Should Australia have a bill of rights?

[Full Noise]

Should Australia have a bill of rights?

There’s currently a federal inquiry into whether we should have a bill of rights. Personally, I believe that we should have one as this would hopefully stop some of the knee jerk laws that tend to be put through parliament that erode our civil rights.

Some of the “so called” anti hate laws that are being suggested at the moment border on the extreme and we as citizens, can’t do a lot about it. Why should someone who punches an Indian student be given a harsher penalty than someone who assaults an old lady who happens to be Anglo Saxon?

This is not a Liberal or Labour party bashing thread, so if you’re not prepared to contribute with a sensible reply, don’t bother as the mods will close it.

I find it interesting that when Amnesty International conducted a survey, 61 % of people questioned actually thought that we had a bill of rights.

Here’s a couple of links.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/...s#ugc_comments

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/...man-rights-act

I know that having a bill of rights wouldn’t stop bad things happening to good people and certainly wouldn’t change the mindset of vexatious pests like Julian Knight, but at least it would be a start.

[platinumXR]

I'm not sure we (as a Nation or existing Gummint) are mature enough to do it competently yet...

[OLDFORDNUT]

yes i think we need a bill of rights but the problem is how to write it without including minority group sillyness and not having Police State rules where we have few rites to start with,the last referendum was written in such a way that all we were voting on was a Government wish list,
The other big problem is having a list written in plain English with no lawyer loop holes

[4Vman]

What would you hope to gain from it?????
(a genuine question not a statement..)

[GK]

Originally Posted by OLDFORDNUT

yes i think we need a bill of rights but the problem is how to write it without including minority group sillyness and not having Police State rules where we have few rites to start with..

Just look at the Victorian Law Reform Commission. Everything they do is aimed at appeasing tiny minority groups. Loudest/squeakiest wheel gets the oil.

Originally Posted by OLDFORDNUT

the last referendum was written in such a way that all we were voting on was a Government wish list,

For sure. The way such things are written can be so loose, that revisionist judges can circumnavigate the stated intention of such things. It's often very hard to trust that they're (government & judiciary) doing things with the right intent. Again, I feel such things are always undermined by minority interests.

Originally Posted by OLDFORDNUT

The other big problem is having a list written in plain English with no lawyer loop holes

Too true! LOL!

GK

[Sapper]

A bill of rights would only be acceptable if it came with a bill of responsibilities. Both of these would have to be written by people NOT involved with politics or the media in any way shape or form.

As a principle I think that a bill of rights is a rediculous idea but it MIGHT work if done absolutely correctly.

That said, I might be agreeable if it goes down in writing that I can have the right to introduce morons and idiots to my left size 11 foot at a large velocity.

[Mr Brooksy]

I dont know whether we need one to be honest.

But I do think (if we do get it) it needs to be different to the ones in the USA and European countries. The thing that I completely disagree with, is that the judges are given control of decisions, but are NOT elected or ousted by the general public! What is with that?!

We elect the people who control our country, and they do things according to the will (in theory anyway) of the general public. If we allow people to make decisions on human rights etc who are not accountable to the general public, it comes down to one persons values/beliefs/vested interestes, and that in my opinion is dangerous! We cant go too far off cause in the eyes of the rest of the world, as so much of our country relies on others. So if we make a dumb choice and the population agrees, we cop it with trade etc.

We (the population of Aus) are Australians, allow us to make those decisions via someone/people we elect and can throw out if their decisions dont line up with OURS (collective).

[Mr Hardware]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

What would you hope to gain from it?????
(a genuine question not a statement..)

Seconded

[Jastel]

I can think of a few things....

The right to walk down the street and not be attacked

The right to sleep at night and not be robbed by a druggie in your house

If something infringes rights above the right to fight back as hard as you can

The right to catch a fish, cut down a tree on your own property, have a campfire, discipline a child, go bushwalking, walk a dog or generally enjoy life

Basically get us back to before all the Politically Correct, Greenie, Hippy, Eco Warrior types ruined life.

