DOCSLIB.ORG

Protecting Rights Without a Bill of Rights

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Protecting Rights Without a Bill of Rights PROTECTING RIGHTS WITHOUT A BILL OF RIGHTS This page intentionally left blank Protecting Rights Without a Bill of Rights Institutional Performance and Reform in Australia Edited by TOM CAMPBELL Professorial Fellow, Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University, Australia JEFFREY GOLDSWORTHY Professor of Law, Monash University, Australia ADRIENNE STONE Fellow, Law Program, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Australia © Tom Campbell, Jeffrey Goldsworthy and Adrienne Stone 2006 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. Tom Campbell, Jeffrey Goldsworthy and Adrienne Stone have asserted their right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identifi ed as the editors of this work. Published by Ashgate Publishing Limited Ashgate Publishing Company Gower House Suite 420 Croft Road 101 Cherry Street Aldershot Burlington, VT 05401-4405 Hampshire GU11 3HR USA England Ashgate website: http://www.ashgate.com British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Protecting rights without a bill of rights : institutional performance and reform in Australia. - (Law, justice and power series) 1. Civil rights - Australia I. Campbell, Tom, 1938- II. Goldsworthy, Jeffrey Denys III. Stone, Adrienne (Adrienne Sarah Ackary) 342.9'4085 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Protecting rights without a Bill of Rights : institutional performance and reform in Australia / edited by Tom Campbell, Jeffrey Goldsworthy and Adrienne Stone. p. cm. -- (Law, justice and power) Includes index. ISBN 0-7546-2558-3 1. Civil rights--Australia. 2. Human rights--Australia. I. Campbell, Tom, 1938- II. Goldsworthy, Jeffrey Denys. III. Stone, Adrienne (Adrienne Sarah Ackary) IV. Series. KU2095.P76 2006 342.7308'5--dc22 2006000087 ISBN 0 7546 2558 3 Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall. Contents List of Contributors vii Introduction Jeffrey Goldsworthy 1 PART I INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE 1 Australian Exceptionalism: Rights Protection Without a Bill of Rights 17 Brian Galligan and F.L. (Ted) Morton 2 The Performance of Australian Legislatures in Protecting Rights 41 John Uhr 3 Improving Legislative Scrutiny of Proposed Laws to Enhance Basic Rights, Parliamentary Democracy, and the Quality of Law-Making 61 Bryan Horrigan 4 The Performance of Administrative Law in Protecting Rights 101 Robin Creyke 5 Australia’s Constitutional Rights and the Problem of Interpretive Disagreement 137 Adrienne Stone PART II PARTICULAR HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES 6 Rights and Citizenship in Law and Public Discourse 161 Helen Irving 7 Chained to the Past: the Psychological Terra Nullius of Australia’s Public Institutions 175 Megan Davis vi Protecting Rights Without a Bill of Rights 8 Constitutional Property Rights in Australia: Reconciling Individual Rights and the Common Good 197 Simon Evans PART III INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES 9 American Judicial Review in Perspective 225 Robert Nagel 10 The Unfulfi lled Promise of Dialogic Constitutionalism: Judicial–Legislative Relationships Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms 239 Christopher Manfredi PART IV STRATEGIES FOR INSTITUTIONAL REFORM 11 A Modest (but Robust) Defence of Statutory Bills of Rights 263 Jeremy Webber 12 Australia’s First Bill of Rights: the Australian Capital Territory’s Human Rights Act 289 Hilary Charlesworth 13 An Australian Rights Council 305 George Winterton 14 Human Rights Strategies: An Australian Alternative 319 Tom Campbell Index 343 List of Contributors Tom Campbell is a Professorial Fellow in the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University, and a former Dean of the Faculty of Law, Australian National University. He is the author of The Left and Rights (Routledge, 1983), Justice (2nd edn, Macmillan, 2001) and The Legal Theory of Ethical Positivism (Dartmouth, 1996). He is also co-editor of numerous books, most recently Protecting Human Rights, Instruments and Institutions (OUP, 2003), with Adrienne Stone and Jeff Goldsworthy, and Sceptical Essays on Human Rights (OUP, 2001), with Keith Ewing and Adam Tomkins. Hilary Charlesworth is an ARC Federation Fellow in the Regulatory Institutions Network in the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University, where she is also Professor of International Law in the Faculty of Law. She was chair of the ACT Bill of Rights Consultative Committee in 2002–3. Her scholarly interests include international law, human rights law and feminist legal theory. Among her many publications are Writing in Rights: Australia and the Protection