Constitutional Bill Of Rights In Australia

Whether the adoption of a constitutional Bill of Rights promotes freedom and liberty is a highly debated topic. I agree that Australians should avoid the immediate adoption of a constitutional Bill of Rights as it gives the judiciary too much power. This essay will explore the advantages and disadvantages in implementing a constitutional Bill of Rights and whether implementing a Bill of Rights will shift the balance of the government and courts and what those consequences will be. This essay will further attempt to provide an alternative solution to protecting human rights in Australia if a Bill of Rights is necessary.

In Australia, there is no current Bill of Rights but rather an amalgamation of common law, legislation and the constitution

These rights are presently unshielded by the law. One can say a Constitutional bill of Rights is required to protect the people. There are many advantages in implementing a constitutional Bill of Rights; it would give recognition to certain universal rights, power of action to Australians who are otherwise powerless, meet Australia’s international obligations, improve government policy making, and administrative decision making. A constitutional Bill of Rights enables judges to invalidate laws that are in conflict with human rights. These are laws that have been enacted by parliament. However, it's an arduous process to amend the constitution, capable only by a referendum, which is why one may argue that due to its difficulty, it achieves the objective of impeding parliament to pass laws that may be inconsistent with human

However, as the United Nations lacks the power to enforce these treaties, the most effective way for Australia to incorporate these international treaties is through domestic regulation – constitutional or statute. Currently, Australia has some statutes that reflect and incorporate the international obligations. Following the Westminster system, the Parliament has the power to make laws. When there is a dispute about how parliamentary law is to be interpreted, independent judges are called upon to determine the dispute. As a biased parliament may wish it to be interpreted in a particular way, a judge’s duty is mainly concerned with applying existing laws unrestricted from political pressure. Particularly where one of the parties to a dispute is the State, the public trust in the confidence that there is a clear separation between those who make the law and those who interpret it. There will be an impartial, objective interpretation: ‘the government’ will not be there, pushing a barrow. At the adjudicative stage under the Australian system, the decision- maker is utterly impartial, and especially, not constrained by governmental or party-political pressure. To ensure perceptions of this, judges are promised security of tenure, not removable except in specified circumstances. By these means, judicial independence is upheld as the safeguard of justice according to law and the