Posts Tagged ‘Bill of rights Australia’

The Theft of Democracy by the honorable

August 24, 2017

Nominating to be a member of Parliament is an important issue, every important.

Most members are either lawyers, or have a legal team, and each wish to be called honourable.

So, when they fill in their nomination forms, to lie is unacceptable, illegal and immoral.

If elected on an invalid nomination, their election is invalid, that is the law, the highest law in this country.

Everything they have done from that moment on is invalid, unlawful and illegal.

Every vote, every preference, and ever act, including receiving income they are not entitled to, is invalid, there for illegal.

Now each of us as citizens get held to account for the lightest breach of the law, Parliament are meant to lead by example, considering they write laws.

How many ex MP are now enjoying life time pensions, that were never validly elected?

How many have introduced or voted on legislation, that ought not have been elected?

How many MP’s helped form a government, that had no right to be elected?

Why were these same laws applied to minor party or Independent candidates, to invalidate their election to parliament, yet now they are being applied to major players, the importance of adhering the law does not matter?

Politicians know what they are doing, they side step the laws on a regular basis, they play games with democracy, help rig elections, undermine our freedoms, with the sole intention of winning at any cost, I for one am sick of such actions.

There needs to be an independent investigation into every present and past member, and the law used to hold each one to account.

For god’s sake, if any one of us broke our highest laws, we would be.

 

Mark Aldridge

Advertisements

Same Sex Marriage, who decides?

August 13, 2017

IF YOU’RE over the idea of reading yet another blog on marriage equality, I can emphasize with you.

 

 

Let’s be honest, debates like this make me want to turn of the news, and retreat into my sanctuary where the cynicism of modern-day politics does not exist.

If it was a brief informed discussion, or a simple democratic process, I would be more than happy, as always to consider what my 2 cents would be worth.

Marriage is a simple word, for so long it described the union of a man and a woman, parliament defined it, as is their power under the constitution, and they defined it in line with the Dictionary definition.

I have yet to have any of my gay friend’s demand marriage, I do remember the fight for social inclusion, and to have the same equity at law as those who held a government certificate (Marriage).

When this debate started, when was that now, a decade ago now? I always wondered if another word could be chosen, rather than marriage, something to adorn the top of their government certificate, that shows their commitment to each other.

Seems my idea was less than favorable, but it was simply my mind trying to find a way to end this debate and move on to the more important social issues we all face, regardless of our choice of partner.

Before you accuse me of a lack of compassion, may I argue my case?

I love my partner, she loves me, well I am pretty sure she still does, a government endorsed certificate does not define our love what so ever, are we married, yes we are. Why did we get married, hmmm that would be an interesting debate, was it to prove a commitment, a legal contract, I might get back to you on that 😊

I see posters that say “love is love” or I want my right! They are both right, Love is Love, even with out a government endorsement, and rights, well we all are suffering a lack of defined protections, regardless of our choice of partner.

Sydney broadcaster Alan Jones tweeted: “Re Gay Marriage. Love is a very elusive thing. If 2 people find love we shouldn’t be making judgments about it or getting in the way.”

Who is getting in the way of love, who is judging others, are those opposed homophobic?

Let’s get this debate back on track; “The only ones to blame are our elected representatives”, they represent electorates, if they don’t know what their electorate wants, they are in the wrong job. Parliament is empowered by the Constitution to define Marriage.

Fact is parliament have been doing as they please for years, so our will means little to them, and an expansive poll will do little to push them either way.

It is not as if they are not aware of the topic, it is not as if they cant simply draw up the changes and vote on them, like any other legislative redefining, they do it every day.

The fact is the very people you chose to represent you, are not, they are representing political parties, vested interests, so this debate simply exposes the flaws in our democratic process, flaws you already knew existed.

There is no need to waste 120 to 150 million asking the people, when the outcome will be wishy washy, dodgy and non-binding.

If any representative is unsure, let them poll their electorates, and if their parties won’t let them vote on legislative change, let them declare to their electorate where they stand, we can all do the maths can’t we.

There are those in the LGBTI community that are already far more vulnerable to anxiety and depression (they’re also up to 14 times more likely to attempt suicide) as a direct result of the past decades they have fought for acceptance alone.

The last thing they need is a huge national debate that will achieve nothing, what we all need is educated discussion with our representatives, and to empower their ability to achieve our will, everything else is divisional and a detraction.

Within hours of the government’s commitment to a plebiscite, former prime minister Tony Abbott was telling the nation: “If you’re worried about religious freedom and freedom of speech, vote ‘no’, and if you don’t like political correctness, vote ‘no’ because voting ‘no’ will help to stop political correctness in its tracks.”

Imagine lobbying for the ability to marry, and hearing one of the nation’s most prominent citizens dismissing the fight to end your sense of injustice and frustration as “political correctness”.

The government’s position is demeaning and disrespectful to all of us, the decision to conduct a plebiscite is a knee jerk reaction to cover up for the real inadequacies of our democratic process.

Yes, there are many other critical issues demanding the nation’s attention, and if we polled the people, SSM would not make the top of the list, but if a section of Australian society demand equity on their terms, like all social issues, they deserve to get a fair hearing and a timely decision.

For me personally, my love does not need government endorsement, my rights do, so lets all unite and fight for defined civil and human rights through a “Bill of Rights”, and let the Gay community be included in its definition.

Mark Aldridge.

Independent candidate wants to end “Discount Democracy”

June 7, 2016

Independent candidate wants to end “Discount Democracy”

democracy 1

 

The Australian electoral commission for the past 2 decades has endured funding cuts, where one would hope we would expect increased funding in relation to secure democracy in this country.

Where once every Australian home received a now to vote guide in the mail, to ensure they knew how to vote, what their voting rights were, where the polling booths were, and how to make applications, all we receive now is propaganda.

Even worse, political parties are writing electoral law, even though they have the most to gain from structural biases, they are now even handling electoral applications, like postal ballot applications and the like.

Return addresses for postal ballot applications are now the head offices of political parties, in fact the political parties are now even printing electoral material, something most voters would never support and undermines the security of the ballot.

