SAC 6 (FINAL) HUMAN RIGHTS Flashcards
Using one case study, how does an individual influence the protection of the rights in Australia. (USING FIDS)
Vicki Lee Roach (ABORIGINAL FROM VICTORIA)
Incarcerated at Dame Phyllis Frost Centre (6 years)
Looted milk bar in 2002
Issue: Not able to vote due to being incarcerated.
2004: CP passed legislation to ban prisoners serving 3+ year sentence from voting.
2006: CP passed legislation to ban all prisoners from voting (became invalid)
Roach challenged both Acts in the High Court.
Roach argued the unfairness that inmates did not have a say/right to vote for who represents them.
ARGUMENTS: Wrongful convictions, voting rights isn’t related to their crime.
The decision was then made to uphold the right to vote but the CP CAN restrict the right to vote IF it is reasonable.
High Court decided that the Commonwealth Electoral Act’s 2006 amendments that barred all inmates from voting remained void, but earlier laws that prohibited prisoners serving terms of three years or longer from voting were still in effect.
Discuss two possible reforms to the protection of one human right you have studied. Outline how the human right has developed overtime.
RIGHT: right to vote.
Possible reforms: lowering the voting age, prisoners having the right to vote.
Suggestions made on lowering the voting age: allowing younger people to vote, but not compulsory.
FOR: able to argue for their future, political issues with need for younger voice. Young people can argue on topics (specialisation) in mental health, housing prices, rights to First Nations people due to understanding. Allows young people to engage with the legal processes, allowing trust in system. Breach of rights if not allowed to speak up.
AGAINST: not having life experiences to make mature votes.
Right: prisoners being allowed to vote.
Suggestion for prisoners being able to vote: Prisoners should still be able to have a say in who can represent them.
FOR: not fair to those whose crimes have no connection with voting.
AGAINST: intentionally forfeited their right to vote as they broke the law.
Referring to human rights protection in Australia, explain the significance of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: signed by Australia.
Translated into more than 500 languages + calls for the universal protection of fundamental human rights.
Australia is not legally bound to uphold the rights of the Declaration, but has passed legislation at the Commonwealth and state level that reflects the freedoms in the UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.
Example of human rights protection in Australia: implied right to freedom of political communication (acknowledge our freedom in making decisions about life)
Describe two benefits to protecting the right to freedom of communication in the Australian Constitution and not through statute law:
Benefit: cannot be taken away, must be changed through referendum. People of Australia are able to directly voice their opinion, not JUST politicians.
When people do not understand the proposal, they vote no.
Statute law: easily amended by Parliament, passed through politicians, not citizens.
Your friend believes the freedom of communication is protected to some extent by statute law, the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, and the Australian Constitution. Is your friend correct? Justify your response.
Freedom of communication is protected TO SOME EXTENT by the Human Rights Charter.
Section within the HUMAN RIGHTS CHARTER that gives Victorians the right to freedom of communication/speech/political communication.
Breached = they are able to seek a way to rectify this within the legal system.
(HRC) is statute law: passed by the Victorian Parliament.
The right to freedom of communication is also IMPLIED to exist in the Constitution.
High Court’s responsibilities: interpreting and applying Australian law, rendering decisions in situations of particular federal importance, such as contesting the constitutionality of laws, and hearing appeals from Federal, State, and Territory courts.
Section 7 & 24 interpreted in Constitution. (Each state’s senators will be chosen directly by the state’s citizens to make up the Senate, and members of the House of Representatives will be directly elected by the Commonwealth’s citizens.)
Right to freedom of communication is restricted because you are not allowed to say things if they are discriminatory, racist, etc.
DEVELOPMENT OF VOTING OVER THE YEARS
DEVELOPMENT OF VOTING OVER THE YEARS:
[1918] COMMONWEALTH ELECTORAL ACT
This Act consolidated and amended laws regarding parliamentary elections.
[1924] COMPULSORY VOTING
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 amended to make voting mandatory, significantly increasing voter turnout.
[1962] FIRST NATIONS PEOPLES VOTING RIGHTS
Federal law passed allowing Aboriginal + Torres Strait Islander peoples to enrol and vote in federal elections.
[1973] VOTING AGE LOWERED TO 18
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 was amended, recognising the rights of 18 year olds to vote.
[1984] EQUAL VOTING RIGHTS FOR ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER PEOPLE
Compulsory voting was extended to all First Nations peoples, ensuring equal rights.
The right to vote in COMMON LAW was upheld in the ROACH case of 2007.