of Human Rights (UNSW Press, 2002), and International Law and World Order: a Problem-oriented Coursebook (3rd edn, West Pub, 1997), with Burns Weston and Richard Falk. Robin Creyke is Alumni Professor of Administrative Law in the Faculty of Law, Australian National University. She specializes in administrative law, constitutional law and administrative tribunals. She has co-edited many books of essays on Australian administrative law, most recently The Brennan Legacy: Blowing the Winds of Legal Orthodoxy (Federation Press, 2002), with Patrick Keyzer. She is also the author of numerous book chapters and journal articles in that fi eld. Megan Davis is a member of the Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning in the Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney, and Director of the Bill of Rights Project in the Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law, University of New South Wales. Her research interests include aboriginal women’s issues, customary Aboriginal law, the rights of indigenous peoples, especially to intellectual property, and the right to democratic governance in international law. She is the author of book chapters and journal articles in these areas. Simon Evans is Director of the Centre for Comparative Constitutional Studies in the Faculty of Law, Melbourne University. He researches and teaches in constitutional law and theory. He is particularly interested in non-judicial mechanisms for protecting human rights, accountability of the executive government and constitutional viii Protecting Rights Without a Bill of Rights protection of property rights. He is the author of numerous articles and book chapters on these and other topics. Brian Galligan is a Professor of Political Science at the University of Melbourne. He researches and teaches mainly in Australian constitutional politics and political economy. His most recent books are Australian Citizenship (MUP, 2004) with Winsome Roberts, Australians and Globalisation (CUP, 2001), with Winsome Roberts and Gabriella Trifi letti, Citizens Without Rights: Aborigines and Australian Citizenship (CUP, 1997), with John Chesterman, and A Federal Republic (CUP, 1995). He is also the author of The Politics of the High Court (University of Queensland Press, 1987), and is currently editing the Oxford Companion to Australian Politics. Jeffrey Goldsworthy is Professor of Law at Monash University. He specializes in constitutional law, history and theory, and legal philosophy. He is author of The Sovereignty of Parliament, History and Philosophy (OUP, 1999), and co-editor of Protecting Human Rights, Instruments and Institutions (OUP, 2003), with Tom Campbell and Adrienne Stone, and of Legal Interpretation in Democratic States (Ashgate, 2002) and Judicial Power, Democracy and Legal Positivism (Ashgate, 2000), both with Tom Campbell. Bryan Horrigan is a Professor in the Division of Law at Macquarie University. His research and teaching cover a broad range of topics in the areas of governmental and business law. His human rights work covers native title, corporations and human rights, and parliamentary scrutiny of legislation for human rights implications. He is the author of Adventures in Law and Justice: Exploring Big Legal Questions in Everyday Life (UNSW Press, 2003), and editor of several books including Government Law and Policy: Commercial Aspects (Federation Press, 1998). Helen Irving is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Sydney. Her interests include constitutional history, jurisprudence and law, federalism, and intergovernmental relations. She is the author of Five Things to Know about the Australian Constitution (Cambridge University Press, 2004), To Constitute a Nation: A Cultural History of Australia’s Constitution (rev. ed., CUP, 1999), and editor of The Centenary Companion to Australian Federation (CUP, 1999) and several other collections. Christopher Manfredi is a Professor in the Department of Political Science, McGill University, Canada. He specializes in comparative constitutionalism and judicial politics, American public law and Canadian politics. He is the author of Feminist Activism in the Supreme Court of Canada (UBC Press, Vancouver, 2004), Judicial Power and the Charter: Canada and the Paradox of Liberal Constitutionalism (2nd edn, OUP, Toronto, 2001), The Supreme Court and Juvenile Justice (Kansas UP, Lawrence, Kansas, 1997), and numerous book chapters and journal articles. List of Contributors ix F.L. (Ted) Morton was a Professor of Political Science at the University of Calgary, until he became a Member of the Albertan Legislative Assembly in 2004. He specializes in constitutional politics and rights protection, and has published extensively on Canadian politics since the adoption of the Charter of Rights