For those voters confused by new laws, or those who are either first time voters or new to this country, a call to the AEC to have questions answered are now being answered by Centrelink workers whose recent crash course in electoral law is resulting in misinformation.

Australia still embraces pencils and cardboard boxes, yet continue to claim to be one of the best democracy’s on the planet, and maybe we once were.

It is interesting to note here, that council elections are now afforded more robust electoral practices, the electorate receive a how to vote guide, a list of the candidates and in some areas, a basic overview of what the candidates stand for, so why are state and federal elections not considered worthy of these reforms?

Voting in a democracy is meant to be all about the Free will of an informed electorate, and the return of an election guide could ensure that happens.

Voters need to know how to vote, where to vote and know who the candidates are, I personally would toss in the freedom to only preference those they prefer, and only having to vote if they are inspired to, but I doubt parliament will support too much freedom.

In recent years election facts are clear that the system is failing, with missing ballot papers on the rise as are invalid votes, and one would hope that every vote was more important than that.

When winning margins can be a handful of votes, one would expect we ought to ensure every vote is treasured and protected.

I have been in and out of the court of disputed returns for 20 years fighting for electoral reform that empowers this nation’s voters. Simply because I truly believe we can repair the divide between the people and their representatives, by simply ensuring a fair and transparent system of democratic practice.

Bring back the how to vote guide, because democracy is the corner stone of society, and deserves more than the current discount system we are forced to endure.

 

Mark Aldridge

Independent candidate for Makin & community advocate.

08 82847482 / 0403379500

ABORIGINAL SOVEREIGNTY the way Forward

January 30, 2014

 

ABORIGINAL SOVEREIGNTY AND THE RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION

The ideal of a Bill of Rights for all Australians, the need for a treaty between the Australian government and the sovereign people of this land and the need to revisit our constitution are issues that are long overdue for transparent and educated debate.

Treaties and other forms of agreements are accepted around the world as the means of reaching a settlement, between indigenous peoples and those who have settled upon their lands.

Treaties can be found in countries such as the US, Canada and New Zealand. Indeed, in other nations such as Canada, new treaties are still being debated.

Australia is the exception. We are now the only Commonwealth nation that does not have a treaty with its indigenous people. We have never entered into negotiations with them about the taking and occupation of their lands or even attempt to define their place in this nation’s past or present.

Rather than building our country on the idea of a partnership with Aboriginal people, our laws have sought to exclude and discriminate against them, for over 200 years.

This is reflected in the text of our constitution, which in 1901 created the Australian nation. That document was drafted at two conventions held in the 1890s. Aboriginal people were not represented, nor were they consulted in the drafting of the constitution.

Even though the constitution protected against discrimination, those protections were and have never been applied to the aboriginal people, a clear fault in the preparing of our founding documents.

The idea that Australia was terra nullius, or no man’s land, when white settlers arrived in 1788, for the purposes of our laws, was nothing more than a vain attempt to hope the problem would go away, it was as if they could close their eyes and Aboriginal people would simply no longer exist, or just maybe they thought they could wipe them out completely.

Hence:

•     While the preamble to the constitution set out the history behind the enactment of the constitution and the notion that the constitution was based on the support of the people of the colonies, it made no mention of the prior occupation of Australia by its indigenous peoples. Australia’s history, it seemed, began in 1788.

•     Section 25 recognised that the states could disqualify people from voting in the elections on account of their race.

•     Section 51 (xxvi) provided that the Parliament could legislate with respect to “the people of any race, other than the Aboriginal race in any state, for whom it is deemed necessary to make special laws”. This was the so-called, “races power”, and was inserted, in the words of our first prime minister, Edmund Barton, to allow the Commonwealth to “regulate the affairs of the people of coloured or inferior races who are in the Commonwealth”.

•     Section 127 provided: “In reckoning the numbers of the people of the Commonwealth, or of a state or other part of the Commonwealth, Aboriginal natives shall not be counted”.

Some of these things were fixed with the 1967 referendum. It:

•     Removed the prohibition on the Federal Parliament making laws for Aboriginal people.

•     Deleted the prohibition in section 127 on the counting of Aboriginal peoples.

On the other hand, the referendum did not change the preamble or section 25.

Today, we have a constitution that ignores the existence of Aboriginal people and recognises that people can be denied the vote on account of their race, and that laws can be passed that discriminate against people for the same reason.

Given this history, it should come as no surprise that the white settlers never entered into one or more treaties with Aboriginal people.

Even from a stand point of English precedent law, the Queens own orders to work and trade with the original people for the use of their lands, was ignored by the first fleet.

The question today is how we can end this pattern of exclusion and discrimination. Constitutional change is certainly part of the answer but so is a treaty. These are separate debates but they represent two things that must be achieved.

The application of a bill or rights is also worthy of debate, because in the past 20 years, even Australian settlers or the children of, are now facing similar exclusion and protections by their own government.

In more recent times, a call for a treaty was made at the Corroboree 2000 convention, and the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation identified a treaty as unfinished business of the reconciliation process. It recommended:

That the Commonwealth Parliament enact legislation . . . to put in place a process which will unite all Australians by way of an agreement, or treaty, through which unresolved issues of reconciliation can be resolved.

By a treaty, I mean nothing more than an agreement between governments and Aboriginal peoples. Such an agreement could involve three things:

1.     A starting point of acknowledgment.

2.     A process of negotiation.

3.     Outcomes in the form of rights, obligations and opportunities.

A treaty about such matters could recognise the history and prior occupation by the Aboriginal people of this continent, as well as their long-standing grievances. It could also be a means of negotiating redress for those grievances and helping to establish a path forward based upon mutual goals, rather than ones imposed on Aboriginal people.

At the heart of the idea is the notion that a place in the Australian nation cannot be forced on Aboriginal people. It needs to be discussed and negotiated through a process based on mutual respect that recognises the sovereignty of Aboriginal people.

The international evidence is compelling in showing that listening to indigenous people is, by itself, insufficient to bring about real change. Change must be built on the genuine partnership between indigenous people and governments that can arise through the making of a treaty.