About the mid Seventies should do it...

[xtremerus]

Australia currently has no Bill of Rights. That means that the Govt. of the day can legislate ANY law that may take away citizens' rights. We have a relatively good constitution, but this only gives the State and Federal Govts. the rights, not citizens.
It would be political suicide to take away too many of our perceived/natural rights.
But do you really trust politicians to do the right thing without controls on them.
Don't say that we can just vote them out at the next election, because how many bad laws ever get repealed by a following opposition govt.
Thats my bit.

[FGII-XR6]

that can of worms has been opened and resealed
1988 Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) Bill. Passed by Parliament but rejected at referendum on 3 September 1988. it would create more problems than it would solve and you can be sure it would be PC giving all the rights to imigrants the indigenous gay and lesbians & feminist and if you are a white hetro male you will have no rights ( much like now but worse)

[cob115]

i get worried when i here another fruit cake idea from team rudd n co being wheeled out,i think there r fare more important things gov krudd schould tackel
so fare from krud, we have a feul watch grocery watch,school reverlution, etc global warming,swinflu ,n this morning i herd on the wirless about the health system revamp ,

[Wally]

Originally Posted by Full Noise

.....Why should someone who punches an Indian student be given a harsher penalty than someone who assaults an old lady who happens to be Anglo Saxon?

This is not a Liberal or Labour party bashing thread, so if you’re not prepared to contribute with a sensible reply, don’t bother as the mods will close it.

.

These issues always bring out basic emotions, but I'm wondering how a bill of rights would bring about change other than impose even more rules? The US blacks didn't have equitable rights until starting the late 70's. Anti vilification laws have been enacted here, that may or may not have worked in changing the mindset of the population.

Anglo Saxon is a term that seems to be afforded to anyone who is fair skinned, but what about the Anglo Romans, Anglo Normans, Anglo Scots, Anglo Celts, etc. The bashed Indian student got support from his peers, whereas whoever the old lady is you are speaking about probably didn't because us "Anglo Aussies" are too busy waiting for the Govt and newspaper owners to make laws to make our lifestyles safe and snug.

[4Vman]

There's enough laws in Australia already to cover all of that.. maybe we need a bill of responsibilities... and make people more accountable for their actions.

[flappist]

The problem is that Bills of Rights have traditionally only been made after the defeat of an oppressive government or invader.

They are designed to prevent the situation occurring again.

In the US constitution, the right to bear arms was to prevent hostile enforcement, the right to free religioen was to prevent persecution, the right to not be detained or searched without warrant is also fairly obvious.

In our own history the Magna Carta was the first real attempt to prevent the ordinary people being unfairly treated but that was 800 odd years ago.

I suspect any attempt to create a bill of rights at this time will be perverted by various government agencies and will leave us in a worse position.

We have not beem free for many years, we can be detained and searched without warrant under the pretext of "we thought he had guns/drugs/kiddie porn/terrorist stuff etc" and then anything they find they can use and often misuse for any purpose.

But if there were a bill of rights, the first thing I would like to add to it is "Any person who by way of the public media tells lies is PERSONALLY criminally and civilly liable".
The second thing I would add is "Any public servent who by way of his position causes undue harm shall be PERSONALLY criminally and civilly liable".

Shame it will never happen......

[Wally]

How about a Patriot Act as well.

[XWGT]

We already have rights

The right to die, and the right to pay tax

I fail to see any government being particularly interested in extending any further rights to the general populous

[distortion]

my problem with the bill of rights, particularly the one proposed at the moment... is that certain slightly un-politically correct discriminations will be banned. If i want to send my kids to a religious school, i want that school to be able to have teachers of the religion i adhere to, and that religion only if they choose. If i am paying private fee's, which should the government be able to fine my school for not hiring a person of another religion? This is only one example of my issues with the bill, and is not meant for a religious versus non religious, or private versus public school debate. My main point is: we dont need it. We need the laws we have already, to be used properly, the court system to be used properly, and more emphasis put on 'real' every day families rather than law being made by the media.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

There's enough laws in Australia already to cover all of that.. maybe we need a bill of responsibilities... and make people more accountable for their actions.

