.
A Bill of Rights can be seen to define a democratic society. Those countries that have a Bill Of Rights do so primarily to serve as a safeguard for their democratic structure and also for the security of individuals. Counteracting this theory is the People's Republic of China which, although it does have a Bill Of Rights, has also a one party government that is not deemed by observers to be democratic. China's Bill states that common human rights are given to all individuals, however they must agree with the government's views and decisions. This contradicts the purpose of a Bill by disallowing freedom of speech and opinion, and removing what can be considered "one of the most precious of the rights of man" (French Declaration of the Rights of Man, no11). This demonstrates that the context within which the Bill Of Rights exists is crucial to its utility.
A reason to adopt a Bill Of Rights within Australia is related to the recognition of the rights of the individual by its people. The current laws that protect our rights are not well understood, and it can be perceived that the average citizen would have little knowledge of what laws protect them from discrimination. By implementing a clearly written Bill Of Rights, citizens would not have to resort to the human rights laws "hidden" in legal jargon. There would ideally be widespread awareness of the freedoms of the individual, giving people the confidence to stand up against discrimination. .
The High Court is at the top of the Australian court hierarchy and deals with matters between state parliaments, or between federal and state parliaments, as well as acting as an appellate court for any other court. It has the power to interpret the Constitution and it makes decisions based on statutory law and indefinite common law, making way for a level of discrimination in its rulings. This can be avoided by adopting a Bill Of Rights, as a definite set of rights can be directly enforced.
