The case for a bill of rights in Queensland

 

Unlike many jurisdictions internationally, neither Australia nor the states operate under a bill of rights - with the exception of Victoria and the ACT.  While there is currently an investigation into 'traditional' freedoms at the instigation of the Commonwealth Attorney-General, there is no sign that a bill of rights will be coming any time soon at the national level. Indeed it is Coalition policy to do away with the human rights framework. The Prime Minister is reported as having said: 'Bills of rights are left-wing tricks to allow judges to change society in ways a parliament would never dare.'

But the question of a bill of rights can be framed a little differently in the Queensland context. Perhaps in recognition of that, following the 2015 Queensland election the government has indicated that it will seek advice from the Department of Justice and Attorney-General to allow 'public discussion' on the question of a bill, or charter, of rights. I think a public discussion on a bill of rights in Queensland is important and overdue. In this post I explain why.

Women's property - the case for ambitious change

Were they ambitious enough?

The proposal for constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians is in the news again, with Tony Abbott putting the brakes on anything that looks like a 'bill of rights'. At the moment, it's looking like a split argument as between 'minimalists' and others - just as occurred with the republic referendum all those years ago.

I've written about my own views on constitutional recognition, suggesting that a full suite of changes is necessary to achieve the goal. In this post though, I'll explore another minimalist change to rights - that of married women's property. My suggestion is that in failing to be ambitious in the change ushered in, what looks like a win only really reinforces the status quo.

To Change or Not to Change? That is the (Constitutional) Question

On 19 January, the Panel on Constitutional Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples ('Panel') delivered its report Recognising Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the Constitution.  Since the Panel was convened, there has been a lot of comment and public debate - mostly, it seems, centred around the legal implications of constitutional change.

If you are, like me, not an expert in constitutional law, your head may be spinning trying to keep track of the pros and cons of the recommendations.  What then are the primary recommendations for change, and how on earth do we sort through the legal arguments?  In this post, I go out on a limb and say that we need to focus on the goal of constitutional change and let go of the law.