An entrenched bill of rights : a protection for the rights of minorities

This paper is concerned with the question of whether Australia would be better served by the inclusion of an entrenched Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia. In particular, attention will focus on the abuses of minorities that are all but certain to arise in any society that is based on majoritarian rule. This paper will also examine the question of whether an entrenched Bill of Rights would serve as an effective safeguard against such abuses, especially where the rights of unpopular minorities are involved. The analysis to follow is undertaken against the backdrop of the efficacy, or the lack thereof, of the Constitution of the United States in preventing such abuses, and particularly that portion of the American Constitution that is known as the Bill of Rights.

Hollow avowals of human rights protection-time for an Australian federal bill of rights?

Unlike the constitutions of many nations, such as the United States of America and the Republic of South Africa, the constitutions of the Australian States and Territories and the Commonwealth Constitution Act 1901 (UK) contain no bill of rights. Australia is the only western democracy without a federal bill of rights. The debate regarding the need for a bill of rights necessitates an understanding of what human rights the people of Australia already enjoy. If sufficient protection can be found in existing sources, does Australia really need a federal bill of rights? Opponents of a bill of rights state that we have sufficient protection from arbitrary government intervention in our personal affairs and thus a bill of rights is unnecessary. There are a number of potential sources of human rights in Australia that might provide the suggested existing protection, including the common law, specific domestic legislation, international law and constitutional law. Each of these sources of human rights has, however, important limitations. The focus of this article is on the inadequacy of the Australian constitutions as a source of purported protection. This in turn suggests that an alternative source of rights is needed - a federal bill of rights? In the course of this analysis the author makes suggestions for reform; specifically how a federal bill of rights may address the paucity of constitutional protection.

The common law principle of legality

In this age of statutes and human rights the common law principle of legality has assumed a central importance. The principle holds that '[u]nless the Parliament makes unmistakably clear its intention to abrogate or suspend a fundamental freedom, the courts will not construe a statute as having that operation.' This development has occurred throughout the common law world most relevantly in New Zealand and the United Kingdom where its re-emergence coincided with the enactment of statutory bill of rights. It is however the aim of this article to outline the nature and scope of the principle of legality in contemporary Australian law.

Taking the Next Step? Achieving another Bill of Rights

The aim of this article is to explore the recent Bill of Rights debate in the UK. This is deliberately located in the UK’s complex ‘national question’ because of the obsessive focus on achieving a proper grounding for human rights. A new form of national human rights protectionism appears to be emerging and merits careful consideration. The article suggests that it is better to acknowledge and accept the existence of a plurality of nationalisms in the UK in these discussions and understand how an essentially ‘British nationalist’ discourse sounds and works in that overall context. The concern is that the Bill of Rights debate is becoming an inadequate surrogate for the more challenging constitutional conversations that are required, and human rights discourse thus invested with expectations of national renewal that it can never meet and does not have the internal resources to resolve. If the process does go forward it may be better to prepare the ground for a deeper and wider constitutional dialogue across these islands than stumble clumsily and divisively into this territory simply via ‘another’ UK Bill of Rights.

Taking parliamentary sovereignty seriously within a Bill of Rights framework

The Victorian Government has made a commitment to consult with the community on how best to protect and promote human rights in Victoria. To this end, it has established a Human Rights Consultation Committee to undertake this consultation and to report on the desirability or otherwise of enacting a Bill of Rights. The government has, however, indicated its preference for a statutory Bill of Rights and one that preserves the 'sovereignty of Parliament'. This article takes those two government preferences as its baseline and then explores what might follow if the preservation of parliamentary sovereignty is taken seriously within a Victorian rights framework.

An essay on uses and trusts, and on the nature and operation of conveyances at common law, and of those which derive their effect from the Statute of uses.

Mode of access: Internet.

The Supreme Court and civil liberties; how far has the Court protected the Bill of rights?

Mode of access: Internet.

Case studies of statutory interventions into the common law concept of charity

This paper considers four examples of statutory interventions into the common law concept of charity, namely, those of Pennsylvania, Barbados, the definition recommended by the Report of the Inquiry into the Definition of Charities in Australia, and the Recreational Charities legislation of the United Kingdom. It comments on some issues affecting each style of intervention. The paper does not argue against statutory intervention but submits that legislative changes are best made by deeming a particular purpose to be charitable, or not charitable, so that, except to that extent, the common law concept remains intact – this is the approach adopted by the Recreational Charities legislation.

Common law obligations of good faith in non-fiduciary joint ventures

This chapter is devoted to the issue of non-fiduciary common law obligations of good faith, as they may arise in the performance and enforcement of joint ventures. In recent times a rush of commercial contractual claims involving good faith has signified the need for a separate chapter examining this issue. Although most of these decisions have arisen in commercial contexts other than joint ventures, the decisions, nevertheless, warrant careful consideration to the extent that they cast light on the likely contours of the common law good faith obligation as it may apply in the joint venture context.