´óÏó´«Ã½

It is with good reason that Australia is often called the "frozen continent" - a reference to the micro-climate of conservatism that surrounds its constitution.

It is over 30 years since the constitution was last amended, the longest that it has gone without revision, and there are many legal scholars and lawyers who believe that it is in urgent need of an overhaul.

Yet as George Williams of the University of New South Wales has put it, the country's preoccupation with renovation "stops at the front door", and is not extended to its constitutional arrangements.

The last change to the constitution amounted to little more than a bit of house-keeping or spring cleaning: a referendum which set, among other things, a retirement age of 70 for High Court judges.

It is against this backdrop that the push for an Australian bill of rights or human rights act has to be considered.

Back in the December, the Rudd government announced a process of national consultation on human rights - a team is presently touring the country canvassing opinions which

On Thursday, Amnesty International brought out a survey showing that 81% of Australians support a human rights act, which would bring it into line with every other Western, common law democracy, and offer a legal safety net.

Many supporters of a bill of rights think it should come about as an act of parliament rather than be put to a referendum, which are notoriously difficult to pass. The Labor Party has had a singular lack of success in advancing constitutional change, and has not won support for a single referendum since 1946.

Under the constitution, a successful referendum needs absolute majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate, and a "yes" vote from a majority of the people in a majority of the states. As this blog has noted before, only eight out of 44 referenda have been successful.

So why this constitutional conservatism?

There's the argument that rights for white Australians, at least, came early, fairly easily and largely without bloodshed. There is not the tradition of struggle for democratic rights in Australia which characterised the European and American experience.

By 1860, all non-indigenous adult males had been given the vote in Victoria, Queensland, South Australia, and New South Wales. By contrast, it was not until 1918 that Britain caught up, by eliminating property qualifications.

Similarly, Australia granted women the vote in 1902, more than a quarter of a century before the UK.

Supporters of the bill of rights or human rights act want Australians to reclaim this spirit of democratic adventure, but have also been forced to accept there is no rousing tradition of democratic struggle which they can draw upon to help propel their campaign.

Michael Coper of the Australian National University has suggested that this constitutional sluggishness is partly due to the contrariness of the Australian people, and can be traced back to the country's convict origins.

(I should add here, perhaps, that there was a Bryant on the First Fleet who hailed from the Cotswolds, not far from my West Country home). Australians love saying "no", says Coper.

Others would argue it has more to do with modern Australia's conservatism and complacency - what Alfred Deakin, Australia's first attorney general and its second prime minister, called "the inexhaustible inertia of our populace".

On that note, the Amnesty International survey revealed that 84% of respondents thought that their rights were adequately protected already.

Human rights is such a lively area for legal, ethical and constitutional debate - whether it be the treatment of asylum seekers, terror suspects or Aboriginal Australians.

Is it time to spell out precisely what those rights are with an Australian bill of rights or human rights act?

UPDATES:
Staying with human rights, the Rudd government has announced it will reverse one of the contentious aspects of the Northern Territory intervention, by reinstating the 1975 Racial Discrimination Act, one of the landmark reforms of the Whitlam era.

Thanks for all your lively contributions to the great Australian character debate, and apologies for breaking my no animal story doctrine to cover the frisky kangaroo story from Canberra earlier this week (in my defence, I did think that three shark attacks in and around Sydney in three weeks was genuinely newsworthy).

I can now confirm the change in the southern seasons. It's not the nip in the air or the turn of the leaves falling gently from the trees. Instead, we are seeing that other great autumnal staple: the sight of rugby league players on the front pages of the newspapers as well as the back.

And lest I be accused of only writing about the bad things about Australian cricket, Ricky Ponting's men secured an impressive series victory in South Africa this week, helped by the new Boy Wonder of Aussie cricket, the exceptionable Phillip Hughes.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?