Bill of Rights for Australia - What is your list of rights

[ufo_investigations]

Australia is the only western country without a Bill of Rights. Odd isn't it.

We need an entrenched Bill of Rights. It can be entrenched or unentrenched. Entrenched is better because it can't easily be repealed at will without a referendum.  I would prefer entrenched with a 90% vote required to change any aspect of it.

England has had once since 1689

New Zealand since 1990

United States since 1791

Canada since 1960

European Union since 2000

I think it is about time we have one!

Tell me what rights should we have as a people?

Please make a list, like the U.S. 1st amendment etc...

[kilroy_is_here]

 are safe gaurds against tyranny in government the governer general can dismiss a government.

 one should not confuse that fact that they dis agree with a government and its policies with tyranny there is a vast difference to cement ones own laws in such a way as to make it impossible for a new government to remove that is the true definition of tyranny

[ca04]

Try reading the Constitution some time and couple it with common law.

[ufo_investigations]

---

@kilroy_is_here wrote:

 are safe gaurds against tyranny in government the governer general can dismiss a government.

 one should not confuse that fact that they dis agree with a government and its policies with tyranny there is a vast difference to cement ones own laws in such a way as to make it impossible for a new government to remove that is the true definition of tyranny

---

That safe guard can currently be repealed.  This is what I'm saying. Our laws can be changed at a seconds notice. There is no secure safe guard. Tony Abbott is soon going to repeal 8,000 redundant laws. If he wants to he can repeal much more and bring in a bunch of new laws. We are at their mercy, whatever is on their mind.

[cherry*135]

Unlike most other countries, New Zealand does not have a law called “The Constitution.” Instead, 

the rules for how the country is governed are in what is often called an unwritten constitution.
Most of it is in fact written down in various laws, rules, and practices – just not in a single document.

Important elements of our constitution include:
• Laws passed by New Zealand’s Parliament, such as the Constitution Act 1986, the Electoral Act 1993 and the New Zealand
Bill of Rights Act 1990.

and more

New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990

Civil and political rights

Life and security of the person

8   Right not to be deprived of life
9   Right not to be subjected to torture or cruel treatment
10 Right not to be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation
11 Right to refuse to undergo medical treatment

Democratic and civil rights
12  Electoral rights
13  Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion
14  Freedom of expression
15  Manifestation of religion and belief
16  Freedom of peaceful assembly
17  Freedom of association 
18  Freedom of movement

Non-discrimination and minority rights
19 Freedom from discrimination
20 Rights of minorities

Search, arrest, and detention
21 Unreasonable search and seizure
22 Liberty of the person
23 Rights of persons arrested or detained
24 Rights of persons charged
25 Minimum standards of criminal procedure
26 Retroactive penalties and double jeopardy
27 Right to justice

http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0109/latest/DLM224792.html

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@kilroy_is_here wrote:

i could not disagree more , laws have to be able to be changed easily  otherwise they could be stuck in an era no longer relivant , had we had a bill of rights set in place from federation the rights for women and aborignals to vote may not have been acheivable or jump forward the removal of gay relationships as a criminal offence may have been imposible to remove from law, we may still have a white australia policy a bill of rights can just as easily stifle rights as it can protect them, the fact that here in Australia we can change our laws to adapt to the changes around us is one of the graetest assets this country has.

a bill of righ

---

I completely agree with your views and opinions.

Laws need to be able to evolve and develop as the wants and needs of society change and grow. As you said earlier, a prime examople of this is the USA's "Right to Bear Arms".

I also believe that many areas of law are at a point of transgression and change and adaptability to societal needs/wants is essential.
 To define a right, we need to determine, define or justify that right and also be able to set boundaries for it.

As an example I give the emerging and evolving laws surrounding the right to ownership of intellectual property. Ever since the first case of intellectual property rights the laws have been changing and evolving until even today.

Every day, with the speed and constant evolution/emergence of new technologies, rights to things such as patents, copyrights and trademarks are continually brought before the courts for areas such as nanotechnology, biotechnology, bodily tissues/fluids (and your rifght to gift/donate/buy them) and the patent of gene technology.

How can a Bill of Rights be conclusive without any clear resolution or guidance of issues such as these?

How do we determine which rights are of value and which rights are not worthy of inclusion.

I say, let statute and case law define our rights at the point in time that society needs them to be defined.