So a bill of rights and a bill of demands.

Hmmm... be careful what you wish for.

[ltd]

Originally Posted by flappist

The problem is that Bills of Rights have traditionally only been made after the defeat of an oppressive government or invader.

They are designed to prevent the situation occurring again.

In the US constitution, the right to bear arms was to prevent hostile enforcement, the right to free religioen was to prevent persecution, the right to not be detained or searched without warrant is also fairly obvious.

In our own history the Magna Carta was the first real attempt to prevent the ordinary people being unfairly treated but that was 800 odd years ago.

I suspect any attempt to create a bill of rights at this time will be perverted by various government agencies and will leave us in a worse position.

We have not beem free for many years, we can be detained and searched without warrant under the pretext of "we thought he had guns/drugs/kiddie porn/terrorist stuff etc" and then anything they find they can use and often misuse for any purpose.

But if there were a bill of rights, the first thing I would like to add to it is "Any person who by way of the public media tells lies is PERSONALLY criminally and civilly liable".
The second thing I would add is "Any public servent who by way of his position causes undue harm shall be PERSONALLY criminally and civilly liable".

Shame it will never happen......

Agree wholeheartedly.
I believe it being introduced into the forum of public opinion is either a distraction from something else significant, or some legislation introduced which would ordinarily be killed in the senate. Doesn't matter what party decided to bring it in, I wouldn't trust either of them to enact a completely fair bill of rights. As mentioned earlier you could bet that all of the PC rubbish would be thrown in on the basis that they wouldn't want to offend anyone and potentially lose votes.

The one thing I'd like to see though is our judiciary being subject to elections as in the USA. If you have a judge like Pat O'Shane that openly hates and discriminates against police; instead of being protected in her cushy job she would be subject to the electorate who frankly are disgusted with her lenient sentences. To my mind there's just something wrong with being able to murder someone and get less time than someone who's committed evasion of income taxes.

[IDT]

Originally Posted by xtremerus

Australia currently has no Bill of Rights. That means that the Govt. of the day can legislate ANY law that may take away citizens' rights. We have a relatively good constitution, but this only gives the State and Federal Govts. the rights, not citizens.
It would be political suicide to take away too many of our perceived/natural rights.
But do you really trust politicians to do the right thing without controls on them.
Don't say that we can just vote them out at the next election, because how many bad laws ever get repealed by a following opposition govt.
Thats my bit.

That is so not true, past Australian governments have signed many international agreements that govern rights. Which means the country endorses those rights. There are also legal requirements that apply to all new law/s being made. Whilst I am in theory pro bill of rights, my problem is "who writes it?" I think Australia is may be just a tad on the mature side to be writing a bill of rights. It is something more beneficial to a very young country that has a very juvenile legal system which needs parameters to work within whilst it develops. We now have too many laws and past legal rulings, which typically set precedences, that would have to be considered to make it work.

It would simply become a bureaucratic mess that would have to be agreed upon by 3 levels of government all in it for themselves

[xtremerus]

WAForce8
I basically agree with you. Australia is a mature country and we could coast along without a Bill of Rights.
The "who writes it" would obviously be put to us by our trusted and loved politicians, after 'consultation' with lawyers/PC minority groups etc. That is a problem and a nightmare.
Years ago [<1968?], Australians had a last resort appeal system to the Privy Council, and we were covered by the Magna Carta for a sort of bill of rights. This was taken away by Govt. without the peoples vote. The Australian High Court is as far as you can go now. A Bill of Rights can put a brake on a Govt. legislating as it pleases. We seem to be constantly getting more laws by the week that restrict what you can do/see/think. It seems to be getting out of hand.
I am not paranoid about having a Bill of Rights, as, touch wood, I have not had to resort to having to need them. But we may need them in the future.

