Australian Bill of Rights

Status
Not open for further replies.
This thread is in reaction to ppl's previous posts on the American Constitution. FYI the Cth of Aust has never had a Bill of Rights written into our Constitution (drafted in 1900 at the time of Aust Federation), unlike in the US, and this issue of formally recognising specific rights in the Aust legal and political systam has been a significant issue for awhile now, including when we had our 1999 referendum on whether Aust should become a republic. Hist, there were proposals in the 1890s discussions on federation for rights protections to have been incorporated into the Constitution, but these discussions were rejected by the drafters since they felt that any protections of individual rights would've restricted their intentions to impose racist criteria to prevent nonwhite immigration into Aust, and to govern the lives of Aboriginal ppl. There were also a couple referendums in 1944 and 1988 to discuss the incorporation of a Constitutional Bill of Rights, but these were rejected by most of Aust's electorate. In this light, there are only about 3 or 4 express protections of rights scattered in no particular order thruout the Aust Constitution (including trial by jury for indictable offence, religion- cannot be imposed or restricted by govt, freedom of interstate travel), which have been interpreted on the whole restrictively by the High Court, although the HC has also in the last decade held that there are is implied into the Constitution an underlying right to freedom of communication.

What would've been the effect of Aust having a Bill of Rigts explicitly incorporated into our Constitution ? Would the protection of individual rights and freedoms be better assured with fundamental rights to vote, travel, freely express 1's views, and be protected from discrimination on such grounds as race or religion ? Would there be similar difficulties re the interpretation of certain sections which are now perceived as outdated, such as the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms ?
 
With the latest round of talks with a republic on the agenda, Australia does need a Bill of rights in place well and truly before it engages on the idea of becoming a republic again.
 
With the latest round of talks with a republic on the agenda, Australia does need a Bill of rights in place well and truly before it engages on the idea of becoming a republic again.

Whether a country has a Bill of rights or now is not related to whether it is a republic. Canada, being a constitutional monarchy, has the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
 
Current politics is way off topic.

Ming and Labor would have had a shit WWII. Like People's Democratic Republic of Balmain shit. Except we'd never get here because:

The IWW / Trades Hall Reds / NSW Labor Left would have forced a coup d'etat in 1916 when The Rat cooperated with the nacent white armies / new guard / old guard / informal aboriginal hunting society networks. (cf: Kangaroo Jack, Monash's breaking the police strike, Cathcart M (1988) Defending the National Tuckshop: Australia's Secret Army Intrigue of 1931 (penguin).) Without th depth of "constitutionality" afforded by indirect methods of defence of rights, it would have been all on the table when ungaolable IWWs set sydney on fire (Turner, Sydney's Burning). The only response would have been the elimination of excessive democracy. We've seen it before in Victoria. And to prevent a successful Eureka, they had historical options to go Lambing Flats. And as Cathcart observes: they accidentally activated them due to fear of a centre-right ALP state government.

yours,
Sam R.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
With the latest round of talks with a republic on the agenda, Australia does need a Bill of rights in place well and truly before it engages on the idea of becoming a republic again.
Current political discussion is restricted to Chat.

BTW: this one has been dead for 15 years as well. Let the dead rest in peace.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top