Australian Citizens' Parliament

In today's world, democratic countries are characterised by the degree to which they guarantee the rights of their citizens (though no country is perfect in this respect).

These rights include individual rights to:

• free speech;
• freedom from arbitrary arrest;
• own property;
• join in associations with others;
• privacy;
• protest against government;
• a fair trial if accused of a crime;
• practise religion;
• be free from discrimination; and
• be provided with information from government.

Some of these rights are ones that individuals have to protect themselves against other individuals; others protect individuals against what governments may try to do to them. So even if a government wants to violate rights, individuals can turn to the legal system for protection.

Some countries have a bill of rights, which lists the rights that individuals have in their Constitution. The most famous is the Bill of Rights of the United States, added to the US Constitution more than 200 years ago (which includes some rights that have proven controversial, such as the right to bear arms and the right to refuse to answer questions in court if the answers might incriminate the person being questioned). Australia does not have a bill of rights, though it does have a tradition of protecting rights.

The case in favour of a bill of rights:

There have been a number of cases in Australian history, including recent history, where governments have not respected individual rights. Many of these cases are controversial, such as those concerning the rights of non-citizens who have attempted to enter Australia illegally; and the rights of individuals in Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory subject to the NT intervention initiated by the Howard government; and the rights of terrorism suspects.

Proponents of a bill of rights argue that we need stronger protection of rights than we have; and that we cannot trust governments to respect rights adequately. Those most in need of having their rights protected cannot rely on the good will of the government of the day for their protection; rights should be above politics.

The case against a bill of rights:

Opponents of a bill of rights argue that rights are already adequately protected under Australian law, and the tradition of common law is recognised in Australian courts. So they would argue that in practice, Australia does just as well in protecting human rights as a country such as the US, which does have a bill of rights.

Enshrining a bill of rights in the Constitution would also add to the political power of the legal system, which would be able to strike down laws passed by parliament on the grounds that they violated rights. This, arguably, is undemocratic because it reduces the power of the elected part of government. A bill of rights would restrict the sovereignty of parliament.

[Other Topic Sheets]