The Need for a Constitutional Bill of Rights in Australia
Verified
Added on 2023/04/07
|9
|1907
|257
AI Summary
This essay argues for the need of a Constitutional Bill of Rights in Australia to protect vulnerable individuals in society. It discusses the limits of judicial power and defects in democracy, and addresses counter arguments related to technology and politicization of courts.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Assignment NameStudent ID Assignment Name Course Name Assignment Code 15 Mar 2019 1|P a g e
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Assignment NameStudent ID Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................................................................3 Body of the Essay.......................................................................................................................3 First defence of the proposition.........................................................................................................3 Second defence of the proposition.....................................................................................................4 Counter argument for the proposition........................................................................................6 Conclusion..................................................................................................................................7 References..................................................................................................................................8 2|P a g e
Assignment NameStudent ID Introduction This essay will content that Australia needs aConstitutional Bill of Rightsto protect vulnerable individuals in society. This proposition will be defended in the body of the essay by arguing that there exist limits of the judicial power and that there exist defects in democracy. This will also address the most common objection, namely, it will overlook the new problems related to technology and advancement and that it would politicize the courts, for example, similar to that in US, that a constitutional bill of rights is not necessary to protect individuals. Body of the Essay First defence of the proposition A constitutional Bill of Rights is necessary to protect individuals because there exist limits of judicial power. In Australia, the judge has the power to develop the common law, however, they are limited in this concern (Stephenson, 2017). For example, in most of the cases, the decision made by judges are based on similar issues that were brought to the court. Furthermore, in most of these cases, the majority of judges were unwilling or not capable of invoking any legal principles, in conjunction to protect the basic human rights. Additionally, the argument can also be justified with other examples such as the high courts in Australia have declared that there existsno lay in conjunction with rights to privacy, prisoners’ rights were often denied, fundaments rights of Aboriginal Australian were rejected; and women rights were often overlooked (Rudge, 2015). As a result of which, the squeezing problems for limited categories cannot be justified properly. Likewise, the limits to judicial power can also be considered for cases, until now, when the homosexuals were considered to be involved in illegal activities and were punished. In all these cases, the decisions made in court are majorly against the fundamental rights of the individual (Baharestanfar & Hashemi, 2018). 3|P a g e
Assignment NameStudent ID The most common cause of this negotiation is that there exists no constitutionalbill of rights. The rules and regulations imposed over thecommunity members were adopted from the framework that was either established by or under the Parliament (Galligan & Morton, 2017). Also, note that the earlier constitution and common laws were framed, keeping in mind, the rights in the criminal process and rights related to the property. Thus, there were many aspects of the fundamental rights which cannot be expressedor enforced by the court. With the Federation, these experimentations, permitted legislations and its protective perspectives were succeeded and were then copied to the different region of Australia (National Human Rights Consultation). Due to this, the judges may not have the appropriate tool or evidence to determine the severity of the issue and to protect the fundamental rights. Hence, it would not be incorrect to state that the common laws framed in the past were enough to protect the fundamental rights in thepresent form of society. Importantly, here in this context, it can be argued that judges have to do so if the existing laws are clear and applicable. While negligence is adopted irrespective of thefact that it may breach the fundamental rights of individuals in many situational contexts. Based on these facts and considerations, the argument of creating a constitutional bill of rights is appropriate, as because, it will support the context of extending the judicial power (Stephenson, 2017). The judges thus not only remain adhered to the pieces of evidence or existing laws but can modify them for the benefit of the society. More importantly, such provision will take care of the individual’s and community wellbeing by preserving their fundamental rights.This is the actual objective of creating and implementing a constitutional Bill of Rights to protect the individual. Second defence of the proposition Another reason why a constitutional Bill of Rights is necessary to protect individuals is that there exist defect in the present democracy of Australia. It is noteworthy to mention that the proponents regarding bills of right, illustrate the power of making the argument for the 4|P a g e
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Assignment NameStudent ID requirement of the constitutionalbill (Craven, 1999). In this consideration, democracy works ineffectively, as because in Australia this means a matter of practical reality. On the contrary, it would beappropriate to state that autocracy is the mainframe of the election, during the period of the Australian Parliament. This can be clearly illustrated by taking the example of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, where the rights of minorities are grievously overlooked (Patrick, 2016). However, often after the election, the governing party may effect for preserving the rights of minorities, but is remaining inconsistent in accordance with the change of government (van Ham & Chappell, 2017). As a result of this, it affects the fundamental principles including the basic rules of laws as well as the independence of the judiciary system. Note that there exist many clauses in the enact framed by the Australian Parliament. This enact are referred in conjunction to several statutes and authorization which is affiliated to the delegated nature of the legislation (Baharestanfar & Hashemi, 2018). The ultimate consequence of such enacted and spelt-out constitution framework is that the basic fundamental rights were overlooked. The fact that existing provision supports the requirements of urban people, majorities, and dominated groups of the society. On the contrary, there requires a constitutional statement that should have the potential to put the matters in safe hands including the policymakers and judges, who can make use of the power beyond the power of transient opinionated majority population in the parliament (Galligan & Morton, 2017). Also to note that the jurisprudence related to fundamental human rights is introduced by the judges, with reference to the existing common laws (Dixon, 2016). However, the legislators in this context are enacting laws by taking the reference of international human rights and associated principles. Not that, the common laws also provides no empowering rights to the disadvantaged people. For example, this is applicable to the handicapped, partial population of women, ethnic minorities, mentally challenged population, and homosexually oriented people (Rudge, 2015). Also, minorities from 5|P a g e