Added note; Only 2 levels of Govt. exist in the Australian Constitution. That's why Local Govt. are pushing for recognition in the Constitution.

[mik]

i like the idea, but finding people to write it with out a biased slant would be difficult.

[uranium_death]

Originally Posted by 4Vman

There's enough laws in Australia already to cover all of that.. maybe we need a bill of responsibilities... and make people more accountable for their actions.

Absolutely.
I think too many excuses are made for people's actions.
I was always taught that there is always a consequence for our actions, good or bad, or perhaps both.
I don't see this often enough nowadays, as often witnessed in the lenient sentences given to repeat offenders who refuse to learn their lesson.

[Bent8]

Originally Posted by Wally

How about a Patriot Act as well.

Assuming you're not being sarcastic, that would be the last thing any nation would want.

The Patriot Act is basically an introduction to tyranny!

Personally, I think we should have a "Bill of Rights" which puts emphasis on the fact that those rights are God given, not granted by Government.

It all starts in our schools, our education system should encourage our kids to grow up to be responsible adults that understand and respect their "God given Rights".

[Keepleft]

An Aussie developed Bill Of Rights? = NO, can't think of anything more backward and with potentially long term civil danger! People today are too dumb and waaaay to trusting.

I find it interesting that when Amnesty International conducted a survey, 61 % of people questioned actually thought that we had a bill of rights.

The 1688 Bill Of Rights is preambled under our various Constitutions.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/G04.pdf

The Declaration of Rights 13 February 1689 [Bill of Rights 1688] Note pages 6 & 7.

The full text of the Declaration can be found at the UK Government website Fact Sheet ‘The Glorious Revolution’ LINK ABOVE, printable

As a result of the conflict between Parliament and James II the Parliament issued the Declaration of Rights in 1689. Article 9 of the Declaration was a response to the case of William Williams and other similar cases.

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges, and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of the kingdom ...

By prosecutions in the Court of King’s Bench for matters and causes cognisable only in parliament; and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses ...

And thereupon the said lords spiritual and temporal and Commons ... do in the first place (as their ancestors in like cases have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare:
...

9. That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament.

It sets down one of the primary privileges of Parliament which is still relevant in the modern context for the following reason stated by Gibbs ACJ in Sankey v Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1 at 35:

* ‘a Member of Parliament should be able to speak in Parliament with impunity and without any fear of the consequences.’

This freedom is also of significance to public servants and others who have dealings with Parliament, for example, the freedom also applies to witnesses before parliamentary committees. This means that evidence you give before a parliamentary committee and submissions made to such committees attract absolute privilege and the use which can be made of such material in subsequent legal proceedings is extremely limited.

[Keepleft]

Historical links for persual, a couple of which help folk see where we have come;- Additional 'rights' media coverage at bottom.

http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/area.asp?aID=3

Link comprises:-
Secret Instructions to Lieutenant Cook 30 July 1768 (UK)

Governor Phillip's Instructions 25 April 1787 (UK)

New South Wales Courts Act 1787 (UK)

Charter of Justice 2 April 1787 (UK)

Although the British intended to transport English law and legal proceedings along with the convicts, in practice there were significant departures from English law in the new and distant Colony. Notably, the first civil case heard in Australia, in July 1788, was brought by a convict couple. They successfully sued the captain of the ship in which they had been transported, for the loss of a parcel during the voyage. In Britain, as convicts, they would have had no rights to bring this case.

Australian Courts Act 1828 (UK)

New South Wales Act 1823 (UK)

Governor Darling's Commission 1825 (UK)

NSW gains territory to the west but loses in the south

Governor Bourke's Proclamation 1835 (UK)

The Governor of New South Wales announces that the Aboriginal people do not own their land

Order-in-Council ending transportation of convicts 22 May 1840 (UK)

The hated convict system given its notice

New South Wales Constitution Act 1842 (UK)

The seeds of democracy sown in the colonies

New South Wales Constitution Act 1855 (UK)

The first self-governing Parliament is created by Britain, on the initiative of the Australians

University of Sydney Act 1850 (NSW)

An opportunity to become great and useful to your country. (Stop laughing).

