2016•Alternative Law JournalRequires access

A Human Rights Act for Queensland?

George J. Williams III, Daniel Reynolds

Open publisher page 2 citations

Abstract

Australia is a latecomer to the idea of having anything akin to a bill of rights. When drafting the national Constitution in the final decade of the 19th century, the framers chose not to include broad-ranging guarantees of human rights. They did so on the ground that protection could be provided by other means, in particular the system of parliamentary democracy. This view has since been challenged, and in the 1970s and early 1980s legislation was introduced into federal parliament for a national human rights act. These bills were not passed, but other initiatives have since sought change. In 1988, Australians voted No in a referendum to constitutionally entrench a number of specific rights, while 2009 saw a wide-ranging national human rights consultation. It reported that the public overwhelmingly supported reform, but its recommendations for a national human rights act were not adopted. As a result, Australia remains the only democracy without some form of national bill of rights.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Australia is a latecomer to the idea of having anything akin to a bill of rights. When drafting the national Constitution in the final decade of the 19th century, the framers chose not to include broad-ranging guarantees of human rights. They did so on the ground that protection could be provided by other means, in particular the system of parliamentary democracy. This view has since been challenged, and in the 1970s and early 1980s legislation was introduced into federal parliament for a national human rights act. These bills were not passed, but other initiatives have since sought change. In 1988, Australians voted No in a referendum to constitutionally entrench a number of specific rights, while 2009 saw a wide-ranging national human rights consultation. It reported that the public overwhelmingly supported reform, but its recommendations for a national human rights act were not adopted. As a result, Australia remains the only democracy without some form of national bill of rights.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Australia is a latecomer to the idea of having anything akin to a bill of rights. When drafting the national Constitution in the final decade of the 19th century, the framers chose not to include broad-ranging guarantees of human rights. They did so on the ground that protection could be provided by other means, in particular the system of parliamentary democracy. This view has since been challenged, and in the 1970s and early 1980s legislation was introduced into federal parliament for a national human rights act. These bills were not passed, but other initiatives have since sought change. In 1988, Australians voted No in a referendum to constitutionally entrench a number of specific rights, while 2009 saw a wide-ranging national human rights consultation. It reported that the public overwhelmingly supported reform, but its recommendations for a national human rights act were not adopted. As a result, Australia remains the only democracy without some form of national bill of rights.

Key concepts: Human rights, Parliament, Referendum, Bill of rights, Law, Democracy, Constitution, Political science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
A Human Rights Act for Queensland? — Research Paper | ScholarLens