7 ms·

Australians have very few constitutionally guaranteed rights (compared to countries such as the US). The Constitution only gives us the right to vote, the right

by jaza 8y ago

Australians have very few constitutionally guaranteed rights (compared to countries such as the US). The Constitution only gives us the right to vote, the right to a trial by jury, and freedom of religion (and a few others). But many more rights, including extensive privacy rights, exist in statute law and elsewhere. The main argument against adding more rights to the Constitution, is: "we don't want to end up with obsolete rights that do more harm than good, and that are virtually impossible to get rid of, like the US with its right to bear arms".

zaphirplane 8y ago
Of course “they” would say that. Easier to sell than enshrining rights in the constitution makes it impossible for us to encroach on those rights ;) tin foil stay strong
AndrewGaspar 8y ago
> the right to vote Yeah, but they mess even that up by making it obligatory. :)
- tacticus 8y ago
  You have to go. you don't have to pick. Makes it difficult for states to disenfranchise people through budget cuts.
  - chii 8y ago
    By the time and effort spent going to vote, I bet nobody will just cast a null vote. Compulsory voting is more democratic. The USA should make voting compulsory! Ditto with the brexit referendum! If only they made it compulsory, brexit would have probably not passed (presumably many people just didn't expect brexit to win, and so didn't bother going to vote).
    - aesthethiccs 8y ago
      > I bet nobody will just cast a null vote. Have you heard of the term donkey voting? null votes in Australia are about 5% of total votes (federally) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-04/informal-votes-to-have-impact-on-election-result-in-close-seats/7566232 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-04/informal-votes-to-hav... Also it's only sorta compulsory in a sense, you can just never register and never have to vote. but if you do register you will get fined if you don't vote. the amount of unregistered voters is about 4% of the population. so at it's worst it's atleast more representative then some other democracies.
- satori99 8y ago
  Involuntary voting means that religious and other special interest groups cannot easily use their organizations to out-vote the more apathetic citizens. And therefore serious parties must target the center, or close to it, with policy. I see this as an advantage of compulsory voting over other systems. Especially when voting is quick and painless, usually taking no more than 10 or 20 mins on a weekend every three years or so.
judge2020 8y ago
> like the US with its right to bear arms I find this funny because the SCOTUS basically can change the Constitution whenever they want. The second amendment only states that the United States itself has a right to bear arms in order to defend itself (have a Militia)[0]. It didn't provide citizens the right to personal protection by guns until a 2008 Supreme Court case [1]. 0: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992?lang=en#141 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States... 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
- tracker1 8y ago
  "... shall not be infringed" because of the need for a "well regulated militia," not for said militia. It's an example of why the right is needed. Especially given the people raised a violent coup against their own government. These people were not in favor of disarming the public in general... to interpret it otherwise would be effectively changing the law.
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    Well regulated also essentially meant "competent" then as well. So it could be interpretted as "so our militia can have enough firearms practice to shoot straight and know how to fire, maintain, and reload the right to have gund shall not be infringed". Essentially like a justification for public schools and compulsory education being "literacy is essential to function be an informed citizen which is needed for self government". Just like how merely being able to shoot well isn't enough to be a good soldier but it is important.
    - tracker1 8y ago
      "well regulated" meant able able-bodied male of adult age. Your definition is likely far more constrained. "practice" in this sense is not generally mentioned, as they were required to own a conventional firearm for the time. As to "training," there wasn't a regimen of regular firearms training per-se. It was generally considered common knowledge to know how to load and fire one's musket. As to any comparison of modern training, it seems to me like today's police, at least in major cities like NYC receive less training than a typical gun owner outside major cities.
tracker1 8y ago
The U.S. actually goes a step further... the only rights the constitution actually spells out are the rights of government. Most encroachments have been under the guise of "interstate commerce" or "taxation" in general... > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. As to the bill of rights, so long as the police are armed and can act with impunity... imho, the populace should be able to be armed. I don't personally own a firearm... I also don't spew racist rhetoric. I am a strong believer in all civil rights.
- Sabinus 8y ago
  Maybe if the police in America wasn't armed to the teeth and scared of being blown away by armed populace they wouldn't act like they do. For a country who keeps guns to hold governments accountable, your government is just a unaccountable as everyone else; if not more so.
  - 12298765 8y ago
    We've also been around for longer than anyone else with a modern democracy, and our goal is longevity of a sustainable relationship between the people and their government. We have some issues in our country right now, but I have a good feeling we'll get them worked out in the next few years. Many of our laws and rights are in place not for short term feelings about safety between people and police, but for long term safety of the people from a tyrannical government. And that tyrannical government might take hundreds of years to begin to form in a democracy... But the bill of rights and ability of the people to feel secure without their government's support, keeps the government from getting too power-hungry or separating too far from the will of the people.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > We've also been around for longer than anyone else with a modern democracy No, we haven't. In fact, we copied it largely from the UK. (We didn't like the fact that as a colony we didn't get representation in the national legislature or the full range of rights citizens in the UK itself had, but, hey, the US does the same thing. Initially, and still partially, even to it's capital district. We've got the oldest surviving written Constitution, sure, but that's a different issue.
