Liberalism now requires a bill of rights to protect the individual against Big Brother, says big l Liberal

G'day. Steven Ciobo MP is no small l Liberal, but he reflected growing concern at the grotesque shift in the power balance between State and citizen in Australia in a grievance debate speech to Parliament last night. Australians desperately need a bill of rights to have some way of protecting themselves against the ever growing, ever more unaccountable power of police to detain us without charge and without supervision by the Courts. ALL other western democracies have some form of legal protection of their civil liberties. We are bereft of them, and John Howard wants to keep it that way. Here is Mr Ciobo's speech, which shocked many fellow Liberals, to say the least. Ciobo's idea closely mirrors that of Professor George Williams - see Urgent: an Australian bill of rights for all of us (9 May 2005). I published Maclom Fraser's 2000 conversion speech on the need for a bill of rights in Australia at How Malcolm Fraser has changed.

*

Mr CIOBO (Moncrieff) (5.11 p.m.)—In my first speech in this place on 13 February 2002, I posed the question ‘What is my purpose?’ In answering that question, I sought to outline a map that could guide my deliberations in my role as a member of the House of Representatives. In my first speech I touched on my fundamental beliefs as a Liberal Party member. These beliefs remain true and steadfast for me still today. Those beliefs were:

... in the sovereignty of the individual and their empowerment over the collective; in the responsibility every one of us has in a civil society; in the promotion of the family as the bedrock of any sustainable society; and in the limited role for the state in wealth redistribution and market intervention.

I continued:

Since the nefarious attack on all liberal democracies on September 11, I am steeled in my resolve to defend our freedoms. I am strengthened in my view that the Liberal Party remains in this country the greatest mechanism for resisting the incursion of the collective over the individual.

Today, nearly four years later, our nation and others continue to repel vicious and ruthless attempts to intimidate Western democracies and to curb the freedoms our people enjoy. Indeed, this very week, the executive arm of government is introducing a suite of new powers that will assist in enabling our front-line agencies, the men and women of the various Australian police forces, security agencies and other associated bodies, to fight against those who threaten our very way of life.

These enhanced powers are very necessary. The new threat paradigm the people of Australia and other peoples elsewhere must contend with is not predicated on our traditional view of nation state opposed to nation state. Rather, it is nation state against organised, but loose, collectives that we are preparing ourselves to fight. The men and women directly charged with maintaining Australia’s security need to have wide ranging powers in order to adequately perform their task. In the absence of good intelligence, terrorists are free to enjoy the same freedoms we all do in the West. In the absence of scrutiny, terrorists can plot and make preparations to murder and mutilate as many as their wicked plans aspire to. It is truly only the ability to gather intelligence and closely scrutinise potential terrorists among us that can provide reassurance to all Australians.

The concern, of course, is that in seeking to provide the necessary tools to our front line to adequately protect Australians and provide the security all Australians rightly demand, we must somehow not unduly erode the very freedoms we are fighting to maintain. Essentially, since the Magna Carta in 1215, Western democracies have been set apart from others through our pursuit and steadfast defence of liberty and human rights. The balance that must be achieved is between the desire for security and the individual incursions required to deliver it, on the one hand, and the need to maintain our gaze on individual freedoms and processes which continue to uphold the individual as the supreme focus in a liberal democracy, on the other. I can think of no better enunciation of this principle than the widely quoted American Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

In Australia, sharing as we do a common heritage with the United States, we enjoy constitutional and common law rights and responsibilities passed down through the generations from Britain. Our forefathers crafted an excellent constitution that has stood the test of time in better shape than most. Developed on a blend of the US and UK systems of government, the Australian Constitution truly embodies the best forms of government and accountability that serve all Australians.

This parliament is guided by section 51 of the Constitution in the development and implementation of laws. Laws that fall outside of the Commonwealth’s jurisdictional heads of power are unconstitutional and without effect, as determined by the High Court of Australia. This is necessary as a check balance on the powers of the executive.

Unlike the positive list of responsibilities for the Commonwealth government outlined in section 51 of the Constitution, however, individual rights in Australia are far less clear. The Constitution itself does specify certain individual rights as part of its broader focus on providing limits to executive powers. In the main, however, individual rights are largely outlined through the development of common law precedent and through the mixed bag of statute law providing for rights. This unstructured approach to defining individual rights has served Australia reasonably well also. It does, however, particularly lend itself to individual rights being a product of judicial interpretation.