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Barnelry$ the JOURNAI of the NSW BAR ASSOCIATI0N Surnrner 2001/2002
    BarNelry$ The JOURNAI of the NSW BAR ASSOCIATI0N Surnrner 2001/2002 ll ll tl frtr.ltll lll Fr tll CI 'ln ? ."?"Ft Regional and security issues Australian law after Septemher 11 lntelligence Services Act Enduring law Thmpa decisions A Constitufion for East Timor Editor’s note 2 Letters to the Editor 3 New Bar Council 6 Regional and security issues Australian law after September 11 7 Intelligence Services Act 10 Enduring law 13 Tam p a de c i s i o n s 14 A Constitution for East Tim o r 19 Recent developments Should New South Wales have a Bill of Rights? 21 Recent High Court criminal cases 23 Practice matters The Bar in mediation and ADR 25 Summer 2001/2002 Royal commissions and inquiries 27 Interview Ruth McColl S.C: Reflecting on her time in office. 30 Editorial Board Justin Gleeson S.C. (Editor) Addresses An d r ew Bell Sir Maurice Byers Address: Does Chapter III of the Constitution protect James Renwick substantive rights as well as procedural rights? 34 Rena Sofron i o u Chris O’Donnell Legal retail therapy: Is forum shopping a necessary evil? 44 Chris Winslow Opinion (Bar Association) A practical way to early resolution of the head of state issue 52 Editorial Print/Production Structured settlements now available for injured plaintiffs 57 Rodenprint Bar history ‘Servants of all, yet of none’ 58 Layout Ha r t r i c k ’ s Design Office Pty Ltd The history of trial by jury in New South Wal e s 58 Bullfry Advertising Bar News now accepts Bullfry and the Sapphic Oration 59 advertisements.
    [Show full text]
  • Australia's Growing Debt to the European Court of Human Rights
    MONASH UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF LAW THE SEVENTH FIAT JUSTICIA LECTURE AUSTRALIA’S GROWING DEBT TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF * HUMAN RIGHTS ** The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG ABSTRACT An interesting recent development in judicial reasoning in Australia has been the growing recourse by judges to decisions and reasons of the European Court of Human Rights. The author points to the use of a decision of that court by the High Court of Australia in the prisoners' voting rights case of 2007: Roach v AEC. He then examines the citation of reasons of the European Court of Human Rights in Australia from early days in the "free speech" cases up to the present time. The citations have ranged from cases on the right to a fair trial; migration law; family law; and a range of other topics. With the enactment of human rights statutes in Australia, this use by Australian courts of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights is bound to expand. THE AUSTRALIAN DEBT * A part of this article was previously published in S Breitenmoser et al (eds), Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law: Liber amirocum Luzius Wildhaber, Dike/Nomos, Bazel, 2007. The article has been revised and updated. ** Justice of the High Court of Australia. The author acknowledges the assistance of Mrs Lorraine Finlay and Ms Anna Gordon, successively legal research officers in the Library of the High Court of Australia. 2. The European Court of Human Rights has the primary responsibility for deciding the meaning and application of the European Convention on Human Rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Kate Chetty Thesis
    THE SECTION 51(VI) DEFENCE POWER IN THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION: THREATS TO HUMAN RIGHTS DURING THE ‘WAR ON TERROR’ AND SUGGESTED REMEDIES A thesis submitted to Charles Sturt University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Kate Chetty B Comm (Advert&Mkt) (UCan); LLB (Hons) (UCan); LLM (UCan); GradDip (Leg Prac) (ANU) August 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Certificate of Authorship ........................................................................................................... 5 Acknowledgments...................................................................................................................... 6 Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... 7 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 9 I The Limited Protection of Human Rights in Australia .................................................. 13 A Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 13 B Legislative Power of the Commonwealth Parliament and Limited Rights Protection in the Australian Constitution ............................................................................................................ 14 1 Requirement for Legislation to be within a Head of Power and Procedurally Valid .... 15 2 Consistency with Limited Express and Implied Constitutional Rights ........................
