.

[Tobias Funke]

I don't see the point really. When comparing with Canada I kinda reached the conclusion that a bill of rights, although it had some perks, had detrimental factors which rendered it worse than our system. Like the fact that rights can be overruled, pretty big thing right there.

[selim31]

I can't see it happening in our system. Rights change over time and a bill of rights would make it too hard to reflect changing values (eg: the second amendment in the United states). Having the majority of our rights in legislation/common law allows the legislators to keep up with what the people want, and in the process, upholding representative government.

Why would imply that the second amendment to the US Constiution is irrelevant today? The right to bear Arms has been instituted to prevent execessive government control over the people. Look at Hurricane Katrina back in 2005. The Govt. has send out National Guardsmen (state Military forces) and PHYSICALLY forced them to abandon their property. This is more of 'individual freedom' argument, suggesting that people should make their own decisions in such situations.

Never mind. I think that we don't need a Bill of Rights merely because our current system has pretty much ensured stability. Also, a Bill of Rights would be subject to the interpretation of judges appointed by a single authority (the governor-general, on advice of the Prime Minister (and that's usually a rubber stamp decision!)), meaning there is no accountability through any democratic process. In the US, Supreme Court judges are held accountable through a vote of US Senators, thus ensuring some accountability.

[pi]

Honestly, does it really matter? We seem to be going on pretty well atm.

[Tobias Funke]

Considering the fact that it's part of the study design for this subject, and it's one of the more interesting parts of the course, I'd say, yes, it does. Anyway, one of the main arguments for a bill of rights isn't to do with short-term, but rather the idea that in future we could be subject to some sort of totalitarian overlords who would be freely able capitalize on our lack of an entrenched Bill of Rights.

[selim31]

Considering the fact that it's part of the study design for this subject, and it's one of the more interesting parts of the course, I'd say, yes, it does. Anyway, one of the main arguments for a bill of rights isn't to do with short-term, but rather the idea that in future we could be subject to some sort of totalitarian overlords who would be freely able capitalize on our lack of an entrenched Bill of Rights.

yea...I doubt that Australians would fall for Totalitarians. Some of the most brutal regimes in the World have a Bill of Rights, however these are countries where the rule of law is not being adhered to. Even the cheerleaders of Freedom and Democracy - the American People - are not assured of their Constitutional rights. So does the PATRIOT ACT still eat the daily Liberties of the American people.

The only things that is truly decisive is the right to bear arms. A government won't ever significantly harm the public because they know what is in store for them.  /my opinion, and I do thinks it's very realistic.

[pi]

Considering the fact that it's part of the study design for this subject, and it's one of the more interesting parts of the course, I'd say, yes, it does. Anyway, one of the main arguments for a bill of rights isn't to do with short-term, but rather the idea that in future we could be subject to some sort of totalitarian overlords who would be freely able capitalize on our lack of an entrenched Bill of Rights.

Pretty sure that if this happened, they'd just tell our bill of rights to gtfo...

Just sayin