Let’s call a spade a spade, and consider the debate over Australia’s Bill of Rights for what it really is: a political debate on how government power should be limited. So why not have a liberal, or “free market”, Bill of Rights that actually limits the power of government and protects rights that really affect us?
If we are going to have a Bill of Rights — and there are good arguments why we should not — it should contain provisions such as these:
- No level of government should be able to acquire an individual’s property without compensation. This currently exists at federal level, but should be extended to state and local governments as well. Governments take property rights away from property owners all the time — not just in the obvious way depicted in The Castle, but by imposing limits on what individuals can do with their property, such as heritage restrictions and native vegetation laws. These regulations impose very real costs, and trample all over the rights of individuals.
- Individuals must be consulted before governments pass laws that adversely affect them. A similar provision is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Sounds too obvious? Perhaps, but the Australian government passes a lot of laws, and despite recent attempts to reform the law making process, few potential changes are widely consulted and subject to the sort of scrutiny by those they will affect.
- Budgets must be balanced. Recognising that future generations have a right not to be burdened with the spending excesses of today, many US states have written into the constitution a requirement that budgets must be balanced.
There are many other possible inclusions. Any and every tax increase the government wants to burden us with must be approved by a referendum – again, common in many US states. Nevada’s constitution puts a limit on the amount of days per year their state legislature can sit — the less time politicians sit in parliament, the less time they have to make bad laws.
The ever growing number of countries instituting “flat” income tax rates recognises the responsibility for citizens to contribute equally to the upkeep of the state, and the right for individuals not to be disproportionately targeted for their money.
These recommendations are undoubtedly contentious — a Bill of Rights is fundamentally a political issue. Deep down, what goes into a Bill of Rights reflects the value judgements of those that draft it — to believe otherwise is naive.
Timothy Brown is a Researcher at the Institute of Public Affairs.
Ok let’s look at these ‘rights’
a) ‘The right to retain and control all aspects of my property’:
This ‘right’ would allow me to buy a home listed on the registry of the National Trust and bulldoze it with no repercussions or consequences, beyond the cost to my pocket.
The rights of others to have an appreciation of some of the fabric of the nation’s past or a building of true beauty would be irrelevant. I assume that it would also allow me to buy a few million acres of the Daintree and bulldoze and burn them as well. I mean they would be ‘my property’.
What happens if I buy the house next to Mr Brown and demolish it for a 6 story apartment building while I destroy almost all of the value of his property by blocking all of his sun light and any sense of privacy he may have had? Surely it is my right to do what I want and damn the consequences for him?
‘The right to consultation on adverse laws’:
What is benign to one is disastrous to another and so all laws would have to be consulted on.
Mr Brown says that this consultation should only occur when there is an adverse impact, but who would determine adversity? The only way to avoid political game playing would be for all laws to only be voted on after community consultation.
The amount of legislation that is passed at state and federal levels on a daily basis would require the most amazing amount of information and feedback that the very process of government would cease.
‘The right to a balanced budget’:
This is neither something that has any relevance to the rights of the individual members of the nation nor has it proven to be a success in the US states where it has been enacted. California is now bankrupt and unable to provide basic services to its citizens, fundamentally as a consequence of another of Mr Brown’s wish list the ‘right’ for tax increases to be limited and/or to require voter approval.
When are the conservative thinkers in Australia and the rest of the world going to move beyond the rubrics of ‘good government is small government’ ‘government as small business’? Governments are obliged to provide a certain level of service and care to the citizens of the nation state or council area who elect it. As we require more from governments, those governments must grow.
As we move through a severe economic crisis governments are required to use deficit funding in bad times and to store up reserves in the good times. This is something that is built into the very nature of modern social democratic economies and based on the evidence over the last 12 months would seem to work.
So Timothy Brown is a RESEARCHER for the IPA. Researchers collect hard factual evidence and then build a case for or against a particular proposition. Plenty of propositions in this piece; very short on facts to back them up. He says Nevada has limited sitting days. So what? Is Nevada the greatest state in the US? If so on what criteria is this judgement made? The implication by Brown is that it must be good. Why?
California has a system of referendums that can influence any decision to be taken by government. Californian government is now a dysfunctional basket case. Poor old Arnie just doesn’t know what to do.
Which are the ever growing countries instituting flat tax? How well are they doing? Why are they doing it? Who within these countries is pushing it? No explanation by Brown. Just the assumption that it must be right because they are “ever growing.” Rabits are an ever growing population in my back yard, problem is they eat my lettuces. That certainly isn’t good.
Of course not a word is said by the Brown or the IPA about the ever growing quantities of corporate welfare provided by the taxpayer to rich corporations in big coal and big agriculture. I wonder where that money will come from when we have a flat tax?
This article is typical IPA, lots of sweeping conclusions, facts that are presented which have no connection with the argument and conclusions that are based on the underlying predjudice that people should be able to do whatever they like with their money.
Maraget Thatchers said :
“…And, you know, there’s no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first.”
Pure IPA! However, Big Maggy went on to say:
“… It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours.”
She does have a bit of a quid each way here. (“and then, also”) Was she saying that we would only look after our neighbours after we had fixed ourselves up or could we have a crack at the two thing concurrently?
The problem is that when you live in a global village many of your neighbours are on the other side of the world it’s difficult to help them without some collective arrangement such as government. The IPA however, does see the need for Government to provide an army and police to protect their sacred property rights from our international neighbours and the home grown prolateriate. But that’s not surprising, like all conservatives, double standards are OK as long as they serve your self interest.
Timothy, are you on crack?
None of the three ‘rights’ you’ve raised are rights recognised under any UN Convention and for good reason. Can’t put it better than the guys above me, other than to say, way to contribute to the Bill of Rights debate, Timothy. And Crikey, who is this guy and why am I reading his crap in the daily news?
Nadia David are you on crack Who gives a shit what it says in the UN convention, I know most Soverign nations dont. The UN=fail, upholding property rights is a major stumbling block for countries and implementing a bill of rights. Fuck this global village bullshit, the nation state is still the back bone of global politics and we should be doing everything in our power to fuck of this one world citizen shit.
Australia is my country, my property rights are best represented by the people who govern me, not some egalitarian usless organisation like the UN. The legal ramifications of inserting a Bill of Rights is best seen with America’s second ammendement.
BTW all the above posters, you just made the arguements both for and against a Bill of Rights, you can argue your examples both ways.
the best arguement for not having a Bill of Rights is our comparatively clean Human Rights record.
Wow Made in Australia, nicely put. Guess what you’re looking for has nothing to do with a Bill of Rights, kinda like what Tim Brown was talking about.