xxpor 8y ago
In the US there's no explicit right to vote.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > In the US there's no explicit right to vote. Yes, there is. There is no explicit general prohibition on laws impairing that specific right the way there is some other rights, but the existence of the right is explicit, among other places in Amendment XV, Sec. 1: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” This explicitly states that the right exists, and then goes on to prohibit denying or abridging it on an enumerated set of bases. (There's two other voting rights amendments following the same pattern.)
  - int_19h 8y ago
    This implies that the right can be denied for other reasons, which would mean that it's not an inherent right of citizens. And, indeed, courts do not consider e.g. restrictions on voting for citizens with criminal records to be unconstitutional. And it's not like it's a new invention. I mean, women couldn't vote back when 15A was passed, and they still couldn't vote after. It wasn't a surprise, either - many suffragists opposed 15A even before it was ratified for this exact reason, because its wording made it clear that it wasn't covering sex.
- adventured 8y ago
  To add to dragonwriter's post, there is also the 17th amendment: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures." It's exceptionally clear that it's an explicit right to vote for the election of senators.
  - xxpor 8y ago
    Why couldn't women vote for Senators then?
talaketu 8y ago
> gives us the right to vote. Not true.
danieltillett 8y ago
We don't actually have a constitutional freedom of religion in Australia. The first election I ever voted in this was a proposed change to the constitution and it was voted down. If the Australian government want it could establish a state religion and ban the rest - not that this would ever happen in practice.
- bigger_cheese 8y ago
  I think the way it is worded in the Constitution is that the Commonwealth Government (i.e national government) can't make laws enforcing/restricting a religion. I.e can't ban/mandate a religion Australia wide. But where it falls down is there is nothing stopping the individual States from doing so (i.e New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland etc could make state laws banning religions). I think that is one of the main problems with our constitution the states have a heap of power. I believe it is due to the history of federation where the six states came together to form Australia. There was a bunch of compromises required to get everyone on board, which is why you have things like Tasmania having the same number of Senators as NSW despite the huge disparity in total population. Because of all the state provisions it is very difficult to make changes to the constitution. It requires a referendum with an overall national majority and a majority of all the states is also needed. That's why borderline referendums never seem to pass only the ones that are overwhelming supported ever get up (depending on your pov this is a feature not a bug).
  - int_19h 8y ago
    This is exactly how the American constitution worked originally, as well, and for all the same reasons. Many things in it are compromises, and the Federalist Papers say as much in some of the rationales.
  - danieltillett 8y ago
    Yes establishing a state religion is a power retained by the states. The states were independent countries before federation and so they retain a great deal of power. In practice this is not something that we have to worry about here in Australia. The high court has rule in a few case an implied right to freedom of religion in the constitution in much the same way they have done so for freedom of speech - although freedom of speech seems to be under far more attack of late here.
int_19h 8y ago
You can't protect rights and freedoms from intrusion by the government by statute, which is kinda the whole point of having a constitution. If it's just a law saying the government can't do something, then it'll do that by first repealing that law - if all you need is a simple majority, the votes are always there. The reason why the US constitution is so hard to amend is because of how high the bars are for the process - 2/3 in the House and in the Senate to submit amendments, and 3/4 of all state legislatures to ratify them. Or if going via state convention, then 2/3 of all state legislatures to request it, but still 3/4 to ratify anything that comes out of it. I don't think it was a bad system originally, back before the 14th Amendment - since originally all those restrictions were on what the federal government can do, not on what the states can do. Between the states and their citizens, it was supposed to be taken care of by their respective state constitutions, which are generally much easier to amend - and even if they didn't, they wouldn't block other states from experimenting. With 14A, and the gradual incorporation of various constitutional protections on state level via it, the process to amend it needs to be more democratic IMO, and acknowledge the people, not just the states.
- threatofrain 8y ago
  I think it's the splitting of government power that secures people's rights, not the fact that the Constitution needs many votes to amend. Because someone still has to enforce the Constitution; of course it's going to be the government. Your rights are just words if the government doesn't care.
  - throw0101a 8y ago
    > I think it's the splitting of government power that secures people's rights [...] Your rights are just words if the government doesn't care. And how did that go with Trump-GOP in the White House and the House-GOP and Senate-GOP? See also Kavanaugh and the ignoring/suppression of Garland.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      The courts did block a bunch of stuff coming from this administration.