The evidence in the US and Australia shows time and again that redressing disadvantage over the longer term depends on indigenous people having the power to make decisions that affect not only their own people, but the use of their lands in general.

They must be responsible for the programs designed to meet their needs, and must be accountable for the successes and failures that follow.

At present much of Australian land is held in trust of the crown, and payments are still paid to the crown, just maybe that land should be held in trust of its original owners, and the income of leasing said land where the owners find it appropriate, could be a pool of resources for the sole use of the Aboriginal community’s for their country.

I can see nothing in our laws, nor the original letters patients that show valid reason for the crown to maintain ownership of Aboriginal lands, or why we would be paying any benefits from their use to a what could be considered a foreign power.

Another worthy debate would be to address representation in the Australian parliament, not in a token seat or an advisory role, one chosen for each parliament by the aboriginal people themselves.

It may be worthy of empowering the chosen representatives to control and destiny of their electorates resources and income, giving the power of destiny to the Aboriginal people themselves.

The “Harvard project’s” headline finding is that when Native Americans make their own decisions about development approaches, they consistently out-perform external decision makers, on matters as diverse as governmental form, natural resource management, economic development, healthcare and social service provision.

Positive change in Australia depends on Aboriginal people having more control over their lives. Improvements in education, employment and quality of life must be achieved by policies and programs owned and developed by the very people affected.

Success cannot be imposed from Canberra. The hard work must be done by Aboriginal people, and in saying that they must have the resources and support to ensure they can.

The problem in Australia is that we lack the laws and institutions necessary for Aboriginal people to make such decisions.

Unlike nations such as New Zealand, Canada and the US, agreements such as treaties have not been reached that recognise a measure of indigenous sovereignty. Instead, in Australia, decisions have often been imposed on Aboriginal people by parliaments and governments lacking even a single indigenous member.

In most cases the government prefers to deal with those who hold the same government’s position, rather than those who are considered leaders in their own community.

A negotiated treaty with Aboriginal people would mark an important break from a system that for many decades has disregarded the views of Aboriginal people, and reinforced their feelings of powerlessness. A treaty could give rise to stronger, and more capable, institutions of Aboriginal governance.

This is not to suggest there is any quick and easy fix. It is simply to say that fair and transparent dialogue is one piece of the puzzle. It is something that needs to be done both to achieve reconciliation and underpin long-term Aboriginal prosperity.

“We have to acknowledge that pre-1788, this land was Aboriginal country, and until we have acknowledged that, we will be an incomplete nation and a divided people.

“We only have to look across the Tasman to see how it all could have been done so much better. Thanks to the Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand where two peoples became one nation.”

My time recently spent at the Tent embassy in Canberra made it clear that all I had been taught over the past 35 years had been flawed and with that so had my ideals on what drives both the aboriginal community and indeed our parliament.

I grew up believing the 26th of January was a day of celebration, the day our fine nation was born, for the aboriginal people this day holds a different significance, the day they were invaded, just like we as Australians morn the losses on ANZAC day, the original people of these lands morn the beginning of an invasion that resulted in the rape, murder and destruction of their people and their country.

So many settled Australians continue to say “leave it in the past” and unite to celebrate Australia day, without truly understanding what this day means to the aboriginal people, something I feel is the direct result of we as settled Australians having very little knowledge of our nation’s true history and foundations.

Saying sorry may be a fine gesture, but it will never have any true meaning until we can honestly embrace our past and use its lessons as a driver to understand the way forward.

While you are reading this, Aboriginal children are still being taken from their families, the land is still being destroyed, and governments are still telling our sovereign people where to live, how to live and how to spend their money.

So this is not just about the day the tall ships landed, it is about the treatment and persecution over the next 200 years or more that have been left out of the history books, the stories that would have brought about the genuine understanding and empathy needed to unite us as a nation.

The Aboriginal people can receive apologies for the slaughter of their people, the theft of their children, and the destruction of their lands, but that will do nothing to heal the past or improve the future, while we continue to deny their sovereignty or refuse their right to self-determination.

Let us as a nation hope and pray that the time will come where we can create a new date that can be celebrated by a united Australia, one that respects and honours the rights of liberties of every person living in this great country.

Mark Aldridge

Independent Candidate

08 82847482 / 0403379500

What is “The Australian Constitution:

November 8, 2012

What is the Australian Constitution?

The Constitution of Australia is the supreme law under which the Australian Commonwealth Government operates. It consists of several documents. The most important is the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia.

The Constitution was approved in referendums held over 1898–1900 by the people of the Australian colonies, and the approved draft was enacted as a section of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900 (Imp), originally an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

“The Australian people helped write and pass the constitution as a document to protect the people and the integrity of our system of politics and justice”

Royal Assent was given by Queen Victoria on 9 July 1900, upon which date the Constitution became law. It came into force on 1 January 1901 by virtue of a proclamation issued by Queen Victoria on 17 September 1900, pursuant to section 3 of the Act.

The Statute of Westminster 1931 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Passed on 11 December 1931, the Act established legislative equality for the self-governing dominions of the British Empire with the United Kingdom, freeing Australia from legislation of what was becoming a foreign power, the UK.

The Australia Act 1986 removed the power of the United Kingdom parliament to change the Constitution as in force in Australia, and the Constitution can now only be changed in accordance with the prescribed referendum procedures.

Australia referred to two Acts at the same time, respectively, as the Australia Act 1986 (Cth) and the Australia Act 1986 (UK). These nearly identical Acts were passed by the two parliaments in Australia and the United Kingdom to come into effect simultaneously, because of uncertainty as to which of the two parliaments had the actual authority to do so, or maybe because neither wanted to wear the consequences.

The Australia act and the previous Statue of Westminster 1831, slowly took the power away from the queen to invalidate legislation, or makes demands on our parliament, something very few Australians were privy to.

“These acts also took away the powers of the queen to sack either representatives or the government, which empowered those who enacted the Act, rather than improved the position of the people or the nation as a whole”.

The Statute of Westminster Adoption Act made Australia an independent nation (though it had been a de facto independent for many years before then), while the Australia Act was written to sever the last remaining constitutional links between Australia and the United Kingdom.

