Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
12 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
How does the constitution protect rights? |
Express rights - are entrenched and explicitly stated in the constitution. Two examples are freedom of movement and freedom of religion |
|
|
How to statutes protect rights? |
Parliament can pass laws to protect rights such as right to freedom from discrimination e.g racial discrimination act |
|
|
How do the courts protect rights? |
Courts protect rights through common law. When a case is brought forward, the courts can set a precedent that protects a persons rights |
|
|
Compare Australia’s approach and the USA’s approach to the protection of rights |
Similarities - Both protect rights through their constitutions, statutory rights and through common law - Both protect the right to freedom of religion Differences - USA has a constitutionally protected bill of rights that includes a vast number of rights, whereas Australia only protests 5 rights in the constitution - Australia does not have a bill of rights |
|
|
Should Australia adopt a bill of rights? |
No, because it would be extremely difficult to change the constitution to include a bill of rights, we would need a referendum. And we already have a number of rights that are contained in statutes that parliament can change to improve our rights |
|
|
What was the Mabo #2 case about |
Mabo #2 was a case heard by 7 judges in the high court where 6 out of 7 judges decided in favour of Mabo. Mabo won the right to land on the Murray islands |
|
|
What was Mabo’s role in bringing the case to court? |
Mabo was the lead plaintiff in the case against the QLD government |
|
|
What was the decision in the Mabo #2 |
The majority of judges found that the Murray islands were not terra nullis and Mabo did have a right to native title |
|
|
What was the impact of the decision on the rights of the individual? |
Mabo won the right to his land |
|
|
What was the impact of the decision on the legal system? |
This is a test case that set a precedent for future native title land claims |
|
|
How did parliament respond? |
Parliament responded by passing the native title act 1993 |
|
|
What was a conflicting attitude in relation to the Mabo case? |
Conflicting attitudes came from mining companies and pastoralists. They feared that they could potentially be sued for their lands as a result of the precedent set by the Mabo case and native title act created by parliament |
