Human rights in Australia

[speng]

Autralia does not need to be a signatory to UN human right treaties as it has an excellent human right record. Do you agree with the statement and if so, why do you agree with it???

[davidtrunk]

Yes, one fine example will be Mabo's case no.1 where the High court protects the rights of the indegenous people by declaring the Queensland Coast Island Declatory Act(1985) invalid as it contravenes with the Racial Discrimination Act (1975). Later Native Title Act (1993) was passed to allow aborigines to own lands.From here we can see that human right was well protected by Australia gov and High court.

[ansyn]

yes. it is codify in aust. as we can see mabo cases, coast island declarotory act was declared invalid, while CERD was codify by aust.

[minyuen]

Australia's human rights record is not that bad after all..a fine example would be mabo case 1 and 2,Adban case,Brislan's case..it does not need to be a signatory to UN treaties

[krystle]

Yes, i agree. Well, this is because it is clearly illustrated in MABO CASE 1 when the High Court declared Coast Island Declaratory Act as ultra vires because it conflicts with Racial Discrimantion Act. Later in 1993, the High Court passed Native Title Act to allow aborigines to own lands. This clearly shows that Autralia does not need to be a signatory to UN human right treaties in order to protect human rights. Therefore, Australia is able to protect human rights without having to sign treaties.

[ali bali]

hmmmmmm from what i see from those previous post i think that joining UN or Australia human rights is the same because it will still be the same theory that is human rights protection.