This characteristic of the development of rights at law within Australia I find troubling. In addition, in light of the new threat paradigm facing Australia and her legislators, I see the potential for increased conflict and uncertainty arising from the legitimate need to curb certain freedoms to uphold the right to security, being tested in courts, at the mercy of judicial interpretation and application of implied constitutional rights and common law precedent. This is a situation that cannot, and should not, continue.

In an environment in which the executive is required to explore the interplay of individual rights against the need to provide collective security, surely there is a role to also explore the reverse. Some Australians are uncomfortable with the executive’s stronger pursuit of collective security at the expensive of individual freedom, even in the face of more calculated and malicious terrorist attacks. Other Australians place a higher emphasis on the need for collective security over individual freedom and are not necessarily concerned with a possible erosion of Western democratic principles of individual supremacy. Our personal views will, of course, reflect our respective weighting of these two competing demands. It is my contention that both viewpoints can be suitably comforted through the introduction of a statutory bill of rights in Australia.

This Australian parliament should be the principal tool of the will of the Australian people to legislate the individual-collective balance. A statutory bill of rights, at a time when the executive must tread more heavily in areas of individual rights, will provide the necessary counterbalance of providing and ensuring collectively that the individual remains the focus of a liberal democracy.

Currently, individual rights, because of their common law origin and their limited role and enunciation in the Australian Constitution, are subject to an activist court. A statutory bill of rights would provide greater clarity because it would be formulated by parliamentarians who are accountable to the Australian people. There should be very little scope for the Australian people to have those individual rights, the very keystone of Western liberal democracies, being subject to interpretation and judicial activism by those who are largely unaccountable and unknown—let alone the processes, which many Australians find completely mystifying.

The benefit of a statutory bill of rights will ensure that legislation will operate at the will of the parliament. As the composition of the parliament changes, so too perhaps is there scope for legislation pertaining to the bill of rights act to also change. I would propose that a court would not be able to strike down legislation that may sit in conflict with the bill of rights act. This is a crucial and fundamental keystone that underlies why it should be a statutory bill of rights rather than a bill of rights that perhaps most Australians associate with—that is, the United States Bill of Rights.

A statutory bill of rights will simply sit together with other pieces of legislation for courts to examine and to assess new legislation in comparison with. That legislation that might sit in conflict with a statutory bill of rights would simply have the court issuing, for example, a statement of incompatibility with the bill of rights act. Such a statement of incompatibility would seek to draw the attention of the media, of the opposition as well as of the Australian people to the operation of the new laws. The executive, of course, would then be required to outline the reason why such legislation is necessary or indeed to defend that legislation in the face of a statement of incompatibility by the High Court. A statutory bill of rights is necessary and important.

For comparison:

US Bill of Rights:

THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;

Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

From US Government site

ACT Bill of Rights:

Australian Capital Territory
Bill of Rights 1688 1 Will and Mary sess 2 c 2

An Act declaring the rights and liberties of the subject and settling the succession of the Crown.

Whereas the lords spiritual and temporal and commons assembled at Westminster lawfully fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred and eighty-eight present unto their Majesties then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary Prince and Princess of Orange being present in their proper persons a certain declaration in writing made by the said lords and commons in the words following:

Whereas the late King James the Second by the assistance of divers evil councillors, judges and ministers employed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom.

1 By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and execution of laws without consent of Parliament.

2 By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power.

3 By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the court of commissioners for ecclesiastical causes.

4 By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament.

5 By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament and quartering soldiers contrary to law.

6 By causing several good subjects being protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law.

7 By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament.

8 By prosecutions in the Court of King’s Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses.

9 And whereas of late years partial, corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders.

10 And excessive bail has been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects.

11 And excessive fines have been imposed; and illegal and cruel punishments inflicted.

12 And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied.

All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm:

And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated, the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the Prince of Orange (whom it has pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the lords spiritual and temporal and divers principal persons of the commons) cause letters to be written to the lords spiritual and temporal being protestants and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six hundred and eighty-eight in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters, elections having been accordingly made:

And thereupon the said lords spiritual and temporal and commons pursuant to their respective letters and elections being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties, declare:

1 Suspending power
That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal.

2 Late dispensing power
That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority as it has been assumed and exercised of late is illegal.