Assignment NameStudent ID Aboriginal states are involved in the scope of lacking empowerment rights (Holcombe, 2015). This clearly shows that the introduction of fundamental human rights lacks the legitimacy of democracy in Australia. Hence, if the issuesof human rights are accepted and endorsed by the common people, then the legitimacy will be governed by people's decision. This will then endorse the consciousness for rights among the individuals in Australia, by declining the fact that the legal system is not a mechanism of oppression. In this way, the fundamental rights of community members cannot be neglected and are in accordance with the “will” and “benefits” of the Australian people (Craven, 1999). With these intentions, the constitutional bill is necessary and the purpose of this newer constitutional bill will be to create a framework for the protection of Australians. Counter argument for the proposition The most common counter-argument that infers that individuals, cannot be protected with a constitutional Bill of Rights, should be rejected because, with the emergence of technology and advancement, there are many arguments and problems which were overlooked. Likewise, because of the absence of a constitutional Bill of Rights, it would politicize the functionality of courts (National Human Rights Consultation). Theconstitutional framework came into force since the beginning of the Australian community, however, the present society is changing and adopting new strategies for its development.For example, the racial composition has been altered significantly, multiculturalism and cultural diversity becomes an integral part of the majority of business sectors and also in federal parliament (Carter, 2016). Newer cases such as cyberbullying, financial fraud in online transaction, homosexual rights, hitherto existence in ethnicity of the Aboriginal populationalso exist in the present community command which is difficult to be handled by the traditional common law (Dixon, 2016). Obviously, the existing common law structure requires evidence to givejudgement for any case which is related to newer community structure and with the lack of such evidence, 6|P a g e
Assignment NameStudent ID the judgement cannot protect basic rights of individuals. Furthermore, it cannot be assumed that these features will exist for the next few decades rather, they canbe considered as disruptive community trends that will accommodate several variations with time (Triggs, 2017). This indicates that the present circumstance requires an urgent and immediate mechanism in conjunction with the basic constitutional form (Posner, 2014). The objective here is to express newer constitutional bills which include basic principles related to fundamental rights of community member and thus can represent the integrity of Australia. To add into further details, the basic principles must include subject related to civil, technological innovation, politics, and other right irrespective of minority or majority, which should be noted separately and could be incorporated as a new constitutional bill. Conclusion In summary, the present report the requirement of Bill of Rights in conjunction to protect the fundamental human rights of the Australian community. The report argues that there is an essential requirement of forming a new bill, which can accommodate the minorities, disadvantaged population, and can handle the issues which are evolved on the basis of technology and diverse cultural issues. The arguments made in this report suggest that the common law are incapable of maintaining democracy and there are many factors which were overlooked by the court. Hence, a new bill is required to empower the society which can respect the democratic opinion. 7|P a g e
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Assignment NameStudent ID References Baharestanfar, M., & Hashemi, S. M. (2018). Protecting Human Rights and Constitutional Law in Bicameral Systems.J. Pol. & L.,11, 17. Carter, A. (2016). Proportionality in Australian constitutional law: towards transnationalism?.Heidelberg Journal of International Law,76(4), 951-66. Craven, G. (1999). Australian constitutional battlegrounds of the twenty-first century. University of Queensland Law Journal. 8(21). Retrieved 18 Mar, 2019, from http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UQLawJl/1999/8.pdf Dixon, R. (2016). An Australian (partial) bill of rights.International Journal of Constitutional Law,14(1), 80-98. Galligan, B., & Morton, F. T. (2017). Australian exceptionalism: Rights protection without a bill of rights. InProtecting Rights Without a Bill of Rights(pp. 27-50). Routledge. Holcombe, S. (2015). The contingency of ‘rights’: Locating a global discourse in Aboriginal Central Australia.The Australian Journal of Anthropology,26(2), 211-232. National Human Rights Consultation. Retrieved 16 Mar, 2019, from https://www.humanrights.gov.au/national-human-rights-consultation Patrick, J. (2016). A survey of arguments against the constitutional recognition of Indigenous Australian peoples.Constitutional Recognition of First Peoples in Australia: Theories and Comparative Perspectives (Federation Press, 2016) pp, 143-157. Retrieved 19 Mar, 2019, fromhttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2561143 Posner, E. (2014). The case against Human Rights.The Guardian. Retrieved 18 Mar, 2019, fromhttps://www.theguardian.com/news/2014/dec/04/-sp-case-against-human-rights 8|P a g e
Assignment NameStudent ID Rudge, J. (2015). Australians' Right to be Bigoted: Protecting Minorities' Rights from the Tyranny of the Majority.Brook. J. Int'l L.,41, 825. Stephenson, S. (2017). Should Australia Have a Bill of Rights?Legal Affairs. Retrieved 16 Mar, 2019, fromhttps://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/should-australia-have-a-bill- of-rights Triggs, G. (2017). The protection of human rights and the idea of a'fair go'in Australia today.Redress,26(1), 8. van Ham, C., & Chappell, L. (2017). Democracy and human rights: A tripartite conceptual framework.Australian Journal of Human Rights,23(2), 143-167. 9|P a g e