The major arguments raised against having a Bill of Rights in the Australian Constitution is that it would be handing over a legislative function to the unelected High Court. Unelected judges would be carving out new areas of law that properly belong in the elected legislature, the argument runs.
This is an essentially English view of the world; one in which Parliament is supreme. The American view is to have checks and balances between the three heads of power: the executive, the legislative and the judicial, so that the judges can interpret the limits imposed upon the Congress by the Constitution. And they are wide. They prohibit the Congress from abridging freedoms like speech, religion and assembly. The Australian constitutional lies between the two. Our Constitution provides some limited checks on Parliament’s power. One of them is that Parliament may not take away people’s property without paying just compensation.
This week the High Court brought down four judgments on this very point. They were difficult and complex cases involving many millions of dollars and perhaps the livelihood of many people.
Continue reading “1994_03_march_leader11mar”