3 Ecclesiastical courts illegal
That the commission for erecting the late court of commissioners for ecclesiastical causes and all other commissions and courts of like nature are illegal and pernicious.

4 Levying money
That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative without grant of Parliament for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted is illegal.

5 Right to petition
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the King and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.

6 Standing army
That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace unless it be with consent of Parliament is against law.

7 Subjects’ arms
That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.

8 Freedom of election
That election of members of Parliament ought to be free.

9 Freedom of speech
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.

10 Excessive bail
That excessive bail ought not to be required nor excessive fines imposed nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

11 Juries
That jurors ought to be duly empannelled and returned.

12 Grants of forfeiture
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.

13 Frequent Parliaments
And that for redress of all grievances and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

I Undoubted rights and liberties
And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example.

To which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the Prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein.

Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the Prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties.

II Tender of crown

The said lords spiritual and temporal and commons assembled at Westminister do resolve that William and Mary Prince and Princess of Orange be and be declared King and Queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them the said prince and princess during their lives and the life of the survivor of them.
And that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said Prince of Orange in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint lives and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said Prince of Orange.

And the lords spiritual and temporal and commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.

III New oaths of allegiance

And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons to whom the oaths of allegiance and supremacy might be required by law instead of them and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.
I, A B, do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary.

So help me God.

I, A B, do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever.

And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate has or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.

So help me God.

IV Acceptance of crown

Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignities of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging according to the resolution and desire of the said lords and commons contained in the said declaration.

V Two houses to sit

And thereupon their Majesties were pleased that the said lords spiritual and temporal and commons being the two Houses of Parliament should continue to sit and with their Majesties’ royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted, to which the said lords spiritual and temporal and commons did agree and proceed to act accordingly.

VI Subjects’ liberties to be allowed

Now in pursuance of the premises the said lords spiritual and temporal and commons in Parliament assembled for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of a law made in due form by authority of Parliament do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration.

And all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all times to come.

VII William and Mary declared King and Queen

And the said lords spiritual and temporal and commons seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvellous providence and merciful goodness to this nation to provide and preserve their said Majesties’ royal persons most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors for which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises do truly, firmly, assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think and do hereby recognise, acknowledge and declare that King James the Second having abdicated the government and their Majesties having accepted the crown and royal dignity as aforesaid their said Majesties did become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this realm our sovereign liege lord and lady King and Queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging in and to whose princely persons the royal state crown and dignity of the said realms with all honours, styles, titles, regularities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully and rightfully and entirely invested and incorporated, united and annexed.

VIII Limitation of crown

And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm by reason of any pretended titles to the crown and for preserving a certainty in the succession thereof in and upon which the unity, peace, tranquillity and safety of this nation doth under God wholly consist and depend the said lords spiritual and temporal and commons do beseech their Majesties that it may be enacted, established and declared that the crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions with all and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining shall be and continue to their said Majesties and the survivor of them during their lives and the life of the survivor of them and that the entire, perfect and full exercise of the regal power and government be only in and executed by his Majesty in the names of both their Majesties during their joint lives and after their deceases the said crown and premises shall be and remain to the heirs of the body of her Majesty and for default of such issue to her royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of his said Majesty.

And thereunto the said lords spiritual and temporal and commons do in the name of all the people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities for ever and do faithfully promise that they will stand to maintain and defend their said Majesties and also the limitation and succession of the crown herein specified and contained to the utmost of their powers with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt any thing to the contrary.

IX Papists debarred the crown

And whereas it has been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince or by any King or Queen marrying a papist the said lords spiritual and temporal and commons do further pray that it may be enacted that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or church of Rome and shall profess the popish religion or shall marry a papist shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same.

And in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance and the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead.

X All Kings etc to take the declaration

And that every King and Queen of this realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the crown sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the lords and commons therein assembled or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen) make, subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration required by law.

But if it shall happen that such King or Queen upon his or her succession to the crown of this realm shall be under the age of twelve years then every such King or Queen shall make, subscribe and audibly repeat the said declaration at his or her coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such King or Queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years.

XI King assent

All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted and established by authority of this present Parliament and shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm for ever.
And the same are by their said Majesties by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal and commons in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same declared, enacted and established accordingly.

XII Non obstantes made void

No dispensation by non obstante of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed but the same shall be held void and of no effect except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute.

Endnotes

1 About the endnotes

Amending and modifying laws are annotated in the legislation history and the amendment history. Current modifications are not included in the republished law but are set out in the endnotes.

Not all editorial amendments made under the Legislation Act 2001, part 11.3 are annotated in the amendment history. Full details of any amendments can be obtained from the Parliamentary Counsel’s Office.
Uncommenced amending laws and expiries are listed in the legislation history and the amendment history. These details are underlined. Uncommenced provisions and amendments are not included in the republished law but are set out in the last endnote.

If all the provisions of the law have been renumbered, a table of renumbered provisions gives details of previous and current numbering.
The endnotes also include a table of earlier republications.

If the republished law includes penalties, current information about penalty unit values appears on the republication inside front cover.

2 Abbreviation key

am = amended ord = ordinance
amdt = amendment orig = original
ch = chapter p = page
cl = clause par = paragraph
def = definition pres = present
dict = dictionary prev = previous
disallowed = disallowed by the Legislative (prev...) = previously
Assembly prov = provision
div = division pt = part
exp = expires/expired r = rule/subrule
Gaz = Gazette reg = regulation/subregulation
hdg = heading renum = renumbered
IA = Interpretation Act 1967 reloc = relocated
ins = inserted/added R[X] = Republication No
LA = Legislation Act 2001 s = section/subsection
LR = legislation register sch = schedule
LRA = Legislation (Republication) Act 1996 sdiv = subdivision
mod = modified / modification sub = substituted
No = number SL = Subordinate Law
num = numbered underlining = whole or part not commenced
o = order or to be expired
om = omitted/repealed

3 Legislation history

This Act was originally a UK Act—The Bill of Rights 1688 1 Will and Mary sess 2 c 2 (UK). The Act was renamed as the Bill of Rights 1688 when it was first republished under the Legislation Act 2001.

The Act was in force in NSW immediately before 1 January 1911 (the date of establishment of the ACT) and was continued in force by the Seat of Government Acceptance Act 1909 (Cwlth), s 6.

Under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910 (Cwlth), s 4 the Act had effect in the ACT as if it were an ACT law (subject to ordinances made under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910).

The Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cwlth), s 34 (4) converted most former UK laws in force in the ACT into ACT enactments. This allowed the ACT Legislative Assembly to amend and repeal the laws. This Act was converted into an ACT enactment on 11 May 1989 (self-government day).

Under the Interpretation Act 1967 (repealed), s 65 all former UK Acts in force in the ACT immediately before 10 November 1999 (including this Act) became, for all purposes, laws made by the ACT Legislative Assembly. This completed the process of making former UK Acts fully into ACT laws.

Bill of Rights 1688 1 Will and Mary sess 2 c 2
as amended by
Imperial Acts Application Act 1986 No 93 s 5 and sch 3 pt 11
notified 12 January 1987 (Cwlth Gaz 1986 No S1)
s 5 and sch 3 pt 11 commenced 12 January 1987 ( s 2 (1))

4 Amendment history

The Imperial Acts Application Act 1986 (the 1986 Act), sch 3, pt 11 set out the text of this Act in an amended form and provided for the amended form to apply as the text of the Act in force in the ACT (see 1986 Act, s 5 (1), (4) and (5)).

The division of this Act into numbered paragraphs is in accordance with the text in Statutes at Large.

Section 11 was impliedly amended by 9 Geo 4 c 50, section 62 which repealed the parts of section 11 declaring that jurors who pass on men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders. The text of section 11 was amended accordingly by the 1986 Act.

Section X required the declaration mentioned in it be taken in accordance with 30 Chas 2 St 2 c 1. That Act was repealed in the UK by 29 and 30 Vic c 19. The declaration to be taken by the Sovereign is now prescribed by the Accession

Note the end notes - particularly the one about UK law and ACT law. Source from ACT Government

re: Liberalism now requires a bill of rights to protect the ind

Submitted by Janet Grevillea (not verified) on November 9, 2005 - 9:44am.

