Should The High Court Or The Parliament Determine The Rights And Freedoms Of Australians

Essay from the year 2004 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Region: Australia, New Zealand, grade: credit (70/100), The University of Sydney (Faculty of Economics and Business), course: Australian Politics, 12 entries in the bibliography, language: English, abstract: It is known that in a democracy there are, in general, three different branches of the government: the legislative, the executive and the judicial branch. This essay explores the relative powers of the legislation and the judiciary in determining the freedoms and rights of modern days Australians. It specifically questions whether the High Court or the Parliament should determine the rights and freedoms of Australians. If you examine modern day theories of democracy, you will discover that the legislative branch of government is traditionally responsible for making law and the judiciary for interpreting law. These two bodies, as they are respectively known in Australia, are the Parliament and the High Court. Between these two bodies, an intimate relationship exists that inevitably leads to interpretive and political conflicts, namely because it is "the judge it is who must decide what the Act means" (Gifford, p.39). The main difficulty of this implicit conflict is a subjective determination concerning exactly where the power of the legislation, in our case the Parliament, ends and where the power of the judiciary, in our case the High Court, begins. In answering the main question of this essay, one must also address the relevant moral dimensions associated with this relationship. In adopting this methodology, I shall be able to decide which alternative is the better. Is it preferable if the High Court determines the rights and freedoms or should that be a task of the Parliament? First of all I think it is necessary to emphasize the roles of the Parliament and the High Court in the Australian democracy. For that I would like to have a look into the Constitution of Australia and menti

No Marketing Blurb

The High Court is taking an increasingly important role in shaping the contours of democracy in Australia. In deciding fundamental democratic questions, does the Court pursue a consistent and overarching democratic vision? Or are its decisions essentially constrained by institutional and practical limitations? Judging Democracy, first published in 2000, addresses this question by examining the Court's recent decisions on human rights, citizenship, native title and separation of powers. It represents the first major political and legal examination of the Court's new jurisprudence and the way it is influencing democracy and the institutions of governance in Australia. A foreword to the book has been written by the former Chief Justice of the High Court, Sir Anthony Mason.

The publication of Parliamentary Privilege in Australia in 1966 established Enid Campbell as the country's leading scholar in the area. Now Professor Campbell has written a successor which, while drawing on parts of the earlier work, focusses on issues and problems which have arisen in recent years, particularly since the enactment of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987. Topics specifically examined in the book include - the scope of the central privilege of freedom of speech and debate in parliament; measures adopted by houses of parliaments to regulate exercise of that freedom; restrictions on the uses which may be made of evidence of what has been said and done in the course of parliamentary proceedings; immunities accorded to MPs in respect of various legal processes, such as ones which require them to appear before a court to give evidence; the powers of houses of parliaments to make inquiries and to delegate investigatory powers to committee of their members; the power of houses of parliaments to impose penalties of a criminal character and to discipline their members. This book, like its predecessor, will be the standard reference on the laws concerning the powers, privileges and immunities of Australian parliaments, their members and committees for the next generation.

Detailed study of civil liberties in Australia from a legal perspective. Aims to raise the level of debate on legal, social and moral aspects of the rights of the individual. Contains detailed historical and theoretical accounts of issues effecting human rights. The authors are lecturers in law at Monash University and the University of NSW respectively.

Australia is now the only major Anglophone country that has not adopted a Bill of Rights. Since 1982 Canada, New Zealand and the UK have all adopted either constitutional or statutory bills of rights. Australia, however, continues to rely on common law, statutes dealing with specific issues such as racial and sexual discrimination, a generally tolerant society and a vibrant democracy. This book focuses on the protection of human rights in Australia and includes international perspectives for the purpose of comparison and it provides an examination of how well Australian institutions, governments, legislatures, courts and tribunals have performed in protecting human rights in the absence of a Bill of Rights.

How do you protect rights without a Bill of Rights? Australia does not have a national bill or charter of rights and looks further away than ever from adopting one. But it does have a range of individual elements sourced from common law, statute and the Constitution which, though unsystematic, do provide Australians with some meaningful rights protection. This book outlines and explains the unique human rights journey of Australia. It moves beyond the criticisms long made of the Australian position – that its 'formalism', 'legalism' and 'exceptionalism' compromise its capacity for rights protection – to consider how the many elements of its novel legal structure operate. This book analyses the interlocking legal framework for the protection of rights in Australia. A key theme of the book is that the many different elements of a fragmented scheme can add up to something significant, albeit with significant gaps and flaws like any other legal rights protection framework. It shows how the jumbled influences of a common law heritage, a written constitution, differing paths taken by jurisdictions within a single federal state, statutory and common law innovations and a strong dose of comparative legal influences have led to the unique patchwork of rights protection in Australia. It will provide valuable reading for all those researching in human rights, constitutional and comparative law.

Is Australia a 'racist' country? Why do issues of race and culture seem to ignite public debate so readily? Tim Soutphommasane, Australia's Race Discrimination Commissioner, reflects on the national experience of racism and the progress that has been made since the introduction of the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975. As the first federal human rights and discrimination legislation, the Act was a landmark demonstration of Australia's commitment to eliminating racism. Published to coincide with the Act's fortieth anniversary, this book gives a timely and incisive account of the history of racism, the limits of free speech, the dimensions of bigotry and the role of legislation in our society's response to discrimination. With contributions by Maxine Beneba Clarke, Bindi Cole Chocka, Benjamin Law, Alice Pung and Christos Tsiolkas.

Australian Constitutional Landmarks presents the most significant cases and controversies in the Australian constitutional landscape up to its original publication in 2003. Including the Communist Party case, the dismissal of the Whitlam government, the Free Speech cases, a discussion of the race power, the Lionel Murphy saga, and the Tasmanian Dam case, this book highlights turning points in the shaping of the Australian nation since Federation. Each chapter clearly examines the legal and political context leading to the case or controversy and the impact on later constitutional reform. With contributions by leading constitutional lawyers and judges, as well as two former chief justices, this book will appeal to members of the judiciary, lawyers, political scientists, historians and people with a general interest in Australian politics, government and history.