Under Australia’s common law system, the High Court of Australia and the Federal Court of Australia have the authority to interpret constitutional provisions. Their decisions determine the interpretation and application of the constitution.

Changes to the constitution are only possible by referenda, where the people directly vote on any proposed changes, while the constitution itself protects the Australian people against its own governance, and provides power to the judiciary, over recent years both the courts and the government have attempted to water down those protections.

Since the enactment of the Australia Act, it appears the governments have come to believe they can now write legislation that tries to skip around the protections inherent in our constitution, in fact it is also worth noting that the judiciary also at times forget the importance of this founding document, clearly showing a preference to back government legislation even when it clearly is outside the powers of the government to so write.

The very fact that the constitution is out of sight out of mind, and in fact very much unknown to the people of Australia, in recent years parliament and our court system act as if it no longer exists, the words “The constitution no longer applies in this court” have been heard by my ears on many occasions, yet when legislation is questioned in the high court, it has become a regular occurrence to see poorly written legislation fail.

What the people of Australia dare not forget, is the constitution was written by us, to protect not only the people but to ensure a fair system of justice, the very fact that our present parliament and indeed our prime minister have turned their backs on our founding document, diminishes their position, not the protections and value of the Constitution itself.

“In recent times attacks on our constitution have been many, the demise of our property rights, commercialising water, the existence of local government, any taxation imposed that is not issued by the federal government like for instance council rates, the structural biases in our electoral system, inequity in laws between the states, legislative attacks on minority groups and many more”.

The government register all their departments as corporate entities, like the NRM (National resource management) which at law appears to mean we must be in contract with these government departments or supposed local governments, before we interact with them, yet the legislation that empowers such organisations provides them powers that appear beyond the scope of our government to so issue.

You will also find by way of a simple Google search that the Australia government has also become a corporate entity registered in the US, the governments answer to this unique situation is one of “We have to register our nation to be able to do business with other nations”, what a load of garbage, Australia has successfully dealt with other nations, as a sovereign nation, without the need to be dictated to.

I will make note at this stage on the need to consider an easier method of the protection and understanding of our rights, simply because years of casual study still leaves the air of uncertainty for even those considered experts on the issues of civil and human rights, let alone acceptance of our legislative agenda.

“A simplified bill of rights that can become a high school subject, and become retrospective on current legislation, appears the most educated way forward.”

The greatest issue facing our long and short term future is the known fact that those in a position to bring change, and those we elect to protect our best interests, are the very same people working to take your rights and liberty’s away.

Our present Prime Minister Julia Gillard did not take the oath under the schedule of our constitution to be sworn in as prime minister, an issue which our constitution deems “Representatives incapable of sitting”

Section 46;  Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any person declared by this Constitution to be incapable of sitting as a senator or as a member of the House of Representatives shall, for every day on which he so sits, be liable to pay the sum of one hundred pounds to any person who sues for it in any court of competent jurisdiction.

 

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 42 Oath or affirmation of allegiance  

                  

Every senator and every member of the House of Representatives shall before taking his seat make and subscribe before the Governor‑General, or some person authorised by him, an oath or affirmation of allegiance in the form set forth in the schedule to this Constitution. 

 

The question worthy here, is if our own prime minister can become ignorant of our founding document, then are we the people left with no protections in our own country?

 

On 3/9/1988 a referendum with the following context (provided by the AEC) was put to the Australian people. It was (3) Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 1988. The legislative proposal was,

“119A. Each State shall provide for the establishment & continuance of a system of local government, with local government bodies elected in accordance with the laws of the State & empowered to administer, and to make by-laws, for their respective areas in accordance with the laws of the State.”

 

The result of this referendum was the people voted NO, yet local government now write law, without the right, the knowledge or the capacity to police or administer, tax their constituents (rates), issue fines, and cover local business in expensive red tape.

 

Yet these organisations never existed before the Constitution, they were not involved in public debate when writing the constitution, and their attempts to be recognised or even continue to exist, were knocked back by the Australian people, so not only do they have no right to exist, any legislation that attempts to empower them is invalid, if indeed the constitution still holds any value.

 

We see headlines that the councils are considering taking people’s homes for non payment of the Taxes, yet if like me you read high court cases, the outcomes beg to differ, so could it be considered that most law being used is only as valid as the peoples lack of knowledge, or have our rights genuinely been taken by stealth.

 

The constitution also covers taxation, in fact not so long ago, the high court acknowledged that only the federal government could collect taxation,

 

“The High Court of Australia ruled that “State Governments could not raise ANY TAX” and because of this the ‘State Excise on Fuel, Tobacco & Alcohol’ was removed.”

 

Clearly in sections 51 and 52 of the Constitution and confirmed by the Constitutional Commission (1985 – 1988) report that the power of taxation is held exclusively by the Federal Parliament.

 

So consider some of the massive costs that affect our lives, starting with Councils, who charge us rates and believe they have the ability to dictate local policy, is a state government cannot tax its people, how can the local council tax us, or are they bluffing?

 

“John Winston Howard, Peter Howard Costello & ’Commissioner for Taxation’ Michael Joseph Carmody all stated before the introduction of the infamous “Goods and Services Tax”, Quote:  “Local government Council Rates will attract no GST because Council Rates are a tax and we can’t tax a tax”, similar questions could be asked about land tax!

 

“If the Parliament of the State did not have the powers to empower local government before the Referendum, they were most certainly prohibited from having them after the Referendum.”

 

Note; A ‘rateable person within the meaning of the local government act 1995’ did not exist at the time of the federation of the states into a commonwealth. It can be seen then, that since ‘local government’ did not exist at the time of Federation, then there can be no continuance of local government or its laws beyond the NO of the Australian people?

 

When as citizens we try to grasp exactly what our rights are, we are not only confronted with a mired of information, it is the interpretation of words and understanding of precedents that empowers self determination in our judicial system and our ability to deal with government, something I consider the sole domain of societies wealthy, leaving us at the mercy of misinformation and what could easily be described as “Stand over tactics”.

 

So let’s look through a few more sections of the constitution, and consider whether its ideals are still protecting us as a sovereign nation, and if indeed our representatives are still acting in both the constitution and our best interests.