[i-need-a-martini]

I am glad we don't have a Bill of Rights.

It means our laws are clearer and can't be muddied by ambiguous umbrella statements that can be used in court of law to dumb down laws.

Yes it means the government is in control. But that is the way a civilised country should be controlled. A BOR effectively hands control over to lawyers.

No thanks.

[acacia_pycnantha]

I agree, Martini. A Bill of Rights might seem like a good idea at first glance but it has a serious problem.

At present, our Constitution (and the rights it currently provides) needs intrerpretation and clarification (where certain points might be at issue) by our High Court.

A Bill of Rights would lend its self open to argument and dispute by lawyers. and we all know that those who can afford better legal representation have a higher chance of success in the courts.

I think it's better to not limit our rights by codifying them and leaving them open to private legal challenge.

Far better to leave this in the hands of our independent judiciary to interpret our Constitution.

A Bill of Rights might just do the opposite of what is intended, and actually place limits and constraints on the rights we already have.

[ufo_investigations]

I'd say oppression mostly comes from government and is usually tougher, maybe places like Afghanistan and Pakistan with their tribal areas where they enforce their own law is the exception.

Repressive regimes come and go, as tyrants rise and fall. On the whole, societies either revolt against their repressive governments or they empower them. But when a repressive regime is overthrown, the replacement may be just as ruthless (eg) The governments of post-Hussein Iraq and post-Gaddafi Libya, among others, have their work cut out for them, if they don’t wish to repeat history.

And what will become of Saudi Arabia if the House of Saud ever loses its grip, or of North Korea when that bizarre dynastic Communist dictatorship finally falls?

If Germany had a Bill of Rights, Hitler may never have gained power. When he got in all the laws were repealed and many brutal ones introduced.

A Bill of Rights is not our enemy, a well written one will tell citizens what our rights are. Right now anything can be changed at a whim, and nobody really knows what is allowed. We have no clear rights to follow.

For example: It is 3am and a guy armed with a knife smashes your back window, he enters and threatens to kill you. You have a cricket bat right next to you. (a) Do you defend yourself or (b) Ring police and hope you don't get killed. Which one would you pick? I know what I'd do. The problem is if you hurt the intruder you could end up in jail. What are we supposed to do, offer them a coffee?

Right now, we live in a country where we have no citizen rights to follow (clear written ones). This is a form of oppression and it comes from the government. My guess is they think, the less we're told the better.

Not all Bill of Rights are the same, each country have their own. An Australian one should tell us what our citizen rights are in all aspects of going about our daily life.

[*crikey*mate*]

I'd like the right to do the Performance Evaluations of the Mods

Of course we have clear rights to follow. We have Rights in Rem and Rights in Personam. The latter covering (but not exclusive to) what you do in the case of an intruder.

We have criminal law to tell us what we can't do and civil law to tell us what we can do.

\

And do you really believe that a Bill of Rights would have protected everyone from the atrocities of WWII? Hitler laughed in the face of International Law by disregarding the Treaty of Versailles, do ya really bel;ieve that he would have paid any attention to a Bill of Rights?

Law cannot be changed at a whim, we have a trio of checks and balances which all keep the other in line.

[ufo_investigations]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

I'd like the right to do the Performance Evaluations of the Mods

Of course we have clear rights to follow. We have Rights in Rem and Rights in Personam. The latter covering (but not exclusive to) what you do in the case of an intruder.

We have criminal law to tell us what we can't do and civil law to tell us what we can do.

\

And do you really believe that a Bill of Rights would have protected everyone from the atrocities of WWII? Hitler laughed in the face of International Law by disregarding the Treaty of Versailles, do ya really bel;ieve that he would have paid any attention to a Bill of Rights?

Law cannot be changed at a whim, we have a trio of checks and balances which all keep the other in line.

---

Criminal law and civil law wont help you when police turn up to your house and you tell them you hit the guy because he had a knife when he broke in and was threatening you. I think you would end up in handcuffs and put in the lockup. This is why we need a specific codified Bill of Rights, so the burden of proof is transferred to the intruder and not the home owner.

As for Post-war Germany, yes I believe a Bill of Rights would have prevented Hitler from doing the atrocities he did. The German public were supportive of the regime from the beginning. If Germany had a Bill of Rights and the public could see this was taken away, I don't think he would have had the support he did have throughout.