Does anyone here think, that Australia and it's people should have a Bill of Rights?, so we have certain protections under the Constitution. I know we are surely lacking any real legal protections from the Government or the Law when push comes to shove.
Whenarewethere said
02:59 PM Jun 18, 2021
Yes
bgt said
03:41 PM Jun 18, 2021
Be careful what you wish for.
2weis said
03:50 PM Jun 18, 2021
If we did get a Bill of Rights should there also be a Bill of Responsibilities
peter67 said
05:17 PM Jun 18, 2021
+1
yobarr said
06:54 PM Jun 18, 2021
2weis wrote:
If we did get a Bill of Rights should there also be a Bill of Responsibilities
"Bill of Responsibilities". Now we're talking sense,but "responsiblity" is alien to many,who know only of their "rights". Cheers
Bicyclecamper said
01:09 AM Jun 19, 2021
If we could get a Bill of Rights, one thing I would like is the Right to Privacy, that is something we don't have anymore, specifically in the last 2 years.
Mike Harding said
06:07 AM Jun 19, 2021
There is no excuse for any democratic country *not* to have a bill of rights.
Tony LEE said
07:58 AM Jun 19, 2021
Actually Mike, I'd suggest that Australia is much better off for not having all these supposedly essential rights enshrined in law. Just compare our situation with the entirety of other countries' and see who is getting the better deal
dorian said
08:01 AM Jun 19, 2021
Mike Harding wrote:
There is no excuse for any democratic country *not* to have a bill of rights.
. . . and there is no excuse for any country not to be democratic.
However, some years ago Australians voted No to a referendum question that asked whether they wanted free and fair elections. On that basis it would appear that Australians are too stupid to know what is good for them. Today this same stupidity is reflected in the antivaxxers.
dorian said
08:08 AM Jun 19, 2021
Tony LEE wrote:
Actually Mike, I'd suggest that Australia is much better off for not having all these supposedly essential rights enshrined in law. Just compare our situation with the entirety of other countries' and see who is getting the better deal
That's the luck of the draw. If you have no rights, then you're at the mercy of your government. Australia would have experienced the same infection rates, and death rates, as the USA and UK if boofheads like Tony Abbott were in charge. The USA and UK weren't so lucky.
bgt said
08:38 AM Jun 19, 2021
dorian that's a very silly statement. Again you bring a blatant political statement into what has been until now a discussion about a bill of rights and you shoot of on a tangent of illogical political bias. The USA, as an example, has a bill of rights. Yet it's often challenged in their courts. So in the end the courts decide on the correct interpretation. Just like they do here in Australia. Australia is over governed what we don't need is more laws.
dorian said
09:27 AM Jun 19, 2021
bgt wrote:
dorian that's a very silly statement. Again you bring a blatant political statement into what has been until now a discussion about a bill of rights and you shoot of on a tangent of illogical political bias. The USA, as an example, has a bill of rights. Yet it's often challenged in their courts. So in the end the courts decide on the correct interpretation. Just like they do here in Australia. Australia is over governed what we don't need is more laws.
I'm just stating facts which should be self-evident, and I'm using the current pandemic crisis as an example.
As for political bias, compare the likely COVID response of an Abbott government against the Morrison and state governments in a country whose politicians are not fettered by a Bill of Rights:
"Vote Yes for fairer elections". How could anyone vote against that? Well, fortunately even the left wing states saw through the ruse of those "motherhood" words and voted it down. Only ACT voted for it with a slim majority. Most recognised that the proposed changes would have the exact opposite effect if approved.
To understand the scenario, this was back in the Bob Hawke days and followed on from his concerted attempts to bring in the Australia Card. The public regardless of political persuasion did not want the government to have such a centralised ID system. There were even penalties planned to be imposed on businesses that did not mandate it. When he failed to get the legislation through, he brought on a double dissolution, but that still did not give him control of the senate. So again he was unable to get it passed.
Following hot on from that, the next step he tried was the 1988 referendum which if voted in would have weakened the states powers and transferred them to the federal government ..... a step towards dictatorship. Having too much power focused in one organisation is always bad.
Here is the public booklet that summarises the four referendum questions. Most importantly for understanding, it contains the Yes/No arguments from each side.
The Yes/No booklet is barely legible. Anyone find a good copy onine?