Amazing!

New Matilda's draft Bill of Rights.

Do you reckon some MP could read this draft into Hansard?

Submitted by Oscar Werring (not verified) on November 9, 2005 - 10:48am.

I was kinda hoping for a right to bear arms; this guy up the road is giving me the shits.

Submitted by Russell Darroch (not verified) on November 9, 2005 - 10:38am.

Submitted by Solomon Wakeling (not verified) on November 10, 2005 - 12:17pm.

Malcolm, yes it is a living instrument, just as Sir Owen Dixon said. We've already had this conversation, I didn't particularly want to have it again either, but since you mentioned it, I was providing you with a segue, so that you could elaborate on your point. The things I do for you.

Submitted by Malcolm B. Duncan (not verified) on November 10, 2005 - 9:16am.

So, Solomon Wakeling, you can read. Yes it is different - that is why it is better - it is flexible. See Crennan J's swearing in speech. Then leave me alone.

Submitted by Solomon Wakeling (not verified) on November 10, 2005 - 4:08am.

Malcolm, those sections mark out the jurisdiction of the High Court. Surely that is different from an instrument which grants individual rights to citizens.

Submitted by Malcolm B. Duncan (not verified) on November 9, 2005 - 3:17pm.

Another Federal pollie away with the faeries. Magna Carta 1215 indeed. Which Magna Carta? Read the book son Holt J.C. Magna Carta 2nd Ed Cambridge Universtiy Press, Cambridge 1992.

The Australian Bill of Rights: Constitution ss 71, 73, 75 and 76.

Submitted by Dee Bayliss (not verified) on November 9, 2005 - 2:22pm.

Geez Oscar, for years I thought the US Congress was proposing to arm bears...makes the notion of a trip through Yellowstone problematic.

Submitted by Grant Giachin (not verified) on November 9, 2005 - 1:46pm.

Would anybody honestly trust JWH to be involved in the creation of a "Bull of Rights"? That's not a typo, that's what it would be with his involvement. Just look at how he sabotaged the Republic Referendum. A Bill of Rights to protect us from his laws - he would manipulate it to justify his draconian laws for a lot longer than 10 years & to protect his & his Govt's inhuman actions (Iraq invasion, Immigration Detention etc) from future accountability.

Wouldn't it be far easier, more cost effective & surely more sensible to have a Bill that enshrines our adherence to international conventions on human rights? After all, these are the conventions that we hold up & wave in the face of other Govt's when we think they are mistreating their own citizens. If we expect other countries to abide by these standards, then why shouldn't we? A country specific Bill of Rights does not necessarily protect it's citizens from illegal & inhumane actions from their Govt. Nor does it neccesarily demand that it follows international conventions.

Why should we re-invent the wheel? International conventions & charters have been drawn up to protect people from the very things that we are in fear of overtaking our country now, which is how this Bill of Rights debate has started. They have been drawn up by very intelligent & capable lawyers, politicians & beauracrats from countries, races & religions around the world with no vested interestes other than to protect human rights. If we claim to be good global citizens & wish to be apart of the global markets then we should abide by the global laws when creating legislation for our laws.

Let's concentrate on reforming the only area that hasn't been "REFORMED" yet - "GOVERNMENT"

BTW, the US Bill of Rights is the last example people should be using to justify one for our nation. Look at how their "Right to Bear Arms" causes the deaths of tens of thousands of their citizens every year. And they invade countries, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people when only 5,000 are killed by terrorists (I am by no way trivialising 9-11, just using it to put things in perspective).

Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Navigation

Issue Archives

Comment viewing options

re: Liberalism now requires a bill of rights to protect the ind

re: Liberalism now requires a bill of rights to protect the ind

re: Liberalism now requires a bill of rights to protect the ind

re: Liberalism now requires a bill of rights to protect the ind

re: Liberalism now requires a bill of rights to protect the ind

re: Liberalism now requires a bill of rights to protect the ind

re: Liberalism now requires a bill of rights to protect the ind

re: Liberalism now requires a bill of rights to protect the ind

re: Liberalism now requires a bill of rights to protect the ind

Comment viewing options

Margo Kingston

Advertisements