Quick questions on The Bill of Rights Debate: WACE Year 12 Politics and Law

A constitutional (entrenched) bill of rights, like the United States Bill of Rights, is written into the Constitution. It cannot be changed by ordinary legislation, and the courts can strike down any law that breaches it. A statutory bill of rights, like the United Kingdom Human Rights Act or the Victorian Charter, is an ordinary Act of Parliament. It typically requires courts to interpret other laws consistently with rights where possible and may allow a court to declare a law incompatible with rights, but it leaves the final say with Parliament, which can amend or override it.

Australia already has a partial experiment. Victoria (2006), the Australian Capital Territory (2004) and Queensland (2019) have statutory human rights charters that require public authorities to act compatibly with rights and courts to interpret laws consistently with them, while preserving Parliament's final say. These are useful evidence: supporters point to improved decision-making and a culture of rights, while opponents note their limited practical impact and the absence of strong remedies. The 2009 National Human Rights Consultation (Brennan Committee) recommended a statutory model, but the recommendation was not adopted federally.

A strong evaluation does not sit on the fence; it weighs the arguments and reaches a position with reasons. You might conclude that a statutory model offers a middle path, giving clearer protection and remedies while preserving parliamentary supremacy, and addressing the patchiness identified in the statutory and common law rights topic. Whatever your conclusion, support it with the state charter experience and the limits of the current system, and acknowledge the strongest argument on the other side.