Yes

If we did get a Bill of Rights should there also be a Bill of Responsibilities

2weis wrote:

---

If we did get a Bill of Rights should there also be a Bill of Responsibilities

---

 "Bill of Responsibilities". Now we're talking sense,but "responsiblity" is alien to many,who know only of their "rights". Cheers

There is no excuse for any democratic country *not* to have a bill of rights.

Mike Harding wrote:

---

There is no excuse for any democratic country *not* to have a bill of rights.

---

. . . and there is no excuse for any country not to be democratic.

However, some years ago Australians voted No to a referendum question that asked whether they wanted free and fair elections. On that basis it would appear that Australians are too stupid to know what is good for them. Today this same stupidity is reflected in the antivaxxers.

dorian that's a very silly statement. Again you bring a blatant political statement into what has been until now a discussion about a bill of rights and you shoot of on a tangent of illogical political bias. The USA, as an example, has a bill of rights. Yet it's often challenged in their courts. So in the end the courts decide on the correct interpretation. Just like they do here in Australia. Australia is over governed what we don't need is more laws.

bgt wrote:

---

Dorian can you provide us with the evidence that Abbott would have acted differently or are you just trying to smear someone based on your bias?

---

 Read Abbott's own words in the Guardian.

dorian do you actually believe what the Guardian writes?

dorian wrote:

---

Grandad5 wrote:

---

dorian wrote:

---

However, some years ago Australians voted No to a referendum question that asked whether they wanted free and fair elections. 

---

 

Ok, dorian, to quote someone who should never be quoted ...." please explain?"

Jim

 

---

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Australian_referendum#Fair_Elections

---

"Vote Yes for fairer elections". How could anyone vote against that? Well, fortunately even the left wing states saw through the ruse of those "motherhood" words and voted it down. Only ACT voted for it with a slim majority. Most recognised that the proposed changes would have the exact opposite effect if approved.

To understand the scenario, this was back in the Bob Hawke days and followed on from his concerted attempts to bring in the Australia Card. The public regardless of political persuasion did not want the government to have such a centralised ID system. There were even penalties planned to be imposed on businesses that did not mandate it. When he failed to get the legislation through, he brought on a double dissolution, but that still did not give him control of the senate. So again he was unable to get it passed.

Following hot on from that, the next step he tried was the 1988 referendum which if voted in would have weakened the states powers and transferred them to the federal government ..... a step towards dictatorship. Having too much power focused in one organisation is always bad.

Here is the public booklet that summarises the four referendum questions. Most importantly for understanding, it contains the Yes/No arguments from each side.

1988 Referendum Booklet.

The Yes/No booklet is barely legible. Anyone find a good copy onine?

Are We Lost wrote:

---

dorian wrote:

---

Grandad5 wrote:

---

dorian wrote:

---

However, some years ago Australians voted No to a referendum question that asked whether they wanted free and fair elections. 

---

 

Ok, dorian, to quote someone who should never be quoted ...." please explain?"

Jim

 

---

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Australian_referendum#Fair_Elections

---

"Vote Yes for fairer elections". How could anyone vote against that? Well, fortunately even the left wing states saw through the ruse of those "motherhood" words and voted it down. Only ACT voted for it with a slim majority. Most recognised that the proposed changes would have the exact opposite effect if approved.

To understand the scenario, this was back in the Bob Hawke days and followed on from his concerted attempts to bring in the Australia Card. The public regardless of political persuasion did not want the government to have such a centralised ID system. There were even penalties planned to be imposed on businesses that did not mandate it. When he failed to get the legislation through, he brought on a double dissolution, but that still did not give him control of the senate. So again he was unable to get it passed.

Following hot on from that, the next step he tried was the 1988 referendum which if voted in would have weakened the states powers and transferred them to the federal government ..... a step towards dictatorship. Having too much power focused in one organisation is always bad.

Here is the public booklet that summarises the four referendum questions. Most importantly for understanding, it contains the Yes/No arguments from each side.

1988 Referendum Booklet.

The Yes/No booklet is barely legible. Anyone find a good copy onine? 

---

There was no "ruse", and nobody "saw through" anything. It was imply a case of stupid people making stupid decisions.

Q/ Do you want your vote to have the same value as every other vote?

A/ Duh, no.

Regardless of opinions there must come a time when the constitution, from 1901, becomes a bit of a nonsense. Times have changed and those responsible for our constitution didn't possess a crystal ball that would tell them what the country would be like in 120 years. The covid situation has highlighted a number of examples. Who's responsible for quarantine and/or health? Under what circumstances can states close borders. Number of senators per state? (not a covid issue but!) etc etc etc. The high court has ruled on a family highlighted in the media over the last week. So do those laws need to be written in, or out, or clarified, in the constitution? Time for a complete review of the constitution. Now do we think our politicians can sit down and come up with a consensus on changes?

One man, one vote is a fundamental tenet of any genuine democracy (or a dictatorship). The referendum question was a rhetorical one -- there was only one correct answer. You cannot spin it any other way. If the Australian public are too stupid to understand this basic principle, then why bother asking these same morons to vote on a bill of rights? Governments come and go, but the constitution is here to stay. The Queensland gerrymander was created by Labor, and later exploited by Joh, but the constitutional amendment would have benefited neither.

Regardless of politicians and their 'intent' it's the high court that will interpret that 'intent'. Regardless of the politicians 'intent' the lawyers will twist and manipulate their argument in such away that the politicians 'intent' will eventually fail. All laws need to be scrutinized by the devils advocate to find the loop holes. Until that is done any bill of rights or rewriting of the constitution will fail.