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.

Forced removal of children. When will government learn?

Today's media contains the sobering news that an asylum seeker known as Latifa has been detained separately from her week old infant Farus, who is suffering respiratory problems. She is permitted to visit him between 10am-4pm but is otherwise detained with her husband and two other children. Farus' father has not been permitted to visit.

The reaction to the treatment of Latifa, Farus and their family has focused on the cruelty of separating a mother and sick infant. I agree with this assessment, but I am always interested to observe the essentialising of women's role as mother. I think that it is worthwhile to look more deeply into this picture to tease out what values are at stake in our government's treatment of this woman, her child and the child's father.

Compensating Organ Donors: Commodification or Freedom?

The Commonwealth government has today announced a ‘grant’ scheme for live organ donors. The scheme will pay live organ donors the minimum wage for six weeks following donation, with the aim of supporting them financially.

Such a decision is likely to ignite the debate over the morality of payment for 'transactions' involving the human body. There are two sides to this debate: the risk of commodification of the human; and the freedom and autonomy of donors to choose how they deal with their body.

Women's rights are human rights

Nurse-in on Bribie Island*

Well the double standard is alive and well on social media today.  Outrage - outrage - at women staging a 'nurse in' outside the Sunrise studios. The tenor of this outrage on Twitter seems to be somehow that David Koch, in calling for women to be discreet and classy in their breastfeeding habits, is simply expressing opinion and that this is not deserving of protest.

Is my body my own?

Sadly, late last month, an Indian woman, Savita Halappanavar, died of septicemia in an Irish hospital.  The source of her infection was her dying foetus.  Yet doctors refused her the termination that would save her life, because the dying foetus still had a heartbeat.  The life of this woman ended because, in accordance with the teachings of the Catholic Church, the 'life' (such as it was) of the foetus was paramount.

While press reports indicate that in Ireland obstetricians have a duty to act in the best interests of the mother, there is apparently a lack of clarity in this jurisdiction as to when the medical profession can intervene lawfully.

This case highlights, yet again, the issue of bodily integrity for women and the extent of State intervention into women's autonomy over themselves.  This concern is not limited to Ireland, but exists around the world.

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.