Should Australia Introduce a Bill of Rights - Essay Example

Should Australia introduce a bill of rights? . Introduction The debate on the introduction of the Bill of Rights in Australia has drawn several comments and views from the critics, as well as political and social thinkers. Even as the range of the views is vast, for those uninitiated, below is a brief outline on the issue. Australia has been a member of all the five treaties that define the human rights rules throughout the word, even as Australia was an active member while the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (McHugh, 2009). The point to be noted, however, is that none of the treaties for human rights signed by Australia have any implications on the intrinsic constitution practiced. Several people have started questioning Australia for not including human rights legislatures in its constitution. Australia remains the only democratic modern nation to not have devised a human rights bill or a charter till now. However, legislatives and executives in Australia have carved out a plan for introduction of the bill of rights. Nevertheless, the plan has been received with a lot of criticism and opposition. It may be noticed here that an attempt to introduce the bill of rights in Australia is not a first. Several previous attempts have been made towards the same, all of which meeting the same fate – failure. The point to question here is that is the most common assumption amongst Australians regarding the safety of their rights without an introduction of the bill of rights correct? Louis Chappel (2002) explains that on an international level, Australia has lost its reputation as a human rights keeper, what with its severe policies against refugees and asylum seekers. George Williams (2004) explains the most common ideology that persists in Australia by stating how most people think that the rights of individuals in Australia are adequately “protected by law and by the good sense of our elected representatives.” Nevertheless, several question the authority and ‘good sense’ of those representing and making decisions. Several cases have come up in the past pertaining to the distressing of human rights against the upkeep of biased laws in Australia (Head, 2007; Williams, 2009). The passages to follow will discuss the debate on the introduction of the bill of rights in Australia, while examining the various pointers cited by both the parties – those for the bill and those against the bill. Arguments in Favor of the Bill of Rights George Williams explained in his book, A Charter of Rights for Australia (2007), the various factors that would be in favor of the passing of the Bill of Rights in Australia. Some of the key pointers are mentioned below: - Australian constitution does not have separate charted provisions for protecting fundamental freedoms. - Bill of Rights is required to recognize universal rights. - The Bill would give powerless Australians the power to fight for their rights. - Australia’s global and international obligations will be met. - Australia’s democracy will have an added incentive with the passing of the Bill of Rights. - The Rights of the citizens will get a place high above the politics and arbitrary government action. - It will promote tolerance for other cultures, religion and practices in the community. George William in another article (‘Wisdom of politicians is frail shield for our rights’, 2009) has explicitly put the reason Australian Government is in need of reforms in the field of human rights. In his words, “Parliament needs reform when it comes to human rights. The record speaks for itself. Recent federal laws have restricted freedom of speech under new sedition offences, twice suspended the Racial Discrimination Act to allow such discrimination in native title and the Northern Territory intervention, and detained children in immigration detention for years at a time so that many have become mentally ill” (Williams, 2009). To add on to the point explained by Williams above, Head and Mann (2009) also explain putting the changes in Australian legislation in the name of countering terrorism in words as mentioned below – “In Australia, the early years of the century have seen three fundamental shifts in the state machinery: legislation from 2000, to permit the calling out of the military against civilian unrest; from 2001, to authorize the forcible turning away of refugee boats; and from 2002, to grant unprecedented detention and proscription powers, as well as expanded surveillance powers, to the government and its security and intelligence services…. These measures have profound implications for civil liberties, as well as for future of international covenants, such as The Refugee Convention and The International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights.” Jones (2002) also explains that “the Australian Constitution does not adequately reflect contemporary human rights standards, particularly with regard to Indigenous rights to land, family and cultural heritage.” It may hence be noticed that despite the claims by the Australian policy makers that Australia’s constitution is well equipped to protect human rights, the fact is that Australian constitution cannot be termed as a rights-based instrument (King). As King further explains those who claim that the representatives elected possess good judgment on issues of rights neglect the fact that the atrocities conducted are usually with the minorities, weak and vulnerable. Head (2007) also adds that Australian government has adopted several measures in the name of “war against terror” that were previously unthinkable, some of which are ‘detention without charge or trial, semi-secret trials, capturing of traditional forms of political dissent’ etc. All these measures are in direct opposition to the human rights for citizens and yet these are being practiced. McHugh (2009) explains in his paper that one of the reasons for rejection of the inclusion of human rights bill in the constitution has been that such inclusions as the likes of equal human