Crown Lands Acts 1861 (NSW)

In 1861, the powerful Premier of New South Wales, John Robertson, was determined to break the long-established monopoly of the squatter-pastoralists in land-holding in the colony. He forced two Acts through the Parliament, opening up free selection of Crown land by permitting any person to select up to 320 acres, on the condition of paying a deposit of one-quarter of the purchase price after survey, and of living on the land for three years.

Robertson intended to give poorer purchasers access to land and to increase farming and agricultural development in New South Wales. Great conflicts between the squatters and the selectors ensued, and corruption and scheming in acquiring land became rife.

Seat of Government Surrender Act 1909 (NSW)

NSW transfers land for creation of the Australian Capital Territory, that rotten place we call Canberra:-)

From The Australian, May 27, 2009 - Rights Bill wont pay
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-12250,00.html
The most stunning insight into this entire debate, however, is Brennan's recent and separate attack on Victoria's rights charter, supposedly the model for a national bill. Brennan's conclusion is that Victoria's law has failed its first test: the need to uphold freedom of conscience.

Brennan's concern was clause 8(1)(b) of the Abortion Law Reform Bill that, in defiance of Australian Medical Association ethics, overrode a physician's freedom of conscience and compelled a doctor who had a conscience objection on abortion to find and recommend to the patient a doctor willing to perform the operation. As Brennan said, the law requires "compulsory referral by a conscientious objector" or, in shorthand, leave your morals at the surgery door.

Brennan's conclusion is that Victoria's rights charter "failed spectacularly" to defend a core human right when it conflicted with the progressive-Left political agenda on abortion law and bioethics. He nails the issue: Victoria's law is not primarily about human rights. It is "a device for the delivery of a soft-Left sectarian agenda" and it will be discarded whenever "the rights articulated do not comply with that agenda".

In short, the rights debate is an ideological instrument for causes the Left knows the public may not embrace. Brennan sees it and said it. Presumably, this must influence his report to McClelland.

It goes to the real issue in the national debate: the advocates want certain rights to be advanced and other rights to be cut back.

It is time to ask what this means for society if extra rights are invested in the causes surrounding feminism, asylum seekers, gays, national security suspects, law breakers, secularism and Aboriginal guarantees as anti-intervention devices. END.

Originally Posted by xtremerus

Australia currently has no Bill of Rights. That means that the Govt. of the day can legislate ANY law that may take away citizens' rights. We have a relatively good constitution, but this only gives the State and Federal Govts. the rights, not citizens.
It would be political suicide to take away too many of our perceived/natural rights.
But do you really trust politicians to do the right thing without controls on them.
Don't say that we can just vote them out at the next election, because how many bad laws ever get repealed by a following opposition govt.
Thats my bit.

Our "rights" in all things are implied, until law is passed that directly 'restricts' that right. A reason for Aussies to NOT be so damned apathetic. A Bill of rights, done here on say the Vic model, simply introduces wide varying 'restriction' with simplistic slogan-istic language.

Control of politicians is carried by Constitution at election time. You don't however, have control 'activist agenda', that which seeks to 'reform' and which is responsible for things like Judicial Sentencing Guidelines' - a reason why a law might have a strong penalty in legislation, but the idiot who kills gets 7 years:-)

Much law passed by all tiers, is challengable potentially on many grounds, by a wise team; but few have funds to do so. . . . .

[xtremerus]

Keepleft
I agree with your comments and I think that in Australia's present, and future political climate, that a Bill of Rights will never get off the ground. There are too many 'radicals' pushing their agendas, to get a good and fair Bill of Rights for all people.