    [Show full text]
  • 'Just Terms' Proviso in S 51(Xxxi) of the Australian Constitution
    Sussing out the vibe: Federal property acquisition and the search for a principled approach to the scope of the ‘just terms’ proviso in s 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution Ilan Lewis A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Law Faculty of Law August 2016 1 THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES Thesis/Dissertation Sheet Surname or Family name: Lewis First name: Ilan Other name/s:Roland Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: LLM School: Law Faculty: Law Title: Sussing out the vibe: Federal property acquisition and the search for a principled approach to the scope of the ‘just terms’ proviso in s 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution. Abstract 350 words maximum: In relation to the case law dealing with the scope of s 51(xxxi) of the Australian Constitution (‘the Proviso’) it has been suggested that no coherent line of principle emerges, that one meets undisclosed processes of reasoning and that, as a consequence, the Proviso’s operation is unpredictable. This dissertation gives an account and critique of the increasing incoherence of s 51(xxxi) jurisprudence and the High Court’s failure to articulate the constitutional values the Proviso serves to protect. A comprehensive account is given of the Proviso’s inherent interpretive challenges and the various approaches the High Court has adopted to tackle them. The thesis considers in detail the Proviso’s complex interrelationships with other constitutional powers and limitations. It is argued that understanding these interrelationships is a necessary pre-requisite to understanding the problems the Proviso throws up and the formulation of possible solutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Guarantees. Characterisation and the Concept of Proportionality
    CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES. CHARACTERISATION AND THE CONCEPT OF PROPORTIONALITY [The concept ofproportionality has come to play a crucial role in Australian constitutional law in two contexts: as a test of the legitimate restriction of constitutional guarantees and as a means of characterisation in assessing whether Commonwealth laws are sufficiently connected to certain heads of federal power . Use of the dochrne m Australia has been marked by controversy and confuszon. This article undertakes a comprehensrve and comparalive analysrs of the nature and the effects ofproportionality in Australian constitutional law . It concludes that the concept performs a just$ed and useful role m relation to constitutional guarantees . But the use of proportionality in the characterzsation context is shown to raise a number of anomalies and objections.] Introduction .........................................................................................................................2 I The Concept of Proportionality .................................................................................3 A Suitability ......................................................................................................5 B Necessity ................................................................................................... 7 C Balancing .......................................................................................................8 I1 Legitimate Restriction of Constitutional Guarantees .................................................9 A Miscellaneous
    [Show full text]
  • The Asio Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2003 (Cth)
    524 UNSW Law Journal Volume 27(2) DETAINING QUESTIONS OR COMPROMISING CONSTITUTIONALITY?: THE ASIO LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (TERRORISM) ACT 2003 (CTH) GREG CARNE∗ I INTRODUCTION The extensively amended Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Legislation Amendment (Terrorism) Act 2003 (Cth) (‘ASIO (Terrorism) Act 2003’), having first been introduced into Parliament in March 2002, was eventually passed after a Government ‘compromise’ aimed at achieving Opposition support. The final version of the legislation is remarkable not only because the Commonwealth Parliament has enacted a secret, renewable, incommunicado regime of detention and questioning of persons not suspected of any terrorism offence (for the purposes of the gathering of intelligence), but also because significant questions of constitutionality persist following the June 2003 amendments made to the Bill. This article commences with a discussion of several contextual matters providing important background for an examination of the Act’s constitutionality. These include a reticence in articulating and defending constitutional issues in the protracted debate around the legislation – significant because the Act overturns familiar civil rights standards and invites constitutional challenge. Fresh constitutional issues arise in relation to the extended nature of the powers given to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (‘ASIO’) following the Government’s ‘compromise’ regarding the original Bill, and the influential role of the High Court in assessing the purposive aspect common to the constitutional powers said to support the legislation. An analysis is then made of the jurisprudence relating to the constitutional heads of power seen as providing the legal foundation for the detention powers enshrined in the ASIO (Terrorism) Act 2003. Whilst it is most likely that the Commonwealth Constitution does furnish power to support measures for ∗ Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania.