 

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 80

Trial by jury

The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes.

Yet we see trial by jury denied in many cases, where indeed it can only be denied by the mutual decision of both parties to an action.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 47

Disputed elections

Until the Parliament otherwise provides, any question respecting the qualification of a senator or of a member of the House of Representatives, or respecting a vacancy in either House of the Parliament, and any question of a disputed election to either House, shall be determined by the House in which the question arises.

The Parliament no longer hear such cases, and state electoral legislation now allows disputed returns to be heard by a single judge, overriding once again our constitutional protections, in a case I held in 2010, the outcome “Regardless of the conduct of an election, a general election cannot be invalidated” even when the election under common law strayed so far from the legislative protections it was not an election at law.

Going further, the aforementioned case evidenced tens of thousands of missing names, tens of thousands of missing ballot papers and over 25 offences of the protections of the act itself. (Full details under the article “Democracy the whole truth” on my website

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 117

Rights of residents in States

A subject of the Queen, resident in any State, shall not be subject in any other State to any disability or discrimination which would not be equally applicable to him if he were a subject of the Queen resident in such other State.

Therefore issues like the trial of the basics card in underprivileged areas, is again legislation that offends this Act, it also implies that the bill of rights enjoyed by the Victorian residents, by way of this section, applies to all Australians, which would undermine most recent legislative changes, which all have sections that are ignorant of the protections we deserve, or would apply under a bill of rights.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – CLAUSE 5

Operation of the Constitution and laws [see Note 3]

This Act, and all laws made by the Parliament of the Commonwealth under the Constitution, shall be binding on the courts, judges, and people of every State and of every part of the Commonwealth, notwithstanding anything in the laws of any State; and the laws of the Commonwealth shall be in force on all British ships, the Queen’s ships of war excepted, whose first port of clearance and whose port of destination are in the Commonwealth.

If referenda are of value to the constitution and its primary goals, then referenda results apply across the Nation in every parliament and court.

I have heard the words many times in all levels of our court system “The constitution does not apply in our courts” begging the question, “can our courts exist without it?”

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 8

Qualification of electors

The qualification of electors of senators shall be in each State that which is prescribed by this Constitution, or by the Parliament, as the qualification for electors of members of the House of Representatives; but in the choosing of senators each elector shall vote only once.

The constitution allows one vote, not a vote that can be devalued and or passed on, without the will of the elector being known, in fact recent election conduct, has exposed that an electoral commission may “guess and electors intent beyond that they have marked” allowing a single vote to be transferred, even if the electors mark determines a different result of their will. (see result of court of disputed returns 2007 SA supreme court acting as)

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 109

Inconsistency of laws

When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.

Yet go to court over say a speeding fine, to find the devise that is telling the court you were committing an offence, does not comply with commonwealth legislation, but it does comply with state legislation, and the later is upheld, we indeed have issues.

Recently in the courts I proved a current devise did not comply with law, state or commonwealth, yet the outcome was the fine still stands, so has the law become an ass?

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 128

Mode of altering the Constitution [see Note 1]

This Constitution shall not be altered except in the following manner:

The proposed law for the alteration thereof must be passed by an absolute majority of each House of the Parliament, and not less than two nor more than six months after its passage through both Houses the proposed law shall be submitted in each State and Territory to the electors qualified to vote for the election of members of the House of Representatives.

But if either House passes any such proposed law by an absolute majority, and the other House rejects or fails to pass it, or passes it with any amendment to which the first‑mentioned House will not agree, and if after an interval of three months the first‑mentioned House in the same or the next session again passes the proposed law by an absolute majority with or without any amendment which has been made or agreed to by the other House, and such other House rejects or fails to pass it or passes it with any amendment to which the first‑mentioned House will not agree, the Governor‑General may submit the proposed law as last proposed by the first‑mentioned House, and either with or without any amendments subsequently agreed to by both Houses, to the electors in each State and Territory qualified to vote for the election of the House of Representatives.

When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the qualification of electors of members of the House of Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth, only one‑half the electors voting for and against the proposed law shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.

And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the Governor‑General for the Queen’s assent.

No alteration diminishing the proportionate representation of any State in either House of the Parliament, or the minimum number of representatives of a State in the House of Representatives, or increasing, diminishing, or otherwise altering the limits of the State, or in any manner affecting the provisions of the Constitution in relation thereto, shall become law unless the majority of the electors voting in that State approve the proposed law.

If the people say NO, that means NO, if the constitution is to be altered, then we have the final say, we the people, the terms are simple.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT – SECT 100

Nor abridge right to use water

The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.

 

AUSTRALIA ACT 1986
– SECT 5
Commonwealth Constitution, Constitution Act and Statute of

Westminster not affected

Sections 2 and 3(2) above:

(a) are subject to the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act and to the Constitution of the Commonwealth; and
(b) do not operate so as to give any force or effect to a provision of an Act of the Parliament of a State that would repeal, amend or be repugnant to this Act, the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, the Constitution of the Commonwealth or the Statute of Westminster 1931 as amended and in force from time to time.

It appears parliament misunderstood the application of the Australia act 1886, because the act does not impede but rather support the protections and separation of powers that accompanied its proclamation.

The mere fact the Australia Act took away the powers of the queen under the constitution, did not with its application take away any of the people’s rights under the constitution.

The debate surrounding the introduction of the Australia Act were based around the removal of the queens powers found in the constitution, but did not go as far as affecting the schedule, or in fact the oath, and in respect an Act that changes the substance of the constitution, ought to have been approved by the people as part and parcel of the protections the constitution awarded in any respect.

With our a clear referenda supporting the Australia Act, it seems debatable such an Act is valid without consent by referenda, but in any respect its affects do not and never could support the current actions of state, federal of local governments.

As a sovereign nation, we have never had to stand up for our rights, other than the eureka stockade where many stood proud for our right to vote, so it is time now to stand behind our constitution, to demand its protections are upheld, and to look for an educated way forward in respect of our rights and liberties.

My position is we need to make our rights and liberty’s known, a new bill of rights attached to our constitution, which spell out in lay terms exactly what protections we have, to ensure our judiciary and our representatives also know the limits of their actions.

