Login
Why Australia needs a Bill of Rights
Speaking ahead of the 9th International Conference on Human Rights Education, Lawyers Weekly spoke with the Chair of the Australian Multicultural Council about our need for enshrined protections.
Jerome Doraisamy
Dr Sev Ozdowski – who is also the founder of the aforementioned conference and director of equity and diversity at Western Sydney University – said, in a recent podcast for Lawyers Weekly, that Australia is the only developed country without a Bill of Rights, making us atypical in the developed world.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
“It would be extremely good to have one, because of both its educational value but also its jurisprudential value,” he explained.
“The High Court, when considering a whole range of issues, would be able to have a look at the bill and say, ‘This is the right way to go’.”
“At the moment, we don’t have the guidance, especially when looking at Australian culture, which is focused much more on the idea of the fair go, and on social justice. It somewhat neglects our civil and political liberty.”
If Australia had a Bill of Rights, there likely wouldn’t have been a need for former Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock’s inquiry into religious freedoms, Dr Ozdowski argued, because such questions could be answered by enshrined protections.
At present, our constitution only says the government cannot establish a religion, but the parameters are narrow when it comes to religious freedom, he espoused.
When asked if this is a failing of the Australian legal system, Dr Ozdowski said, “I think it is.”
“I think that our constitution is an old document which reflected times when it was created, and I think that we could do better,” he said.
In lieu of such enshrined protections, Australia does have “very strong” anti-discrimination laws in place, in areas such as race, disability and gender, Dr Ozdowski noted.
“But [where there possibly] would be an impact is freedom of speech, as here, certainly we would have much more robust discussions about the future of our immigration program, about the composition, about the best migrants, about a whole range of other things which are, at the moment, kept a bit under the carpet.”
If Australia had a Bill of Rights, our High Court would be much more involved in reviewing a “whole range of decisions”, he concluded.
“At the moment, under our constitution, parliament could legislate for concentration camps based on race, and it is possible the High Court wouldn’t have much to object to, because if it was done under proper articles of the constitution, and done through parliament, this kind of (admittedly) far-fetched possibility exists,” he said.
To listen to the full podcast episode with Dr Sev Ozdowski, click here.