Bicyclecamper said
02:09 PM Jun 19, 2021
Tonylee, would you vote against it then if it was put to the people, like maybe the right to Freedom, the right to Privacy, the right to defend yourself against a threat of harm, their are many more "Rights" we should have as well, would you vote against these few examples I have listed.
-- Edited by Bicyclecamper on Saturday 19th of June 2021 02:11:47 PM
dorian said
02:26 PM Jun 19, 2021
Are We Lost wrote:
dorian wrote:
Grandad5 wrote:
dorian wrote:
However, some years ago Australians voted No to a referendum question that asked whether they wanted free and fair elections.
Ok, dorian, to quote someone who should never be quoted ...." please explain?"
"Vote Yes for fairer elections". How could anyone vote against that? Well, fortunately even the left wing states saw through the ruse of those "motherhood" words and voted it down. Only ACT voted for it with a slim majority. Most recognised that the proposed changes would have the exact opposite effect if approved.
To understand the scenario, this was back in the Bob Hawke days and followed on from his concerted attempts to bring in the Australia Card. The public regardless of political persuasion did not want the government to have such a centralised ID system. There were even penalties planned to be imposed on businesses that did not mandate it. When he failed to get the legislation through, he brought on a double dissolution, but that still did not give him control of the senate. So again he was unable to get it passed.
Following hot on from that, the next step he tried was the 1988 referendum which if voted in would have weakened the states powers and transferred them to the federal government ..... a step towards dictatorship. Having too much power focused in one organisation is always bad.
Here is the public booklet that summarises the four referendum questions. Most importantly for understanding, it contains the Yes/No arguments from each side.
The Yes/No booklet is barely legible. Anyone find a good copy onine?
There was no "ruse", and nobody "saw through" anything. It was imply a case of stupid people making stupid decisions.
Q/ Do you want your vote to have the same value as every other vote?
A/ Duh, no.
Are We Lost said
03:02 PM Jun 19, 2021
Dorian, did you read the case for No? An absolutely essential part of our constitution is not to give ultimate power to the Federal government. As I said before, if too much power is centralised, it is always bad.
If it had been Howard who wanted to do it, and give the Liberals more power at a Federal level what would you have thought? The first bullet point in the No vote case would have then read "This proposal is an attempt by the Liberal Government to take control of State elections away from the States."
bgt said
07:41 PM Jun 19, 2021
Regardless of opinions there must come a time when the constitution, from 1901, becomes a bit of a nonsense. Times have changed and those responsible for our constitution didn't possess a crystal ball that would tell them what the country would be like in 120 years. The covid situation has highlighted a number of examples. Who's responsible for quarantine and/or health? Under what circumstances can states close borders. Number of senators per state? (not a covid issue but!) etc etc etc. The high court has ruled on a family highlighted in the media over the last week. So do those laws need to be written in, or out, or clarified, in the constitution? Time for a complete review of the constitution. Now do we think our politicians can sit down and come up with a consensus on changes?
Mike Harding said
04:18 AM Jun 20, 2021
Are We Lost wrote:
An absolutely essential part of our constitution is not to give ultimate power to the Federal government.
Despite the failings and inefficiencies of our state/federal system it virtually guarantees this country will never become a dictatorship and I agree AWL, I would never vote to dilute that distribution of power.
I have a deep mistrust of politicians and the machinery of government; I have never heard a politician say "We have too many laws and need to repeal some" - always the government, police and administration want *more* laws which mainly serve to restrict our freedom which is exactly why we need a bill of rights.
dorian said
07:31 AM Jun 20, 2021
One man, one vote is a fundamental tenet of any genuine democracy (or a dictatorship). The referendum question was a rhetorical one -- there was only one correct answer. You cannot spin it any other way. If the Australian public are too stupid to understand this basic principle, then why bother asking these same morons to vote on a bill of rights? Governments come and go, but the constitution is here to stay. The Queensland gerrymander was created by Labor, and later exploited by Joh, but the constitutional amendment would have benefited neither.
Izabarack said
08:11 AM Jun 20, 2021
bgt wrote:
Regardless of opinions there must come a time when the constitution, from 1901, becomes a bit of a nonsense.
