WI The Australian Constitution Had A Bill Of Rights?

The first draft of the Australian Constitution contained a proposal for a bill of rights, heavily backed by Andrew Inglis-Clark but was cut during revisions by other delegates during a boat trip on a government yacht when Andrew Inglis-Clark was ill with influenza.

Basically, Australia has next to no "official" rights written down in its constitution. This is where part of the British influence comes into the Australian political system, where Australians rely on "common law" to provide their rights.

What if Clark didn't get sick and managed to get the bill of rights included in the final version? How would the history and politics of Australia be different?
 

RKO General

Banned
a 1901 Bill of Rights would have enshrined the White Australia Policy and other bigoted atrocities quasi-permanently into our constitution - remember the double majority rule - only 8 out of 43
 
a 1901 Bill of Rights would have enshrined the White Australia Policy and other bigoted atrocities quasi-permanently into our constitution - remember the double majority rule - only 8 out of 43

I doutbt whether the White Australia Policy would have been enshrined in a Bill of Rights, it's not really something that even then could have been considered for a Bill of Rights even back then. Of course any equal protection clause would have been ignored when it came to dealing with non-whites (like in the USA), but this is different from enshrining the White Australia Policy in the Constitution.
 

recidivist

Basically, Australia has next to no "official" rights written down in its constitution. This is where part of the British influence comes into the Australian political system, where Australians rely on "common law" to provide their rights.

But England did have a written Bill of Rights, passed by Parliament on 16 December 1689.
 
But England did have a written Bill of Rights, passed by Parliament on 16 December 1689.

True, but that is a statutory Bill of Rights (ie normal Act of Parliament), as opposed to a constitutionally-entrenched Bill of Rights.

Personally I am opposed to a Bill of Rights, however I think a statutory Bill of Rights would be acceptable.
 
a 1901 Bill of Rights would have enshrined the White Australia Policy and other bigoted atrocities quasi-permanently into our constitution - remember the double majority rule - only 8 out of 43

But that's not a "right" though, unless the BoR includes things like "every Australian has the right to not put up with Asian immigrants" or something like that.
 
Top