Comments on: A constitutionally guaranteed right to vote?

By: Club Troppo » Australians have constitutionally guaranteed voting rights

Club Troppo » Australians have constitutionally guaranteed voting rights — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 11:28:51 +0000

[...] the speculation in my previous post was essentially spot-on. The High Court has ruled in Roach v Electoral Commissioner (reasons for [...]

By: Peter Stephens

Peter Stephens — Sun, 02 Sep 2007 06:03:35 +0000

What’s the photo from by the way?

Good on the High Court – you can’t imagine Howard being happy at being rebuffed so close to an election

By: Ken Parish

Ken Parish — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:40:13 +0000

Yes, that’s Constitution section 41, and the case was R v Pearson; Ex parte Sipka (although it was NSW not South Australia). But the Court appears now to have found that one can nevertheless imply a right to vote at federal elections from the “directly chosen by the people” requirements of sections 7 and 24. Section 41 was indeed held to be only a transitional provision (and perusal of the Convention Debates confirms that that was its intent), but that doesn’t negate the possibility that other provisions may mandate a more permanent right as a necessary incident of the system of representative and responsible government the Constitution brought into being.

By: Sacha

Sacha — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 12:57:47 +0000

Didn’t the High Court find that a right to vote in South Australian state elections a couple of decades ago (from memory, for people aged 18-21) did not mean that one had a right to vote in federal elections, and that that provision was meant for the first few years of federation?

By: Judith M Melville

Judith M Melville — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 10:42:45 +0000

Can it possibly be that at long last the High Court is offering a faint glimmer of light in an increasingly fascist Australia?
About time!

By: Alan

Alan — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 08:10:32 +0000

Australia does have a constitutional bill of rights, although the particular rights are a grab bad and they are scattered through a number of different places in the constitution instead of being gathered in a single chapter. (in reality the US catalogue of rights, although far broader, is also scattered ins several places through the text.

The constitution guarantees the right to vote in Commonwealth elections if you can vote in State ones (S41), freedom of religion, and prohibition of religious tests for federal offices (S116), trial by jury for offences tried on indictment (Sn 80, just terms for the compulsory acquisition of property by the Commonwealth (S51(xxxi)), no xivil conscription (S51(xxiiiA)) and prohibition on discrimination against residents of other States (S117). Arguably S126 can also be read as a consiutionally entrenched right for the people to have have the final decision on any consiutional amendment.

It follows the argument is not about whether Australia should have constitutionally entrenched rights, but about which rights should be entrenched.

By: Jacques Chester

Jacques Chester — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 07:46:21 +0000

Niall;

While I suspect Howard’s phrase was carefully focus grouped, I happen to agree. The economic, social and cultural circumstances of aboriginal Australia were for better or worse utterly undermined by the arrival of the First Fleet. Aboriginals do not contend only with Australia, but with the weight of the whole world through a global economy.

More to the point, they’re human beings too. Humans generally want to live easier lives. For most aboriginals hunting and fishing is carried out almost as a leisure activity with cultural elements, rather than as a base necessity for mere survival (again with cultural elements).

Of course this is wildly offtopic on my part. I read through Ken’s bit and it brought long-repressed nightmares back – doctrine of proportionality, arrrgghhh! *head explodes*

By: Niall

Niall — Sat, 01 Sep 2007 07:09:12 +0000

Personally, I was aghast at Howard’s clear declaration of discriminatory bias during the week when he stated that aboriginal Australians have no future unless they become part and parcel of mainstream Australian society. As with the arbitrary denial of voting rights and denial of equality to homosexual persons, these discriminatory biases are deep seated with Howard and his ideology. Eleven years of discrimination is beyond the pale.