The Australian Constitution does not include a specific section detailing the rights of the individual, although it has existed for over a century through many times when rights have been disregarded. Countries such as France and the United States of America have seen fit to implement a ‘Bill of Rights’ into their constitution, which guarantees the liberties and freedoms of the individual, and reinforces the basic rights of all human beings, where they are compromised. The writers of the Australian Constitution deliberately omitted a Bill Of Rights because they believed it would “undermine some of the discriminatory provisions in place at that time, including those laws which were enacted to the detriment of Aboriginals and Asian immigrants” (Malcolm, 1998). Since that time, values have changed significantly for much of the Australian population, as a result of such things as the 1967 Aboriginal rights referendum and the policy of multiculturalism developed in the 1970’s. A Bill of Rights is urgently needed to reinforce decisions made by the Australian court system. For the High Court, whose task it is to interpret the constitution, a Bill Of Rights would act as a basic set of r

The High Court is at the top of the Australian court hierarchy and deals with matters between state parliaments, or between federal and state parliaments, as well as acting as an appellate court for any other court. It has the power to interpret the Constitution and it makes decisions based on statutory law and indefinite common law, making way for a level of discrimination in its rulings. This can be avoided by adopting a Bill Of Rights, as a definite set of rights can be directly enforced.

A reason to adopt a Bill Of Rights within Australia is related to the recognition of the rights of the individual by its people. The current laws that protect our rights are not well understood, and it can be perceived that the average citizen would have little knowledge of what laws protect them from discrimination. By implementing a clearly written Bill Of Rights, citizens would not have to resort to the human rights laws ‘hidden’ in legal jargon. There would ideally be widespread awareness of the freedoms of the individual, giving people the confidence to stand up against discrimination.

The case Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1936) AC 85, is a situation where consumer rights have been compromised. Mr Grant developed dermatitis after purchasing underwear from Australian Knitting Mills, and subsequently sued them for breaching their duty of care. The common law from the England case Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) AC 562 was used to determine that the manufacturer has a duty of care over their consumers and the High Court ruled in favour of Mr Grant. This case demonstrated the use of common law and precedent to make a decision over the rights of an individual (fair-trading). It could be argued that the High Court protects the rights of Australian cit

Some topics in this essay:
Bill Rights, Australian Constitution, Donoghue Stevenson, Title Act, Mabo Queensland, Knitting Mills, China’s Bill, Rights Australia, Aboriginals Asian, bill rights, United America, rights individual, common law, australian constitution, aboriginal people, adopt bill, laws protect, human rights, definite set, australian knitting mills, australian court, adopt bill rights, rights definite set, constitution bill rights, native title act,