Is Australia's National Security More Important than Individual Rights - Coursework Example

Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : Is Australia’s National Security more important than Individual rights Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2010 Introduction Importance of Individual rights in Australia The law and its applicable ideas in combating dangerous activities such as terrorist movements, plays a major role in the entire world. Although, Australia needs the national legislative approach in responding to terrorism activities, any introduced laws must reflect the balance between defence as well as the national security and some other vital public values for instance, the basic human rights and rule of law. Such cases as derogation from the accepted rights and major elements to the achievement of sustainable democracy need to be fully justified with careful scrutiny in Australia (Williams 2003). The Australian national security protection is not a complete defensive approach, but its justification level in protecting the democratic freedoms and individual’s way of life. National security at the expense of living within the totalitarian State cannot be accepted the Australians. As a result, national security is perceived as the protection of democratic rights against external and the internal threats in Australia. In addition, it does not involve the abrogation of basic freedoms as the excuse of fighting against such threats. Studies indicate that security against the external dangers is the key objective as well as guide in national conduct (Williams 2003). Similarly, the interest in liberty will later introduce its dictates, for instance, incidences of violent destruction to properties and life as a result of war, will force the Australian nation to shift the focus on liberty protection to opt for the rest and secure such institutions that involve in the destruction of their civil and the political rights. Domestic point of reference to uphold the human rights The need to balance between the national security and citizens’ rights makes the individual right more important compared to national security. Within the Australian government, rule of law is greatly considered as an important aspect in their political culture, given the availability of a self-governing high court. Australia is the only nation in Western that lacks the Bill of Rights (Williams 1999, p.250-270). This is a clear indication that Australia lacks a domestic point of reference proper setting out of basic rights for citizenship attachment. According to Williams (2003) Australian government does not have the relevant mechanisms as well as judicial for determining the level undermining of rights the laws of national security. In addition, he also discovered that national courts in Australia, have established a common law so as to minimize the infringement acts of basic rights. Contrary to the rest of western nation, Australia is very much characterized with pure politics. Consequently, the absence of Bill of Rights makes the political, legal debates not to be constrained by the principles of basic human rights in collaboration with rule of law. The outlines of the debate may support the increased pressures on political lives of the Australians compared to the principles as well as values on which the nation’s democracy depends. Since Australia lacks a domestic point of reference for protecting the basic rights of the Australians, it clearly implies that determination of an ideal extent as to which the individual’s rights, rules of law need to be sacrificed so as to promote the national security and against the acts of terrorism, is very difficult. Similarly to other related debates for instance mandatory sentencing, lack of own Bill of Rights implies that Australian citizens turn to the international law (Brett 2009). Terrorism-related aspects and resolutions assert that Australian government has the obligatory powers in taking the necessary actions in protecting its citizens from the terrorism attacks. However, such actions are required to be in accordance with accepted principles of human rights. The global Covenant on the civil as well as political rights (ICCPR) that was ratified in the year 1980 recognizes the following rights in Australia; i. The inherent human being’s right to life that was set to protect individuals’ lives by law art 6(1) ii. Liberty and security rights for the entire citizen art 9(1) iii. The right to liberal movement as well as freedom of choice in residence art 12(1) As a result of the hierarchical rights set up, the ICCPR offers some guidance on what can be considered as permissible and non-permissible aspects within the context of Australian national security. Although, the Australian state has accepted the voluntary responsibility stated under bill art 2 comprised in ICCPR in order to enhance respect of the entire individuals in Australian territory as well as jurisdiction of rights reflected in the current covenant, the obligation is not effective under the Australian law (Williams 2003). For effective assessment of the anti-terrorist legislation in Australia, considerable measures for complete responses have to be undertaken in comparison to other nations in reference to the international law. Studies indicate that such approaches confirm that legislation can only be justified if they are considered as being appropriate to that particular threat faced, in cases rule of law diminution. The legislation should not completely derogate from the accepted principles of human rights. ASIO Bill has been in particular has been set up to enable the non-trial secret detection of such Australians who are not suspected as commitments of defense. The Self-governing National Security legislative bill was passed by the Australian Parliament to monitor, create new position within the National Security in Legislation Monitor, responsible for operational review as well as feedbacks, effective counter-terrorism in Australia and maintenance of the laws for