by jaza 8y ago

zaphirplane 8y ago

Of course “they” would say that. Easier to sell than enshrining rights in the constitution makes it impossible for us to encroach on those rights ;) tin foil stay strong

AndrewGaspar 8y ago

> the right to vote Yeah, but they mess even that up by making it obligatory. :)

tacticus 8y ago
You have to go. you don't have to pick. Makes it difficult for states to disenfranchise people through budget cuts.
- chii 8y ago
  By the time and effort spent going to vote, I bet nobody will just cast a null vote. Compulsory voting is more democratic. The USA should make voting compulsory! Ditto with the brexit referendum! If only they made it compulsory, brexit would have probably not passed (presumably many people just didn't expect brexit to win, and so didn't bother going to vote).
  - aesthethiccs 8y ago
    > I bet nobody will just cast a null vote. Have you heard of the term donkey voting? null votes in Australia are about 5% of total votes (federally) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-04/informal-votes-to-have-impact-on-election-result-in-close-seats/7566232 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-04/informal-votes-to-hav... Also it's only sorta compulsory in a sense, you can just never register and never have to vote. but if you do register you will get fined if you don't vote. the amount of unregistered voters is about 4% of the population. so at it's worst it's atleast more representative then some other democracies.
satori99 8y ago
Involuntary voting means that religious and other special interest groups cannot easily use their organizations to out-vote the more apathetic citizens. And therefore serious parties must target the center, or close to it, with policy. I see this as an advantage of compulsory voting over other systems. Especially when voting is quick and painless, usually taking no more than 10 or 20 mins on a weekend every three years or so.

judge2020 8y ago

> like the US with its right to bear arms I find this funny because the SCOTUS basically can change the Constitution whenever they want. The second amendment only states that the United States itself has a right to bear arms in order to defend itself (have a Militia)[0]. It didn't provide citizens the right to personal protection by guns until a 2008 Supreme Court case [1]. 0: https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992?lang=en#141 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States... 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

tracker1 8y ago
"... shall not be infringed" because of the need for a "well regulated militia," not for said militia. It's an example of why the right is needed. Especially given the people raised a violent coup against their own government. These people were not in favor of disarming the public in general... to interpret it otherwise would be effectively changing the law.
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  Well regulated also essentially meant "competent" then as well. So it could be interpretted as "so our militia can have enough firearms practice to shoot straight and know how to fire, maintain, and reload the right to have gund shall not be infringed". Essentially like a justification for public schools and compulsory education being "literacy is essential to function be an informed citizen which is needed for self government". Just like how merely being able to shoot well isn't enough to be a good soldier but it is important.
  - tracker1 8y ago
    "well regulated" meant able able-bodied male of adult age. Your definition is likely far more constrained. "practice" in this sense is not generally mentioned, as they were required to own a conventional firearm for the time. As to "training," there wasn't a regimen of regular firearms training per-se. It was generally considered common knowledge to know how to load and fire one's musket. As to any comparison of modern training, it seems to me like today's police, at least in major cities like NYC receive less training than a typical gun owner outside major cities.

tracker1 8y ago

The U.S. actually goes a step further... the only rights the constitution actually spells out are the rights of government. Most encroachments have been under the guise of "interstate commerce" or "taxation" in general... > The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. As to the bill of rights, so long as the police are armed and can act with impunity... imho, the populace should be able to be armed. I don't personally own a firearm... I also don't spew racist rhetoric. I am a strong believer in all civil rights.

Sabinus 8y ago
Maybe if the police in America wasn't armed to the teeth and scared of being blown away by armed populace they wouldn't act like they do. For a country who keeps guns to hold governments accountable, your government is just a unaccountable as everyone else; if not more so.
- 12298765 8y ago
  We've also been around for longer than anyone else with a modern democracy, and our goal is longevity of a sustainable relationship between the people and their government. We have some issues in our country right now, but I have a good feeling we'll get them worked out in the next few years. Many of our laws and rights are in place not for short term feelings about safety between people and police, but for long term safety of the people from a tyrannical government. And that tyrannical government might take hundreds of years to begin to form in a democracy... But the bill of rights and ability of the people to feel secure without their government's support, keeps the government from getting too power-hungry or separating too far from the will of the people.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > We've also been around for longer than anyone else with a modern democracy No, we haven't. In fact, we copied it largely from the UK. (We didn't like the fact that as a colony we didn't get representation in the national legislature or the full range of rights citizens in the UK itself had, but, hey, the US does the same thing. Initially, and still partially, even to it's capital district. We've got the oldest surviving written Constitution, sure, but that's a different issue.

