General

@LEGENDairy

Very nicely written! I appreciate your input.

I agree, with most of the points you have stated. I feel as at the moment, the current legal system of Australia is seemingly sufficient and implementing a Bill of Rights would just complicate the law of Australia even further. Considering that we have many laws such as: Criminal Code Law, Civil Law, Family Law, Contract Law, Common Law and etc. And not just laws itself, but also acts which is even more in-depth if your in the Queensland. For me, i find that it would seem difficult to be able to enforce Bill of Rights. And who knows what could go wrong if the Bill of Rights isn't properly addressed and is amended into the constitution in which it takes seemingly ages to change it everytime. Such example of this, could be America and their rights to bear arms.

This is related to the ASIO laws recently passed right?

Well in any case, some background info: Australia is the only Western country which does not have a Bill of Rights. The US has one, the UK has one, even NZ has one. While the Australian Constitution does explicitly mention some rights for citizens, namely:
- the right to vote (Section 41),
- the right for protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (Section 51 (xxxi))
- the right to a trial by jury (Section 80)
- the right to freedom of religion (Section 116)
- the right to prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (Section 117);
only the state of Victoria and the ACT have their own human rights bills. However, even the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities does not have paramount jurisdiction, with (Section 13) stating that "Everyone has the right to keep their lives private. Your family, home or personal information cannot be interfered with, [b]unless the law allows it[/b]."

While Australia does have a Human Rights Commission (individuals and small parties can only complain to them if it's regarding Commonwealth violation of rights), no remedies can be provided by any court or the Commission itself even if the Commonwealth is found guilty. Also, when the Commission reports to Parliament every now and then, Parliament is under no obligation to accept any recommendations suggested by the Commission's report.

Anyway, as for a Bill of Rights...I'm not sure entirely if this is true, but I've heard that the reason we didn't have one created upon Federation was to do with the former White Australia Policy as well as treatment of Aboriginals at the time. But Australia has in the past attempted to introduce one several times, though all have failed. It's best attempt to be introduced was during the Hawke-Labor government's time where it passed the House of Reps, but was abandoned by the government in the Senate. The Australian Democrats under Senators Meg Lees and Natasha Stott-Despoja championed it during their time in the Senate, but in all attempts, they didn't go far. Speaking of which, John Howard, a former Australian PM has opposed a bill of rights as he believes the creation or repeal of such laws should remain in the hands of the Legislature (elected politicians in Parliament), rather than the Judiciary.

Honestly, I'm on the fence for a Bill of Rights in Australia (I'm Australian btw). On the one hand, it'll ensure that our rights are protected and cannot be easily tampered with by Parliament (such as with the changes to ASIO laws where anyone who reports on their special operations even if they screw up big time or are looking deep into your everything you do on the internet can face a massive jail term, even if they did it unknowingly), but on the other...I can see how it would be considered undemocratic for judges to decide our rights without anyone's say (as opposed to politicians who are elected by the people). Also, in areas like defamation and discrimination, current laws are already quite strong. In the current political climate though, I doubt one would be passed though by either of the big 2 parties.

[quote=iCygnic]If one was implemented, it would inevitably become out-of-date.
It would also be limiting, forcing every issue (regardless of complexity) to be matched to a written, limited category.
See [i]Mabo v Queensland [No. 2][/i] : Judges are visibly able to introduce basic rights into the common law.[/quote]

Thank you so much for your opinion! And i quite pretty much agree with what you have said. To me, i find that it just would create more problems, rather than solving it. Like adding a bandage to an open wound and ignoring the other current issues we face at the moment in Australia.

What do you think about having a Bill of Rights for the indigenous people as well as the disabled? Present more problems in the future? As you mentioned previously?

Also i apologize about the title, i didn't mean to have it like that way.

If one was implemented, it would inevitably become out-of-date.
It would also be limiting, forcing every issue (regardless of complexity) to be matched to a written, limited category.
See [i]Mabo v Queensland [No. 2][/i] : Judges are visibly able to introduce basic rights into the common law.