The Rudd Government's Rejection of an Australian Bill of Rights: a Stunted Case of Aversive Constitutionalism?

• Autores: David Erdos
• Localización: Parliamentary affairs: A journal of representative politics, ISSN 0031-2290, Vol. 65, Nº 2, 2012, págs. 359-379
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Australia remains the only Western democratic country to lack a national bill of rights. In April 2010, the Labor Government rejected the suggestion of the Brennan Committee—which it itself had set up in 2008—that Australia adopt a statutory bill of rights. This outcome resulted from the limitations of catalysing political trigger coupled with the potent barrier of Australias fragmented institutional structure. Although the Brennan process was prompted by an ‘aversive’ reaction against the policy outlook of the Howard era, this was much weaker than that which prompted the bill of rights reform in the other ‘Westminster’ cases of New Zealand (1990) or the UK (1998). Additionally, the reform efforts faced the potential opposition of a powerful Senate and even possible separation of powers challenges under the Australian Constitution. These negative factors are consistent with Australias failed initiatives of the 1970s and 1980s. Despite this, factors favouring the bill of rights genesis remain. Given appropriate circumstances, the possibility of Australia acquiring a bill of rights in the longer term should not be discounted.