The Constitution and the Protection of Rights
The Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (UK) 1901 is a document that outlines the structures and the law making powers of the Commonwealth Parliament. This document provides for the protection of rights in three ways. Firstly, rights are safeguarded through structural protections, which are a system of checks and balances set up by the founders of the constitution to protect human and democratic rights by ensuring that absolute power is not held by one body, thus avoiding corruption or abuse of Commonwealth power. Some of these structural protections include the separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, the bicameral parliament, and the principles of representative and responsible government (s.7, 24, 28, 13) which protect our right to vote by providing a government that is ‘directly chosen by the people’ through elections, and is therefore a government that holds the views of the majority of the population and is answerable and accountable to parliament and the public. Secondly, rights are also protected through express rights which are rights and freedoms that are entrenched into the constitution, and are only changeable via referendum. The five express rights protected by the constitution include ; the acquisition of property on just terms (s.51), trial by jury for indictable offences (s.80), freedom of movement (s.92), freedom of religion (s.116), and freedom from interstate discrimination(s.117). And thirdly, implied rights offer a means for protection as through interpreting the Constitution and considering many cases, the High Court of Australia recognizes other rights belonging to Australians that the founders of the constitution i...
... middle of paper ...
...erritory [2013] HCA 55. (2013, January 1). Australian Human Rights Commission. Retrieved 6:00 pm, April 19, 2014, from http://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/commonwealth-v-australian-capital-territory-2013-hca-55
Gill, K. (2014, January 1). How Does the U.S. Constitution Get Amended? About.com US Politics. Retrieved 11:30 am, April 18, 2014, from http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/a/amendments.htm
Learning. (2014, January 1). Separation of Powers: Parliament, Executive and Judiciary. Retrieved 2:00 pm, April 18, 2014, from http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/separation-of-powers.html
Twomey, A. (2013, December 12). ACT law delivers neither marriage nor equality: the High Court's verdict. The Conversation. Retrieved 5:00 pm April 19, 2014, from http://theconversation.com/act-law-delivers-neither-marriage-nor-equality-the-high-courts-verdict-21406
The milestone judicial decision in Cole v Whitfield pronounced a pivotal moment in Australian jurisprudence in relation to the interpretation of s92 of the Australian constitution. This essay will critically analyse the constitutional interpretation approach utilised in Cole v Whitfield. This method will be compared with the interpretational methods exemplified in Commonwealth v Australian Capital Territory. Although within these two cases there appears to be a preference towards a particular interpretational method, each mode has both strengths and weaknesses. Accordingly, the merit of each should be employed in conjunction with one another, where the court deems fit, complementing each other. This may provide a holistic approach to interpreting the constitution.
The validity of British’s occupation of Australia has been fundamentally shaken. The decision protected Aboriginal people’s cultures and lifestyles to a certain degree. Moreover, it guaranteed that some of the lands they live will not be developed. There were five key issues of importance to legal precedent in the Mabo decision for the recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights in Australia (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, 2017). For example, it helps to promote the idea of non-discrimination. From then on, a series of laws had been introduced to help safeguard their standard legal rights and
The Fourteenth Amendment ultimately became the heart and soul of the modern American Constitution. Most of the legal battle’s surrounding the United States Bill of Rights have been to make it a truly national document – such that states may not violate its provisions. The Fourteenth Amendment finally made this possible. A more sudden, but perhaps equally profound event is the adoption in 1982 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Whereas before the adoption of the Charter Canadian legislatures were supreme, having power without limit within their jurisdictions, they now have debatable supremacy within altered jurisdictions.
For many years, the question of how adaptable and flexible the constitution is in Australia has been widely debated. As of now the atmosphere of verbal confrontation on protected change, has restored enthusiasm toward the issue in exploring whether the constitution is versatile and adaptable in meeting the needs of the nation following 100 years in being embraced.
Australians by not clarifying it’s stance on it’s international obligations to Indigenous Australians or reflecting it’s international rhetoric and signature on UN conventions by implementing some in domestic law. This inadequacy in the development of Indigenous Peoples Land Rights in Australia has been declared by the Working Group on Indigenous Populations in July 1997, and highlights the Australian government policy regarding Indigenous Peoples Land Rights and may be argued as a denial of justice for Indigenous People by the Australian legal system. Australia can be said to be ineffective in achieving justice for Indigenous People due to it’s failure to recognise Indigenous Australians rights to land domestically by failing the Human Rights standards contained in international initiatives to which it is a signatory.
Struggles by Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people for recognition of their rights and interests have been long and arduous (Choo & Hollobach: 2003:5). The ‘watershed’ decision made by the High Court of Australia in 1992 (Mabo v Queensland) paved the way for Indigenous Australians to obtain what was ‘stolen’ from them in 1788 when the British ‘invaded’ (ATSIC:1988). The focus o...
Democracy is more than merely a system of government. It is a culture – one that promises equal rights and opportunity to all members of society. Democracy can also be viewed as balancing the self-interests of one with the common good of the entire nation. In order to ensure our democratic rights are maintained and this lofty balance remains in tact, measures have been taken to protect the system we pride ourselves upon. There are two sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that were implemented to do just this. Firstly, Section 1, also known as the “reasonable limits clause,” ensures that a citizen cannot legally infringe on another’s democratic rights as given by the Charter. Additionally, Section 33, commonly referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” gives the government the power to protect our democracy in case a law were to pass that does not violate our Charter rights, but would be undesirable. Professor Kent Roach has written extensively about these sections in his defence of judicial review, and concluded that these sections are conducive to dialogue between the judiciary and the legislature. Furthermore, he established that they encourage democracy. I believe that Professor Roach is correct on both accounts, and in this essay I will outline how sections 1 and 33 do in fact make the Canadian Charter more democratic. After giving a brief summary of judicial review according to Roach, I will delve into the reasonable limits clause and how it is necessary that we place limitations on Charter rights. Following this, I will explain the view Professor Roach and I share on the notwithstanding clause and how it is a vital component of the Charter. To conclude this essay, I will discuss the price at which democr...