 

 

Mark M Aldridge

Independent candidate for South Australia

Bill of Rights for Australia, to create debate

May 20, 2011

Australian Bill of rights

Collated by Mark M Aldridge

1. Rights

  1. This Bill of Rights is the cornerstone of democracy in Australia. It enshrines the rights of all people in our country and affirms the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedoms.
  2. The Commonwealth and States must respect, protect, promote and fulfill the rights in the Bill of Rights.
  3. The rights in the Bill of Rights are subject to the limitations contained or referred to in section 36, or elsewhere in the Bill.
  4. All Acts of Parliament and supporting legislation must respect the rights of all Australian citizens and comply with this bill of rights, all past Acts of parliament will be deemed invalid where a conflict with this bill occurs.

2. Application

  1. The Bill of Rights applies to all law, and binds the legislature, the executive, the judiciary and all organs of state.
  2. A provision of the Bill of Rights binds a natural or a juristic person if, and to the extent that, it is applicable, taking into account the nature of the right and the nature of any duty imposed by the right.
    1. in order to give effect to a right in the Bill, must apply, or if necessary develop, the common law to the extent that legislation does not give effect to that right; and
    2. may develop rules of the common law to limit the right, provided that the limitation is in accordance with section 30(1).
  1. When applying a provision of the Bill of Rights to a natural or juristic person in terms of subsection (2), a court ­
  1. A juristic person is entitled to the rights in the Bill of Rights to the extent required by the nature of the rights and the nature of that natural/juristic person.

3. Equality

  1. Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law.
  2. Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.
  3. The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.
  4.  No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination.
  5. Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair.

4. Human dignity

Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected.

 

5. Life

Everyone has the right to life.

 

6. Freedom and security of the person

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right ­
    1. not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause;
    2. not to be detained without trial;
    3. to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources;
    4. not to be tortured in any way; and
  1. not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way.
  1. Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right ­
    1. to make decisions concerning reproduction;
    2. to security in and control over their body; and
    3. not to be subjected to medical or scientific experiments without their informed consent.

7. Slavery, servitude and forced labour

No one may be subjected to slavery, servitude or forced labour.

 

8. Privacy

Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have ­

  1. their person or home searched;
  2. their property searched;
  3. their possessions seized; or
  4. the privacy of their communications infringed.

9. Freedom of religion, belief and opinion

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion.
    1. attendance at them is free and voluntary.
  1. Religious observances may be conducted at state or state-aided institutions, provided that ­
    1. those observances follow rules made by the appropriate public authorities;
    2. they are conducted on an equitable basis; and
    1. This section does not prevent legislation recognising ­
      1. marriages concluded under any tradition, or a system of religious, personal or family law; or
      2. systems of personal and family law under any tradition, or adhered to by persons professing a particular religion.
    2. Recognition in terms of paragraph (a) must be consistent with this section and the other provisions of the Constitution.

10. Freedom of expression

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes ­
    1. freedom of the press and other media;
    2. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
    3. freedom of artistic creativity; and
  1. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
  2. Freedom to impart information of public interest.
  1. The right in subsection (1) does not extend to ­
    1. propaganda for war;
    2. incitement of imminent violence; or
    3. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.

11. Assembly, demonstration, picket and petition

Everyone has the right, peacefully and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket and to present petitions.

 

12. Freedom of association

Everyone has the right to freedom of association.

 

13. Political rights

  1. Every citizen is free to make political choices, which includes the right ­
    1. to form a political party;
    2. to participate in the activities of, or recruit members for, a political party; and
  1. to campaign for a political party or cause.
  2. Every citizen has the right to free, fair and regular elections for any legislative body established in terms of the Constitution.
  1. Every adult citizen has the right ­
    1. to vote in elections for any legislative body established in terms of the Constitution, and to do so in secret; and
    2. to stand for public office and, if elected, to hold office.
    3. to have the free choice to cast a vote for those candidates they so choose.
    4. to fair and free information so as to cast an informed vote.

14. Citizenship

No citizen may be deprived of citizenship.

 

15. Freedom of movement and residence

  1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement.
  2. Everyone has the right to leave the Republic.
  3. Every citizen has the right to enter, to remain in and to reside anywhere in, the Republic.
  4. Every citizen has the right to a passport.

16. Freedom of trade, occupation and profession

Every citizen has the right to choose their trade, occupation or profession freely. The practice of a trade, occupation or profession may be regulated by law.

 

17. Labour relations

  1. Everyone has the right to fair labour practices.
    1. to strike.
    2. to participate in the activities and programmes of an employers’ organisation.
    3. to form and join a federation.
  2. Every trade union, employers’ organisation and employer has the right to engage in collective bargaining. National legislation may be enacted to regulate collective bargaining. To the extent that the legislation may limit a right in this Chapter, the limitation must comply with section 30(1).
  3. National legislation may recognise union security arrangements contained in collective agreements. To the extent that the legislation may limit a right in this Chapter, the limitation must comply with section 30(1).
  1. Every worker has the right ­
    1. to form and join a trade union;
    2. to participate in the activities and programmes of a trade union; and
  1. Every employer has the right ­
    1. to form and join an employers’ organisation; and
  1. Every trade union and every employers’ organisation has the right ­
    1. to determine its own administration, programmes and activities;
    2. to organise; and

18. Environment

Everyone has the right ­

  1. to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and
  2. to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that ­
    1. prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
    2. promote conservation; and
    3. secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.

19. Property

  1. No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.
    1. subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court.
    2. the purpose of the expropriation.
    3. property is not limited to land.
  2. The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis.
  3. A person or community whose tenure of land is legally insecure as a result of past discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to tenure which is legally secure or to comparable redress.
  1. Property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application ­
    1. for a public purpose or in the public interest; and
  1. The amount of the compensation and the time and manner of payment must be just and equitable, reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected, having regard to all relevant circumstances, including ­
    1. the current use of the property;
    2. the history of the acquisition and use of the property;
    3. the market value of the property;
    4. the extent of direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property; and
  1. For the purposes of this section ­
    1. the public interest includes the nation’s commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all Australias natural resources; and
  1. Parliament must enact the legislation referred to in subsection (6).

20. Housing

  1. Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing.
  2. The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right.
  3. No one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances. No legislation may permit arbitrary evictions.
  4. Any Australian citizen has the right to a jury of their peers regarding dispute of property.

21. Health care, food, water and social security

  1. Everyone has the right to have access to ­
    1. health care services, including reproductive health care;
    2. sufficient safe food and water; and
  1. social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance.
  2. The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights.
  3. No one may be refused emergency medical treatment.

22. Children

  1. Every child has the right ­
    1. to a name and a nationality from birth;
    2. to family care or parental care, or to appropriate alternative care when removed from the family environment;
    3. to basic nutrition, shelter, basic health care services and social services;
    4. to be protected from maltreatment, neglect, abuse or degradation;
    5. to be protected from exploitative labour practices;
    6. not to be required or permitted to perform work or provide services that ­
      1. are inappropriate for a person of that child’s age; or
      2. place at risk the child’s well-being, education, physical or mental health or spiritual, moral or social development;
    7. not to be detained except as a measure of last resort, in which case, in addition to the rights a child enjoys under sections 12 and 35, the child may be detained only for the shortest appropriate period of time, and has the right to be ­
      1. kept separately from detained persons over the age of 18 years; and
      2. treated in a manner, and kept in conditions, that take account of the child’s age;
    8. to have a legal practitioner assigned to the child by the state, and at state expense, in civil proceedings affecting the child, if substantial injustice would otherwise result; and
  1. not to be used directly in armed conflict, and to be protected in times of armed conflict.
  2. When in State or Commonwealth care, such care is to be guaranteed and said carer to be liable for the child’s well being
  3. A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.
  4. In this section “child” means a person under the age of 18 years.

23. Education

  1. Everyone has the right ­
    1. to a basic education, including adult basic education; and
  1. to further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible.
  2. the need to redress the results of past racially discriminatory laws and practices.
  3. maintain standards that are not inferior to standards at comparable public educational institutions.
  1. Everyone has the right to receive education in the official language in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably practicable. In order to ensure the effective access to, and implementation of, this right, the state must consider all reasonable educational alternatives, including single medium institutions, taking into account ­
    1. equity;
    2. practicability; and
  1. Everyone has the right to establish and maintain, at their own expense, independent educational institutions that ­
    1. do not discriminate on the basis of race;
    2. are registered with the state; and
  1. Subsection (3) does not preclude state subsidies for independent educational institutions.

24. Language and culture

Everyone has the right to use the language and to participate in the cultural life of their choice, but no one exercising these rights may do so in a manner inconsistent with any provision of the Bill of Rights.

25. Cultural, religious and linguistic communities

  1. Persons belonging to a cultural, religious or linguistic community may not be denied the right, with other members of that community ­
    1. to enjoy their culture, practise their religion and use their language; and
  1. to form, join and maintain cultural, religious and linguistic associations and other organs of civil society.
  1. The rights in subsection (1) may not be exercised in a manner inconsistent with any provision of the Bill of Rights.

26. Access to information

  1. Everyone has the right of access to ­
    1. any information held by the state; and
  1. any information that is held by another person and that is required for the exercise or protection of any rights.
  1. National legislation must be enacted to give effect to this right, and may provide for reasonable measures to alleviate the administrative and financial burden on the state.

27. Just administrative action

  1. Everyone has the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair.
  2. Everyone whose rights have been adversely affected by administrative action has the right to be given written reasons.
  1. National legislation must be enacted to give effect to these rights, and must ­
    1. provide for the review of administrative action by a court or, where appropriate, an independent and impartial tribunal;
    2. impose a duty on the state to give effect to the rights in subsections (1) and (2); and
    3. promote an efficient administration.

28. Access to courts

Everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum including the right to a jury of their peers.

 

29. Arrested, detained and accused persons

  1. Everyone who is arrested for allegedly committing an offence has the right ­
    1. to remain silent;
    2. to be informed promptly ­
      1. of the right to remain silent; and
      2. of the consequences of not remaining silent;
    3. not to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in evidence against that person;
    4. to be brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than ­
      1. 48 hours after the arrest; or
      2. the end of the first court day after the expiry of the 48 hours, if the 48 hours expire outside ordinary court hours or on a day which is not an ordinary court day;
    5. at the first court appearance after being arrested, to be charged or to be informed of the reason for the detention to continue, or to be released; and
  1. to be released from detention if the interests of justice permit, subject to reasonable conditions.
    1.                                                     iv.            chosen medical practitioner.
    2. of appeal to, or review by, a higher court.
    3. To be aware of any laws said to breached, prior to an offence being recorded.
  2. Whenever this section requires information to be given to a person, that information must be given in a language that the person understands.
  3. Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right in the Bill of Rights must be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair or otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice.
  1. Everyone who is detained, including every sentenced prisoner, has the right ­
    1. to be informed promptly of the reason for being detained;
    2. to choose, and to consult with, a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this right promptly;
    3. to have a legal practitioner assigned to the detained person by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly;
    4. to challenge the lawfulness of the detention in person before a court and, if the detention is unlawful, to be released;
    5. to conditions of detention that are consistent with human dignity, including at least exercise and the provision, at state expense, of adequate accommodation, nutrition, reading material and medical treatment; and
    6. to communicate with, and be visited by, that person’s ­
      1. spouse or partner;
      2. next of kin;
      3. chosen religious counsellor; and
  1. Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right ­
    1. to be informed of the charge with sufficient detail to answer it;
    2. to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence;
    3. to a public trial before an ordinary court;
    4. to have their trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay;
    5. to be present when being tried;
    6. to choose, and be represented by, a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this right promptly;
    7. to have a legal practitioner assigned to the accused person by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly;
    8. to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings;
    9. to adduce and challenge evidence;
    10. not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence;
    11. to be tried in a language that the accused person understands or, if that is not practicable, to have the proceedings interpreted in that language;
    12. not to be convicted for an act or omission that was not an offence under either national or international law at the time it was committed or omitted;
    13. not to be tried for an offence in respect of an act or omission for which that person has previously been either acquitted or convicted;
    14. to the benefit of the least severe of the prescribed punishments if the prescribed punishment for the offence has been changed between the time that the offence was committed and the time of sentencing; and

30. Limitation of rights

  1. The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including ­
    1. the nature of the right;
    2. the importance of the purpose of the limitation;
    3. the nature and extent of the limitation;
    4. the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and
  1. less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.
  1. Except as provided in subsection (1) or in any other provision of the Constitution, no law may limit any right entrenched in the Bill of Rights.
  2. Any previous legislation or law that effects a limit on this bill of rights will be invalid to the extent of such effects applied.

