Australian Democracy

These include freedom of opinion, thought, association and freedom from arbitrary detention and are all about treating others fairly and being fairly treated yourself, and making genuine choices in daily life. Wilson says ‘Respect for human rights underpins the democratic processes of our society and is the cornerstone of a society that respects individuals and voluntary community collaboration’ (Tim Wilson, 2014). Despite this, the control the Australian Government exercised over its people in WWII encroached on all of these universally recognized human rights, and it was in 1948 after the atrocity of WWII that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was internationalised.

The Commonwealth of Australia is both a representative democracy and a constitutional monarchy with Queen Elizabeth II as Australia 's head of state. (How government works, 2016). Since the 1990s globalization has gained widespread currency in Australia on a social, economic, political and cultural level. (Holmes, 2012, p. 340) Laws and politics have an influence on Australia’s economic system, which is capitalism and socialism. (Political Economy, n.d.) Analysis of political and economic approaches by government can add insight into the flow on effects on a community and its individual.

Becoming a republic is the vision of future in Australia, it is the last stepping stone for Australia to become truly independent.

The attitudes of the white Australians also had a huge impact on change of rights and freedoms as it pressured the government into giving Aboriginals rights and freedoms. The 1967 was testament to this when a huge 90.77% of Australians agreed that Aboriginals had the right to be counted in the census. There has never been any real public objections to giving aboriginals rights, merely quiet harbored prejudices in the persons’ mind. On the other side of the case the Aboriginal rights in general have not improved with many Aboriginals being

When European colonists settled in Australia they treated the Aboriginal people extremely different to that of their fellow white men. The Aboriginals were not seen as first class citizens through the European eye and as a result were victims of extreme oppressions and had nearly no rights or freedoms. Since then Aboriginal people have fought to be treated equally to the white men through various different ways. I will discuss the previous struggles faced by the Aboriginals, the Australian strife for equality and finally the level of success and degree of rights and freedoms given to Aboriginals in modern Australia.

Despite the international prominence of human rights laws, Australia remains the only Western democracy without either a constitutionally entrenched or legislative bill of rights. Human rights can be defined as inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms that all individuals are inherently entitled to. Although human rights are protected to an extent through domestic legislation, the common law, the doctrine of the separation of powers, the rule of law, the Australian

The case of Ruddock v Vadarlis is fundamental when it comes to understanding the rights of an individual or human rights more broadly and how they are protected by public law in Australia, however this is an extremely complex issue, and this case outlined many of the protections that ensure human rights but also was one of the defining moments for human rights and public policy in the contemporary era, this cases influence stretches far, but this essay will explain how this case enshrined how Australian public law protects people’s rights. This essay will focus on the individual rights of Australians, this in itself generates a great deal of discussion and viewpoints, different ideas on exactly what rights were protected, and which rights

The Eureka stockade was a turning point for Australian democracy. It was a rebellion against the police and government and it was a fight for justice. The Eureka stockade is seen by some to be the birthplace of Australian democracy (Evatt, 2010). It was destined to fail, yet it is probably the most widely known rebellion in Australian History. The Rebellion against authority started with unfair taxes and policing, and it resulted in a change in the political stance of people in the middle and lower classes. It is an important part of the development of Australia as a nation, as it demonstrates the values of mateship, determination, persistence and the Aussie ‘Give-it-a-go’ attitude, all of which are key parts of the Australian Identity and culture.

Based on this classification, Evans argues that apart from its formal headship, all of Australia’s institutions exercising public power are ‘modern republican’. His comment suggests that in addition to following Montesquieu’s doctrine of separation of powers, which seeks to divide the power of the government into three separate institutions, the Australian system also distributes power through a system of checks and balances. However, unlike the American Constitution of 1787, which, as table 1 and figure 3 demonstrates, divides the judicial, the legislative, and the executive into three relatively separate institutions that are “confined to the exercise of its own function”, Australia’s system of “rule from above” has led to what a former Vice

Ever since the 1970s Australia has welcomed people from all cultures and prides itself of being a multicultural nation. It is now one of the most culturally diverse countries on the planet with almost half of all Australians either born overseas or have at least one parent who was. The basic norms that make a multicultural society like Australia's possible are human rights. They are the standards that guide interactions between people which encourage mutual respect and equality. However there are groups and individuals in Australia who deviate away from these norms and do not treat those from other cultures with the respect and dignity they are entitled to.

However, although their rights were recognised starting from 1900s, some argue that it is insufficient as Australia does not has a ‘Bill of Rights’ and the Constitution is not a document which focus on human rights (Bailey 2008; Owen 2010). Despites of the claims, there is no need for the Australian government to have a ‘Bill of Right’ as the third element of Rule of Law already ensures the protection of human rights and natural justice. Plus, having a ‘Bill of Rights’ means that it will be likely subjected to High Court’s interpretation and will not guarantee protection of human rights.

have had more sophisticated and developed culture, society, and technology. Similarly, the white Australians had ideas that the white are superior, and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander should be assimilated to the white culture. Because of such circumstances, the legislative removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their family and community has happened, and it has been significant in Australian history. This essay will argue that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’s human rights have been protected by several human rights mechanisms, but still not enough. Firstly, this essay will introduce several legislations, which slowed removal of the children. Secondly, it will summarise impacts of the removal

     Australia’s form of government has been described as a constitutional monarchy, in which the queen of England is the nominal head of state. In the federal government, power rests with the elected political party that holds the majority in the House of Representatives. The leader is the prime minister. The Senate consists of 76 members who are elected every six years. The House of Representatives has 147 members and they face elections every three years. Any laws that involve changes to the Constitution must be decided by a referendum in which the country’s citizens are called to vote on whether or not they want such changes to take place.

The piece Advance Australia … within reason, was conveyed on the 5th of January by Amy Mackintosh, at the annual “University of Students for Youth Political Activism’ meeting held at The University of Melbourne. Mackintosh steadily argues the reasons why Australia should not have become a republic, and how the country should stay as a monarchy. The tone of the speech is very colloquial and even sarcastic, with the middle part being more analytical and serious. The speaker gives the impression that the argument for Australia to stay as a Monarchy is unbiased and logical.

“Australia, alone amongst English speaking western countries, does not have a national bill of charter of rights.” – (Stimulus 2, The Australian Collaboration). Australia does not need a Bill of Rights as our the existing laws within Australia provide adequate protection of our basic human rights. Our existing rights could possibly diminish and frozen attitudes of the past would be enacted, meaning a Bill of Rights would be out of date to Australia’s new modern and eventually developing inclusive society. Judiciary would acquire too much power and with Judiciary often portrayed as conservative, this would not adequately provide protection for Australian’s basic rights. It is also very unlikely that a Bill of Rights would provide protection for everyone, including minorities in Australia that also spark controversy between Parliament and society. Australia does not need to spare such high and unnecessary costs to keep up to date with the rest of the world. Potentially if a Bill of Rights was drawn, laws enacted in it now would not be relevant In Australia’s forever changing societies forever. This would equal to more costs. A Bill of Rights would also not recognise the regional differences between different