Does Australia need a Charter of Rights?

Australian Greens leader Richard Di Natale says his party plans to introduce Charter of Rights legislation in the next sitting of parliament, which starts next week.

“We want to see a broad range of rights protected, including digital rights, economic rights, the right to a clean environment and conventional civil and legal rights,” Dr Di Natale said.

“A Charter of Rights will give us all the opportunity to shape our own lives and help us to live with dignity and self-respect.”

But does Australia need a Charter of Rights?

Comments   43 Comments

Really Weg, is that all you have, rehashing George Brandis's personal attack on Jillian Triggs, whose only fault was reporting the truth to the government. They say the truth hurts, and your Liberals had nothing to counter the truth, so metaphorically executed Triggs in public.

As usual, you have no facts, no evidence and not even an argument to support your attack on Ms Triggs, but this does not stop you. You resort to personal attacks, name-calling, and emotive language, when the facts and logic fail you.



The personal vilification of the former AHRC chair should not be permitted. All this professional did was report the AHRC findings to the government as she was paid to do. Instead of accepting the advice of it's own commission, the government did a public hatchet job on her.
He could have mounted some argument to question her commisssion's researched advice, but that is beyond him, so he chose instead to do his own hatchet job on this lady who has no ability to defend herself on this forum.



Weg's opinions are cut and pasted straight from Liberal Party ministers' press releases.When are going to see something original or factual?
As pointed out by BG, Jillian Triggs was doing her job pointing out the government was in breach of international conventions in its treatment of refugees. As pointed out by Anonymous, this advice was from the entire AHRC and not Triggs. The government did not like her advice, soridiculed her, attempting to brand her unbiased and considered advice as leftist and flawed, just as you have Weg.
Interestingly the PNG Supreme Court ruled the Manus Island detentions unconstitutional and illegal. So there were valid reasons for the advice tendered by the AHRC.



Name calling reflects badly on the person doing the calling and is a sign they have nothing of substance to say. BG.



Lorikeet says that the glass is being progressively emptied for Australians. This glass half empty approach is so pessimistic. With that attitude, you see what you want or expect to see.
Why not adopt the glass half full view approach Lorikeet. Instead of looking for the bad in everything, try looking for the good just for once. You may be pleasantly surprised.



The recent media descriptive of the former AHR Commissioner comes to mind after reading some of this amusing input. After all the shenanigans this individual got up to, not to mention her dubious reporting to the Senate Committees, there is still one supporter out there!

Then there's the more emotive nonsensical claims suggesting we need to 'move forward', as the socialist are 'over legislating', creating a 'nanny state' and 'infringing on our rights'. The ineptitude of these comments is remarkable as that is what a charter of rights achieves.

Any legislation sourced from this Green scourge should be treated with contempt and reviewed as looney leftist rubbish.



A Charter of Rights is a strange thing to be discussing, when the parliament is falling apart on one side and falling about with laughter on the other. The spectacle of the Greens candidates falling by the wayside for being dual citizens was scoffed at by the PM. Now he is fighting for political survival with his deputy being outed as a NZ citizen.
Maybe we should have a Charter of Rights for our pollies, and the first one could be that they are allowed to mistakes on their application, when answering the question on citizenship. Fair dinkum, we need a Charter of Rights to protect us from the sheer incompetence of our politicians, who apparently cannot disclose whether they have citizenship of another country.
Should the constitution be changed to allow dual citizenship? No. We want our pollies to be responsible only to Australians, and not to any foreign country. How can they discuss a Charter of Rights for us, if they can't fill out an application form correctly?



Anyone linking suicide with this idea for a Bill of Rights or equivalent is kidding themself, and insulting suicide victim families. How dare any one falsely make that connection, with not one iota of proof. Lorikeet should withdraw this inappropriate and baseless statement immediately, and apologise to the families who have experienced suicide.



Lorikeet,branding pro-charter contributors as narrow-thinking lefties is an insult, and is totally wrong. I am pro-charter, and a Liberal, despite my resignation from the party.

Neither the Greens nor the media are "driving" a pro-charter agenda. The Greens simply proposed a Charter of Rights for discussion. No major party, or the media have continued with the story, and it may already have died a natural death.So where does this agenda nonsense come from?

Your choice to link the talk of a charter to suicide is appalling,and wrong again.It is rather typical of anti-change people to invent arguments to support their views, when there is no other evidence available.

Innuendo and name-calling do absolutely nothing to help your case against the charter. Let's have some facts instead, because you only appear to be digging yourself a bigger hole, the more you try and defend your opinion.



I support a Charter of Rights, so Lorikeet brands me a leftie! For heavens sakes why? I am far from being left wing, as Lorikeet suggests. If she feels the need to call people names, she could use Trendie as this is a better description of my thoughts. But why does she feel the need to call people names in the first place.
Change happens every day. If we don't move with the times, we will be left behind. That is the basis of my contention that doing nothing is not an option. If Lorikeet prefers to stick to her set ways and not move with the times, she will be left behind.
The future is all about change, and not all change is for the better. A Charter of Rights will set out just what rights we have, and provide protections to preserve those rights. What is leftie about that? And how can you argue that it is not needed, unless you are a fortune-teller, and quite obviously Lorikeet looks into the past not the future, so she is no fortune-teller!



Featured Article