Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Canberra Times. . . Page.. 110 ..

a somewhat odd thing to do. But certainly when you read Australian constitutional arrangements, the Federal Constitution, the State Constitutions or, for our purposes, the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act, there are no ringing declarations that can fill one with the same pride in citizenship that citizens of the United States, perhaps from a very early age, feel when they look at their Bill of Rights and say, “This is a constitutional arrangement which guarantees my freedom, which guarantees my equality, which guarantees my rights to go about my business free from arbitrary interference by the state”. We would take those rights of citizenship, if we thought about them, to be as fundamental as an American citizen would; but there is no ringing endorsement of those rights.

The fourth reason stated by Justice Kirby for enactment of a Bill of Rights is that it is a recognition that democracy is about a lot more, and it is a much more subtle process, than simple majoritarianism, despite the fact that we say that we live in a democratic process and are justly proud of that. We have seen moves in the direction of democracy in recent years with developments in South Africa, with the fall of the Berlin Wall, with developments in Eastern Europe. But democracy means more than simple majoritarianism. It is about reflecting the will of the majority but also respecting the rights of the minority and ensuring that the majority do not arbitrarily interfere with the rights of citizens.

Justice Kirby said that his reasons are sound reasons for moving Australia towards a Bill of Rights. Many would say, “They are perhaps all good reasons for an Australian Bill of Rights, but surely this is a process that should occur at the national level. It is not really appropriate for State or Territory legislation. It is a matter that, if we think it is sound, should be left to the Federal Government to address”. At that seminar in May of last year, that issue was well addressed by Jack Waterford of the Canberra Times. He said in his remarks:

There was some discussion earlier this morning about the issue of whether or not the ACT ought to be a sort of a standard bearer in this field, particularly as a state, and I have always thought that that was peculiarly odd because it is at the state government level, in particular, that there is likely to be the most interference with human rights. State governments control areas of health, education, welfare, the basic criminal law and in most of the areas of problems with human rights are to be found with the state government level, as was possibly demonstrated in recent times in relation to the Tasmanian legislation.

That seminar was held shortly after two Tasmanians had gone to the international human rights processes in relation to homosexual law reform procedures in Tasmania. The point very well made by Jack Waterford there is that, if you accept that there are sound reasons in principle for a Bill of Rights, really it should be at the State or Territory level that it is first introduced because it is at the State or Territory level that the sorts of problems that can affect individual citizens - basic welfare issues, basic rights to education, basic criminal law issues - will most commonly arise.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .