Response to Discussion Starter 2 from Newtown group An Australian Bill of Rights

Fifteen people attended the discussion at:
Newtown Neighbourhood Centre on May 5.e.


Bill of Rights

Dorothy McRae-McMahon introduced the Bill of Rights topic by noting that Australia is now the only long-standing democratic country without a Bill of Rights. She noted objections to a Bill of Rights being too rigid, or only for lawyers to make money. In answer, she said that there could be a Review College to make recommendations for changes to the Bill, or a process of review every 50 years. As for the fear of litigation, it may well be that a Bill of Rights will reduce the number of court cases if it makes our rights clearer. In any case, people have the right to appeal to the courts to uphold their rights.

She argued that the process of creating a Bill of Rights may be as important as the content of the Bill because it is a discussion about what kind of society we are, what is our bottom line on our rights.

People in New Zealand, which now has a Bill of Rights, have advised her that Australia should go for broad collective rights, such as free and compulsory education, as well as individual rights.

She said that this debate was important in the Now We The People pfocess because of the slippage of rights under corporate globalisation.

In discussion, it was raised that:

  • It should be a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. The basis shoud be sustainable rights eg if everyone exercised a right eg to private education or a costly medical procedure, could society sustain it?
  • Will it cause too much court action?
  • Rights have arisen from powerful movements such as the Chartists last century. Is there a real demand for a Bill of Rights in Australia?
  • The question of rights has to be connected to questions of power, equality is not only financial
  • Cultural rights should be protected in a general way
  • Writing a Bill of Rights may seem abstract or esoteric for movments, but social movements and rights are needed
  • People may accept a general Bill of Rights but then be sharply divided over how it is implemented.

    The question of whether the Bill of Rights should be in the Constitution, or simply be a special law of the federal parliament, was discussed. The fear of politicians watering it down or suspending its application is behind the desire to see the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

    How would a Bill of Rights work? An example is the Wik 10 point plan of Howard. This required the suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act. If freedom from racial discrimination was in a Bill of Rights or the Constitution, then a court would have struck down all or part of the 10 point plan. Similarly, parts of the Workplace Relations Act would have been struck down.

    Specific rights were discussed.

  • Right to life and the right to die with dignity, both of which require access to adequate food, shelter and medical care. This should mean that there is a right to be assisted in death and for the people who assist to be protected.
  • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander rights, including to self-determination, should be in a Bill of Rights or in the Constitution, whichever option opens up first.
  • Electoral system to be based on votes of equal value, with implications for equal electorates, and perhaps for a proportional representation system.
  • The right to be a member of a trade union and to collectively bargain and withhold labour should be in a Bill of Rights. This right has been diminished and taken away for some workers under the Howard government, and there is no legal redress.

    Some people fear rights being expressed, but it can be a very positive way to reclaim a community. For example, the right for a victim of crime to have a say in the punishment of the perpetrator is scary, but in western Sydney it has turned out to be a very positive development.

    One participant emphasised that we can't have a Bill of Rights without changing society, but if you don't have a broad statement of rights, you can tend to the danger of diminishing rights.

    Global warming and the looming energy crisis mean that our current social system is unsustainable, and we should not be trying to sustain it, but to change it.