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.

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.

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.