rights will restrict the functioning of racially discriminate laws that are aimed towards aboriginals and Chinese immigrants working in the goldmines in Australia. For critics who quip the matter of election or ousting of those electives not carrying out the rights sections well, those opining for the bill explain as follows. For the mainstream, all that really concerns is the economic matters that would help the mainstream in general. Then again, as Howard (2009) claims, the Bill of Rights will only help enhance the society of Australia instead of harming it in any way. Keeping all this in mind, it is best for Australia to accept the Bill of Rights in order to enhance the democratic functions in the country even as equipping the weak with a weapon to make a stand of their own. Arguments against the passing of the Bill of Rights Despite all the favorable arguments cited above, it may be noticed that advocates against the Bill are more than those in favor of the Bill. Several critics of the Bill claim that the Bill will not really have any effect on the workings of the system in Australia. It will only increase the number of litigations without helping the oppressed in any way. Williams also cites a few pointers that point against the passing of the Bill of Rights in Australia, as mentioned below: - Australia is already equipped with right protecting laws. - High Court is well functional in protecting rights through constitution. - The Bill will make no difference to the existing system when passed as these are already being practiced. - The political system already functions to its optimum levels in protecting the human rights. - If Bill of Rights was to pass, it would only restrict the already being practiced rights. - It will be undemocratic to give unelected judges the power to override the judgment of the parliament and hence passing of Bill of Rights is not advised. - There is a risk of politicizing the Australian judiciary by the passing of Bill of Rights. - Bill of Rights will increase the number of litigation and the corresponding costs by manifold and hence it is not advisable for it to pass. - Bill of Rights may not hold any importance in the future generations and hence there is no requirement for it to be passed. Bob Carr (2009) further goes on to claim that no Bill of Rights can protect the citizens. Even in the history it has been seen that various governments had a charter for human rights. Nevertheless it was until the blacks stood up that the rights for them were charted. Therefore, making of the Bill of Rights will not be effective at all, unless it is those suffering who rise themselves and claim their own rights. Some critics are also of the view that the past failures of the passing of the Bill of Rights indicate that even the Australian citizens are not keen on having a separate charter for human rights. The citizens are already satisfied with the protection they are getting from the parliament. McHugh (2009) also cites that the constitution already consists of certain clauses protecting the human rights such as “right to trial by jury”, “freedom of religion” and “prohibition on discrimination”. Conclusion From the arguments mentioned above it is well noticeable that despite the growing concerns with regards to the lack of human rights protection in Australia, most of the citizens and legislatives in Australia believe that they are well protected by law in terms of human rights. If there was to be taken a consensus with regards to the passing of the Bill of Rights, the chances are high that the Bill will lose again. Nevertheless, certain surveys conducted by the likes of McHugh (2009) have been seeing a change of trends. More and more Australians are now coming round to reality and believing that there is a rising need for more protection of human rights. What the propagators of the bill need to do is to create awareness amongst the people and the citizens, leading them out of their wrong beliefs and giving them a peek of the truth that reigns. I am personally if the view that despite all the protection being offered by the parliament, it is mandatory for any country claiming to be democratic to have a streamlined Bill of Rights to protect all those living under its head. Bill of Rights will help protect the minorities and aboriginals from the atrocities being conducted against them and others, even as bringing about more tolerance in the society. More and more cases of intolerance against minorities are coming up front. It is time for the government to wake up and see the damage being done to the goodwill of Australia in the international level. If Australia wants to continue its power in international lobbies and circles, it is essential for it to establish the globally preset of parameters of human rights in its legislation and constitution. References: Carr, B. (2009). Bill of Rights is the wrong call.: The Australian. William, G. (2009). Wisdom of politicians is frail shield for our rights.: Sydney Morning Herald. Head, M. (2007). What role for a Bill of Rights in the 'war on terror'?.: UWS Social Justice and Social Change Seminar. Williams, G. (2007). A Charter of Rights for Australia, 3rd ed. Sydney: UNSW Press. Williams, G. (2004). The case for an Australian bill of rights: freedom in the war on terror . Sydney: UNSW Press. Chappell, L. (2002). The Australian Bill of Rights debate: Putting the cart before the horse?.: Australian Review of Public Affairs. McHugh, M. (2009). Does Australia Need a Bill of Rights?. New South Wales Bar Association forum, , Howard, J. (2009). Bill of Rights.: sauer-thompson.com. Extracted from: http://www.sauer-thompson.com/archives/philosophy/2009/08/john-howard-on.html Jones, N. (2002). The Rights Thing To Do? Towards an Australian Bill of Rights.: Australasian Legal Information Institute. King, S. (2009). Countering the Arguments Against a Bill of Rights for Australia. National Human Rights Consultation, , Head, M. and Mann, S. (2009). Law in Perspective: Ethics, Society and Critical Thinking (2nd Edition). Sydney, Australia: UNSW Press. Read More