xxpor 8y ago

In the US there's no explicit right to vote.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> In the US there's no explicit right to vote. Yes, there is. There is no explicit general prohibition on laws impairing that specific right the way there is some other rights, but the existence of the right is explicit, among other places in Amendment XV, Sec. 1: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” This explicitly states that the right exists, and then goes on to prohibit denying or abridging it on an enumerated set of bases. (There's two other voting rights amendments following the same pattern.)
- int_19h 8y ago
  This implies that the right can be denied for other reasons, which would mean that it's not an inherent right of citizens. And, indeed, courts do not consider e.g. restrictions on voting for citizens with criminal records to be unconstitutional. And it's not like it's a new invention. I mean, women couldn't vote back when 15A was passed, and they still couldn't vote after. It wasn't a surprise, either - many suffragists opposed 15A even before it was ratified for this exact reason, because its wording made it clear that it wasn't covering sex.
adventured 8y ago
To add to dragonwriter's post, there is also the 17th amendment: "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures." It's exceptionally clear that it's an explicit right to vote for the election of senators.
- xxpor 8y ago
  Why couldn't women vote for Senators then?

talaketu 8y ago

> gives us the right to vote. Not true.

danieltillett 8y ago

We don't actually have a constitutional freedom of religion in Australia. The first election I ever voted in this was a proposed change to the constitution and it was voted down. If the Australian government want it could establish a state religion and ban the rest - not that this would ever happen in practice.

bigger_cheese 8y ago
I think the way it is worded in the Constitution is that the Commonwealth Government (i.e national government) can't make laws enforcing/restricting a religion. I.e can't ban/mandate a religion Australia wide. But where it falls down is there is nothing stopping the individual States from doing so (i.e New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland etc could make state laws banning religions). I think that is one of the main problems with our constitution the states have a heap of power. I believe it is due to the history of federation where the six states came together to form Australia. There was a bunch of compromises required to get everyone on board, which is why you have things like Tasmania having the same number of Senators as NSW despite the huge disparity in total population. Because of all the state provisions it is very difficult to make changes to the constitution. It requires a referendum with an overall national majority and a majority of all the states is also needed. That's why borderline referendums never seem to pass only the ones that are overwhelming supported ever get up (depending on your pov this is a feature not a bug).
- int_19h 8y ago
  This is exactly how the American constitution worked originally, as well, and for all the same reasons. Many things in it are compromises, and the Federalist Papers say as much in some of the rationales.
- danieltillett 8y ago
  Yes establishing a state religion is a power retained by the states. The states were independent countries before federation and so they retain a great deal of power. In practice this is not something that we have to worry about here in Australia. The high court has rule in a few case an implied right to freedom of religion in the constitution in much the same way they have done so for freedom of speech - although freedom of speech seems to be under far more attack of late here.

int_19h 8y ago

You can't protect rights and freedoms from intrusion by the government by statute, which is kinda the whole point of having a constitution. If it's just a law saying the government can't do something, then it'll do that by first repealing that law - if all you need is a simple majority, the votes are always there. The reason why the US constitution is so hard to amend is because of how high the bars are for the process - 2/3 in the House and in the Senate to submit amendments, and 3/4 of all state legislatures to ratify them. Or if going via state convention, then 2/3 of all state legislatures to request it, but still 3/4 to ratify anything that comes out of it. I don't think it was a bad system originally, back before the 14th Amendment - since originally all those restrictions were on what the federal government can do, not on what the states can do. Between the states and their citizens, it was supposed to be taken care of by their respective state constitutions, which are generally much easier to amend - and even if they didn't, they wouldn't block other states from experimenting. With 14A, and the gradual incorporation of various constitutional protections on state level via it, the process to amend it needs to be more democratic IMO, and acknowledge the people, not just the states.

threatofrain 8y ago
I think it's the splitting of government power that secures people's rights, not the fact that the Constitution needs many votes to amend. Because someone still has to enforce the Constitution; of course it's going to be the government. Your rights are just words if the government doesn't care.
- throw0101a 8y ago
  > I think it's the splitting of government power that secures people's rights [...] Your rights are just words if the government doesn't care. And how did that go with Trump-GOP in the White House and the House-GOP and Senate-GOP? See also Kavanaugh and the ignoring/suppression of Garland.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    The courts did block a bunch of stuff coming from this administration.