appropriate protection of any threats to the national security (Vermeulen 2010). In monitoring the security legislative bill, a key focus is on whether such laws contain the necessary safeguards that protects human rights as well as their consistency within the Australia’s global obligations. As a point of reference for consultation of Human Rights, the Australian government clearly states the nation’s commitment to effective promotion and safeguarding of the human rights. Such national commitment is based on the fundamental equality of the entire persons (Williams 1999). In addition, for an individual to become the Australian citizen he or she must undertake the nation pledge of Australia. The new Australian citizen must be a booklet titled as the Australian Citizenship as the national common bond. Within the booklet, a listing of citizenship privileges is included to permit him or her for job applications within the public service and Defense Force departments, acquire Australian passport, seek help from the Australian officials even if in overseas and for the registration of children who are born overseas but considered as Australian citizens. The booklet also contains the democratic beliefs’ list that entitles the citizens with freedoms and equalities. The Australian committee during its consultation forum established the deep meaning between the citizen’s human rights and certain beliefs, equalities and freedoms. Human rights and Responsibilities During its enacting of human rights legislation, the Victoria city embraced the idea of responsibilities under the act title of Human Rights Charter and Responsibilities as Act 2006. For effective creation of human rights culture without the consideration of legal enforcement systems, the education of responsibilities to the citizens is very important as education of rights. Citizens should be provided with opportunities to understand what is required of them in creating societies that offer room for the entire people’s just entitlements is acknowledged, fulfilled as well as respected. Although, Australia appear to be an outstanding western country in the entire world without a national Bill of Rights, questions have raised concerning the nation’s exact commitment to its citizen’s measure standards of human rights (Thampapillai, 2005). The evident limitations of the Australia’s current rights protection system have recently become apparent, implying that the idea of enacting Australian Bill of Rights is not a question to be easily brushed aside due to unworthy commitment of debate. According to Williams (1999) confirms that several attempts applied to the provision of efficient legal protection for the Australian human rights, changing from the national referendums to established federal legislation, results into a cycle of failures. Consequently, supporters of change have failed to inspire the Australians with a very simple understanding that the improvement of individual’s own right protection is the change for better living. Australia is being considered as the champion for global human rights since the nation is a member party to the entire treaties of UN human rights and recognizes the value of United Nations treaty bodies. Studies indicate that Australia contributes greatly to human rights paradox examined by Falk confirms that several prominent countries involved in the adoption of human rights agreements, basically consider the relevancy of such rights to be for some other countries. Recent developments within areas of concerns such as race relations, counter-terrorism, immigration and indefinite detection, have introduced effective way in which the concerns of human rights can be easily side-lined in Australia. The adoption of Australian Bill of Rights has been identified and emphasized on as the critical need (Charlesworth, 2002). Several scholars have discovered that every society is in need of a fundamental statement concerning its basic values not only aiming at creating boundaries between the state as well as citizens, but also act as ethical code of conduct on how individuals must behave towards each other. Such supporters have continuously argued that within the diverse and democratic societies without a dominating religion, only the human rights values that are inspired by majority of great religions, philosophies from both east as well as west have the distinctive capacity of uniting and healing the nation (Williams 1999). Conclusion Australian national security protection is not an inclusive defensive approach, but its justification capability in defending and preserving the democratic freedoms as well as individual’s way of life. It is recognized as the protection of democratic rights against external and the domestic threats in Australia. An increased attention is needed on the human rights within the Australian state. The current High Court decisions provide gaps within the existing rights protection system. SIO Bill may undermine the basic legal rights as well as erode the individual civil liberties that are ideal in identifying Australia’s leading democracy. Effective creation and preservation of human rights culture without legal enforcement systems, requires education on the value of responsibilities among the citizens as important as education on basic rights. Bibliography Brett, Y.M., (2009), Civil rights v national security, Law Institute of Victoria, Victoria. Charlesworth, H., (2002), Human Rights in Australian Law 13, Public Law Review, p. 155. Thampapillai, V., (2005), A Bill of Rights for New South Wales and Australia , Law Society of New South Wales Discussion Paper, p. 3. Vermeulen, M., (2010), Australia: Bill Establishing Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Passed, Melbourne. Williams, G., (2003), Providing A 'home For the Oppressed'? Historical Perspectives on Australian Responses to Refugees, Australian Journal of Human Rights 14, Vol. 9, No.2, 250–270. Williams, G., (1999), Human Rights under the Australian Constitution, Oxford University Press, Melbourne. . Read More