Absence of foresight, as not having a crystal ball, example is the USA's Second amendment. Essentially, and in the thinking of the day, the amendment gave citizens the right to join local Militia groups and carry the "arms" of the day, muskets.
A Bill of Rights would provide a higher order background to those drafting Legislation in this country and further allow the (Supreme) Court/s to ratify the application of Legislation. Legislation today is aimed at concrete descriptions of behaviours and that results in so many appeals to higher courts having the intent of the legislation confirmed in practice.
One inclusion in any Bill of Rights I would endorse would be for MPs to represent their constituents in Parliament rather than toeing some party line, that is, people first and political allegiances second.
bgt said
08:38 AM Jun 20, 2021
Regardless of politicians and their 'intent' it's the high court that will interpret that 'intent'. Regardless of the politicians 'intent' the lawyers will twist and manipulate their argument in such away that the politicians 'intent' will eventually fail. All laws need to be scrutinized by the devils advocate to find the loop holes. Until that is done any bill of rights or rewriting of the constitution will fail.
Grandad5 said
10:07 AM Jun 20, 2021
Funny thing. I've just read all of the links provided and found zero references to anything at all to do with changes to the relationship between federal and state powers.
Recognition of local government? Yes.
Anything to do with state or federal? Not a single word.
I guess facts don't really matter. Just blame Labor. It has worked in Australia for decades.
(and, thank you dorian)
Jim
Buzz Lightbulb said
11:14 AM Jun 20, 2021
Aren't we already covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948?
Does anyone here think, that Australia and it's people should have a Bill of Rights?, so we have certain protections under the Constitution. I know we are surely lacking any real legal protections from the Government or the Law when push comes to shove.
Yes
If we did get a Bill of Rights should there also be a Bill of Responsibilities
+1
"Bill of Responsibilities". Now we're talking sense,but "responsiblity" is alien to many,who know only of their "rights". Cheers
If we could get a Bill of Rights, one thing I would like is the Right to Privacy, that is something we don't have anymore, specifically in the last 2 years.
There is no excuse for any democratic country *not* to have a bill of rights.
. . . and there is no excuse for any country not to be democratic.
However, some years ago Australians voted No to a referendum question that asked whether they wanted free and fair elections. On that basis it would appear that Australians are too stupid to know what is good for them. Today this same stupidity is reflected in the antivaxxers.
That's the luck of the draw. If you have no rights, then you're at the mercy of your government. Australia would have experienced the same infection rates, and death rates, as the USA and UK if boofheads like Tony Abbott were in charge. The USA and UK weren't so lucky.
dorian that's a very silly statement. Again you bring a blatant political statement into what has been until now a discussion about a bill of rights and you shoot of on a tangent of illogical political bias. The USA, as an example, has a bill of rights. Yet it's often challenged in their courts. So in the end the courts decide on the correct interpretation. Just like they do here in Australia. Australia is over governed what we don't need is more laws.
I'm just stating facts which should be self-evident, and I'm using the current pandemic crisis as an example.
As for political bias, compare the likely COVID response of an Abbott government against the Morrison and state governments in a country whose politicians are not fettered by a Bill of Rights:
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/jan/26/tony-abbott-attacks-coronavirus-hysteria-and-health-despotism-in-ipa-video
Abbott would have sacrificed thousands of old people like us for the benefit of the economy.
Ok, dorian, to quote someone who should never be quoted ...." please explain?"
Jim
Read Abbott's own words in the Guardian.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Australian_referendum#Fair_Elections
dorian do you actually believe what the Guardian writes?
The Guardian cites Abbott's own words, in print and in video. The Guardian's own stance is immaterial.
If that's a problem for you, then read this SMH article about the IPA's failed attempt to undermine the government's COVID-19 response:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/inside-the-failed-efforts-to-dismantle-australia-s-coronavirus-response-20200423-p54mjb.html
The IPA is Abbott's crusade to "save the Australian way of life", even if he has to let thousands of old farts die in the process:
https://ipa.org.au/australianvalues
"Vote Yes for fairer elections". How could anyone vote against that? Well, fortunately even the left wing states saw through the ruse of those "motherhood" words and voted it down. Only ACT voted for it with a slim majority. Most recognised that the proposed changes would have the exact opposite effect if approved.
