Discussion on an Australian Bill of Rights Held at the Harris' House in Leura on Sunday 8th April, 2001

Present were: Mary and Henry Chan, Pauline Evatt, Norman and Laurel Harris, Brian McInnes and Elfreda Sangkuhl

Apologies: Monica Nugent And Kathy Herbert

In the initial discussion there were some differences expressed regarding whether there really was a need to have a formal Bill of Rights at all. Several people said that not having one left things "up in the air" while some concern was expressed that there was a danger if, in defining a Bill of Rights any important rights were omitted these neglected rights then might be denied to the community.

It was generally agreed that individual and community rights and expectations (as defined on p.3 Discussion Starter 2) were diminishing in Australia but some thought that perhaps codifying a Bill of Rights might not be the answer to this problem. However, if a Bill of Rights were devised it was mooted that it would be important to make sure that there would be a built in mechanism to monitor and update the Bill as social attitudes and expectations changed. There was a perception that rights were more likely to be eroded by more conservative governments. It was noted that in the last six years many organisations and practices protecting citizens' rights have been whittled away or disbanded and that environmental protection has been reduced.

Some of the questions raised were:
  • To whom should the Bill of Rights apply? (Native-born Residents, migrants with residential, tourists, but what about Refugees or those on working visas etc?)
  • Regarding rights of association might this include associations some might regard as undesirable (Could legality of actions deal with this adequately?)
  • Some questioned whether housing was a right. Some views were that means tested public housing needed to be provided but that citizens needed social and economic conditions where they were relatively easily able to buy a house.
  • Should a Bill of Rights include access to clean water and air and the maintenance of environmental integrity.
  • Some of the issues involve the adequacy of resources. For example USA has a codified Bill of Rights but still has abuses of these rights because of inadequate resource allocation. As times change new rights may be identified but not resourced.
  • Other problems are that rights tend to be defined by older, white middle class males. They are also very individually focussed and ignore both the social and physical environments of individuals and groups.
  • There was general consensus that all rights ought to imply reciprocal responsibilities.
  • Discussants thought that there were some signs that more people were prepared and wishing to become involved in defining what are our rights and responsibilites and what kind of a society we might aspire to create. The problem however is overcoming the experiences of having been squashed by authoritarian institutions and attitudes.
  • One discussant took the view that rather than having a codified Bill of Rights it might be better to have a Constitutional preamble defining the kind of society we would like to live in.
  • Another suggestion was to allocate a fixed percentage of the GST for Education, Health Care etc.