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was signed into law by Queen Elizabeth II April 17, 1982. Often referred to as the Charter, it affirms the rights and freedoms of Canadians in the Constitution of Canada. The Charter encompasses fundamental freedoms, democratic rights, mobility rights, legal rights, language rights and equality rights. The primary function of the Charter is to act as a regulatory check between Federal, Provincial and Territorial governments and the Canadian people. Being a successor of the Canadian Bill of Rights that was a federal statute, amendable by Parliament, the Charter is a more detailed and explicit constitutional document that has empowered the judiciary to render regulations and statutes at both the federal and provincial levels of government unconstitutional. Although the rights and freedoms of Canadians are guaranteed, Sections one and seven of the Charter permit the federal and provincial governments to limit the rights and freedoms enjoyed by Canadians. Section one of the Charter designated ‘Rights and freedoms in Canada’ states “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” This section is frequently referred to and better known as the reasonable limits clause. The second rights and freedoms limiting section of the Charter, known as the ‘notwithstanding clause’ is Section thirty-three entitled ‘Exception where express declaration’ declares
The Australian Human Rights Commission (2011:p1) states that “Gender equality is a principal that lies at the heart of a fair and productive society”. If gender equality is the heart of a fair and productive society than the laws and regulations in place must be the key in maintaining a fair and productive society. If regulations and laws are not frequently discussed, debated and reviewed than issues such as sex discrimination in particular can be sufficiently dealt with or ignored. The Carter v Linuki Pty t/as Aussie & Anor [2005] NSWADTAP 40 (22 August 2005) will be used to demonstrate the regulations surrounding sexual discrimination. In this paper a thoroughly investigation into the recent changes in laws and regulations encompassing sexual discrimination will be conducted in relation to the case provided. By using the elements of the case the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SDA) will be applied to the facts presented in order to explain the regulation surrounding this issue. Since the case involves a work related situation where the employee was discriminated on the basis of gender the SDA will be used. A Brief description on the impact of exclusion will be provided to demonstrate the causal link between exclusion and gender discrimination. Firstly, the case’s elements will now be analysed.
Separation of powers is the separation of branches under the constitution by the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government. Federalism is a government system that includes the national government, which shares sovereign powers with fifty state governments.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted under the Pierre Trudeau government on April 17, 1982. According to Phillip Bryden, “With the entrenchment of the Charter into the Canadian Constitution, Canadians were not only given an explicit definition of their rights, but the courts were empowered to rule on the constitutionality of government legislation” (101). Prior to 1982, Canada’s central constitutional document was the British North America Act of 1867. According to Kallen, “The BNA Act (the Constitution Act, 1867) makes no explicit reference to human rights” (240). The adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms significantly transformed the operation of Canada’s political system. Presently, Canadians define their needs and complaints in human rights terms. Bryden states, “More and more, interest groups and minorities are turning to the courts, rather than the usual political processes, to make their grievances heard” (101). Since it’s inception in 1982 the Charter has become a very debatable issue. A strong support for the Charter remains, but there also has been much criticism toward the Charter. Academic critics of the Charter such as Robert Martin believe that the Charter is doing more harm than good, and is essentially antidemocratic and UN-Canadian. I believe that Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic, although, the Charter itself represents a democratic document. Parliament’s involvement in implementing the Charter is antidemocratic because the power of the executive is enhanced at the expense of Parliament, and the power of the judiciary is enhanced at the expense of elected officials, although, the notwithstanding clause continues to provide Parliament with a check on...
Since the time of federation the Aboriginal people have been fighting for their rights through protests, strikes and the notorious ‘day of mourning’. However, over the last century the Australian federal government has generated policies which manage and restrained that of the Aboriginal people’s rights, citizenships and general protection. The Australian government policy that has had the most significant impact on indigenous Australians is the assimilation policy. The reasons behind this include the influences that the stolen generation has had on the indigenous Australians, their relegated rights and their entitlement to vote and the impact that the policy has had on the indigenous people of Australia.
Charter. No one, including the government, has the right to deprive any person of these rights which are given...
The first ten amendments were added to the Constitution of the United States in a period of uneasy calm. The Americans who were most apprehensive over that untried document, because its guarantees of liberty did not go far enough, included a great many who wanted to cut down its grants of legislative and executive power. But the amendments were drafted and submitted to the nation by men who supported both the substantive powers of the new government and the protection of civil rights and liberties. If some of them had little zest for the amendments they voted for, they at least recognized the force of the popular demand and joined in satisfying it. The major task of Madison and his congressional associates was to place the amending of the Constitution high on the House of Representatives agenda, ahead of important bills that were to fill out the structure of government. With that achieved, the amendments submitted by Madison were taken up,debated and perfected with scarce a single move to weaken them. (Brant 223)...
Lisa Webley and Harriet Samuels defined the separation of powers as a theory or doctrine that describes the way in which a state organises the distribution of power and function between its different parties. The separation of powers is divided into three branches which are the executive, legislative and Judiciary.