To understand the scenario, this was back in the Bob Hawke days and followed on from his concerted attempts to bring in the Australia Card. The public regardless of political persuasion did not want the government to have such a centralised ID system. There were even penalties planned to be imposed on businesses that did not mandate it. When he failed to get the legislation through, he brought on a double dissolution, but that still did not give him control of the senate. So again he was unable to get it passed.
Following hot on from that, the next step he tried was the 1988 referendum which if voted in would have weakened the states powers and transferred them to the federal government ..... a step towards dictatorship. Having too much power focused in one organisation is always bad.
Here is the public booklet that summarises the four referendum questions. Most importantly for understanding, it contains the Yes/No arguments from each side.
1988 Referendum Booklet.
The Yes/No booklet is barely legible. Anyone find a good copy onine?
Tonylee, would you vote against it then if it was put to the people, like maybe the right to Freedom, the right to Privacy, the right to defend yourself against a threat of harm, their are many more "Rights" we should have as well, would you vote against these few examples I have listed.
-- Edited by Bicyclecamper on Saturday 19th of June 2021 02:11:47 PM
There was no "ruse", and nobody "saw through" anything. It was imply a case of stupid people making stupid decisions.
Q/ Do you want your vote to have the same value as every other vote?
A/ Duh, no.
Dorian, did you read the case for No? An absolutely essential part of our constitution is not to give ultimate power to the Federal government. As I said before, if too much power is centralised, it is always bad.
If it had been Howard who wanted to do it, and give the Liberals more power at a Federal level what would you have thought? The first bullet point in the No vote case would have then read "This proposal is an attempt by the Liberal Government to take control of State elections away from the States."
Regardless of opinions there must come a time when the constitution, from 1901, becomes a bit of a nonsense. Times have changed and those responsible for our constitution didn't possess a crystal ball that would tell them what the country would be like in 120 years. The covid situation has highlighted a number of examples. Who's responsible for quarantine and/or health? Under what circumstances can states close borders. Number of senators per state? (not a covid issue but!) etc etc etc. The high court has ruled on a family highlighted in the media over the last week. So do those laws need to be written in, or out, or clarified, in the constitution? Time for a complete review of the constitution. Now do we think our politicians can sit down and come up with a consensus on changes?
Despite the failings and inefficiencies of our state/federal system it virtually guarantees this country will never become a dictatorship and I agree AWL, I would never vote to dilute that distribution of power.
I have a deep mistrust of politicians and the machinery of government; I have never heard a politician say "We have too many laws and need to repeal some" - always the government, police and administration want *more* laws which mainly serve to restrict our freedom which is exactly why we need a bill of rights.
One man, one vote is a fundamental tenet of any genuine democracy (or a dictatorship). The referendum question was a rhetorical one -- there was only one correct answer. You cannot spin it any other way. If the Australian public are too stupid to understand this basic principle, then why bother asking these same morons to vote on a bill of rights? Governments come and go, but the constitution is here to stay. The Queensland gerrymander was created by Labor, and later exploited by Joh, but the constitutional amendment would have benefited neither.
Absence of foresight, as not having a crystal ball, example is the USA's Second amendment. Essentially, and in the thinking of the day, the amendment gave citizens the right to join local Militia groups and carry the "arms" of the day, muskets.
A Bill of Rights would provide a higher order background to those drafting Legislation in this country and further allow the (Supreme) Court/s to ratify the application of Legislation. Legislation today is aimed at concrete descriptions of behaviours and that results in so many appeals to higher courts having the intent of the legislation confirmed in practice.
One inclusion in any Bill of Rights I would endorse would be for MPs to represent their constituents in Parliament rather than toeing some party line, that is, people first and political allegiances second.
Regardless of politicians and their 'intent' it's the high court that will interpret that 'intent'. Regardless of the politicians 'intent' the lawyers will twist and manipulate their argument in such away that the politicians 'intent' will eventually fail. All laws need to be scrutinized by the devils advocate to find the loop holes. Until that is done any bill of rights or rewriting of the constitution will fail.
Funny thing. I've just read all of the links provided and found zero references to anything at all to do with changes to the relationship between federal and state powers.
Recognition of local government? Yes.
Anything to do with state or federal? Not a single word.
I guess facts don't really matter. Just blame Labor. It has worked in Australia for decades.
(and, thank you dorian)
Jim
Aren't we already covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948?