    [Show full text]
  • Climate Change and the Australian Constitution: the Case for the Ecological Limitation
    Climate Change and the Australian Constitution: The Case for the Ecological Limitation Constantine Avgoustinos A thesis in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of New South Wales Faculty of Law 2020 Copyright Statement 'I hereby grantthe University of New South Wales or its agents a non-exclusive licence to archiveand to make available (including to members of the public) my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known. I acknowledge that I retain all intellectual property rights which subsist in my thesis or dissertation, such as copyright and patent rights, subject to applicable law. I also retain the right to use all or partof my thesis or dissertation in future works (such as articles or books).' 'For any substantial portions of copyright material used in this thesis, written permission foruse has been obtained, or the copyright material is removed from the finalpublic version of the thesis.' Authenticity Statement 'I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officiallyapproved version of my thesis.' ii Acknowledgements I am extremely grateful for the support I have received from my supervisors, Gabrielle Appleby, Ben Golder and Amelia Thorpe. Their assistance and encouragement, given with such generosity, has been invaluable. I am also thankful to Peter Burdon, Patrick Keyzer and Andrew Lynch for taking the time to read, and share their thoughts on, earlier drafts of this work. I am grateful to my family and friends. In particular, I acknowledge the endless support of my mother, Flora Avgoustinos, and care I have received from my dear friends, Arani Ahmed, Daina Aspin and Zoe Roberts.
    [Show full text]
  • THE EMINENT DOMAIN in AUSTRALIA: the ‘INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS’ APPROACH to S 51(Xxxi) of the AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION
    THE EMINENT DOMAIN IN AUSTRALIA: THE ‘INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS’ APPROACH TO S 51(xxxi) OF THE AUSTRALIAN CONSTITUTION MATTHEW THOMAS STUBBS Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Adelaide Law School, University of Adelaide, August 2011 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... vii DECLARATION ............................................................................................................... ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................. xi PART ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 3 I INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 5 II THE IMPORTANCE OF THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AND OF COMPENSATION TO THE INDIVIDUAL ........................................................................................... 6 III METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 9 IV EXISTING COMMENTARY ON S 51(xxxi) ........................................................... 12 A Classic Constitutional Works ................................................................ 12 B Literature Prior to World War Two ......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Nationhood Power and Judicial Review: a Bridge Too Far?
    NATIONHOOD POWER AND JUDICIAL REVIEW: A BRIDGE TOO FAR? ANDREW HANNA Following the Williams v Commonwealth decision, the scope of the nationhood power has acquired a renewed importance as an area where the Commonwealth Executive can exercise its non-prerogative capacities without prior legislative authority. This article takes the position that subject to principled exceptions, the scope of nationhood power is a non- justiciable question to be resolved by the political process. The principled exceptions relate to when the exercise of nationhood power would contravene constitutional prohibitions or infringe fundamental common law rights. In these instances, courts determine the constitutionality of the exercise of nationhood power by the Commonwealth Executive. This article analyses this proposition through consideration of appropriate sources of Australian constitutional law including constitutional text; judicial authority; extrinsic materials; and comparisons with overseas jurisprudence; particularly the ‘political questions’ doctrine of the US Supreme Court. It concludes by providing a practical application of this hybrid non-justiciability framework. Section 61 of the Commonwealth Constitution (‘Constitution’) vests Commonwealth executive power in the Queen which is exercisable by the Governor-General on Commonwealth Ministers’ advice.1 While this provision identifies executive power’s parameters,2 s 61 importantly does not define executive power.3 This juxtaposition engenders an inherent textual ambiguity which inevitably gives rise to an intriguing and vexed question: what activities fall within the scope of Commonwealth executive power? In response, one illuminating framework posits that executive power's scope consists of two components: breadth and depth. Breadth signifies the limits of executive power derived from the Constitution’s federal structure.
    [Show full text]