31. States of emergency

  1. A state of emergency may be declared only in terms of an Act of Parliament, and only when ­
    1. the life of the nation is threatened by war, invasion, general insurrection, disorder, natural disaster or other public emergency; and
  1. the declaration is necessary to restore peace and order.
  2. for no more than 21 days from the date of the declaration, unless the Commonwealth resolves to extend the declaration. The Parliament may extend a declaration of a state of emergency for no more than three months at a time. The first extension of the state of emergency must be by a resolution adopted with a supporting vote of a majority of the members of the House declaring said state of emergency. Any subsequent extension must be by a resolution adopted with a supporting vote of at least 60 per cent of the members of the House. A resolution in terms of this paragraph may be adopted only following a public debate in the Assembly.
  3. any legislation enacted, or other action taken, in consequence of a declaration of a state of emergency.
  1. A declaration of a state of emergency, and any legislation enacted or other action taken in consequence of that declaration, may be effective only ­
    1. prospectively; and
  1. Any competent court may decide on the validity of ­
    1. a declaration of a state of emergency;
    2. any extension of a declaration of a state of emergency; or
  1. Any legislation enacted in consequence of a declaration of a state of emergency may derogate from the Bill of Rights only to the extent that ­
    1. the derogation is strictly required by the emergency; and
    2. the legislation ­
      1. is consistent with the Australia’s obligations under international law applicable to states of emergency;
      2. conforms to subsection (5); and
      3. is published in the national Government Gazette as soon as reasonably possible after being enacted.
  2. No Act of Parliament that authorises a declaration of a state of emergency, and no legislation enacted or other action taken in consequence of a declaration, may permit or authorise ­
    1. indemnifying the state, or any person, in respect of any unlawful act;
    2. any derogation from this section; or
    3. any derogation from a section mentioned in column 1 of the Table of Non-Derogable Rights, to the extent indicated opposite that section in column 3 of the Table.

Table of Non-Derogable Rights

1
Section Number

2
Section Title

3
Extent to which the right is protected

3

Equality With respect to unfair discrimination solely on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic or social origin, sex religion or language

4

Human Dignity Entirely

5

Life Entirely

6

Freedom and Security of the person With respect to subsections (1)(d) and (e) and (2)(c).

7

Slavery, servitude and forced labour With respect to slavery and servitude

22

Children With respect to:
– subsection (1)(d) and (e);
– the rights in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection (1)(g); and
– subsection 1(i) in respect of children of 15 years and younger

29

Arrested, detained and accused persons With respect to:
– subsections (1)(a), (b) and (c) and (2)(d);
– the rights in paragraphs (a) to (o) of subsection (3), excluding paragraph (d)
– subsection (4); and
– subsection (5) with respect to the exclusion of evidence if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair.
  1. Whenever anyone is detained without trial in consequence of a derogation of rights resulting from a declaration of a state of emergency, the following conditions must be observed:
    1. An adult family member or friend of the detainee must be contacted as soon as reasonably possible, and informed that the person has been detained.
    2. A notice must be published in the national Government Gazette within five days of the person being detained, stating the detainee’s name and place of detention and referring to the emergency measure in terms of which that person has been detained.
    3. The detainee must be allowed to choose, and be visited at any reasonable time by, a medical practitioner.
    4. The detainee must be allowed to choose, and be visited at any reasonable time by, a legal representative.
    5. A court must review the detention as soon as reasonably possible, but no later than 10 days after the date the person was detained, and the court must release the detainee unless it is necessary to continue the detention to restore peace and order.
    6. A detainee who is not released in terms of a review under paragraph (e), or who is not released in terms of a review under this paragraph, may apply to a court for a further review of the detention at any time after 10 days have passed since the previous review, and the court must release the detainee unless it is still necessary to continue the detention to restore peace and order.
    7. The detainee must be allowed to appear in person before any court considering the detention, to be represented by a legal practitioner at those hearings, and to make representations against continued detention.
  1. The state must present written reasons to the court to justify the continued detention of the detainee, and must give a copy of those reasons to the detainee at least two days before the court reviews the detention.
  2. If a court releases a detainee, that person may not be detained again on the same grounds unless the state first shows a court good cause for re-detaining that person.
  1. Subsections (6) and (7) do not apply to persons who are not Australian citizens and who are detained in consequence of an international armed conflict. Instead, the state must comply with the standards binding on Australia under international humanitarian law in respect of the detention of such persons.

32. Enforcement of rights

Anyone listed in this section has the right to approach a competent court, alleging that a right in the Bill of Rights has been infringed or threatened, and the court may grant appropriate relief, including a declaration of rights. The persons who may approach a court are –

  1. anyone acting in their own interest;
  2. anyone acting on behalf of another person who cannot act in their own name;
  3. anyone acting as a member of, or in the interest of, a group or class of persons;
  4. anyone acting in the public interest; and
  5. an association acting in the interest of its members.

33. Interpretation of Bill of Rights

  1. When interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum ­
    1. must promote the values that underlie an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom;
    2. must consider international law; and
  1. may consider foreign law including the UN declaration of human rights
  2. When interpreting any legislation, and when developing the common law or customary law, every court, tribunal or forum must promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights.
  1. The Bill of Rights does not deny the existence of any other rights or freedoms that are recognised or conferred by common law, customary law or legislation, to the extent that they are consistent with the Bill.

Previous Legislation introduced at either State or Commonwealth level will be deemed invalid to the extent that it restricts any rights contained in this bill.