posted on Jul, 3 2008 @ 07:20 PM
Heres an answer to the rights of Austrailians from Wiki. You folks are screwed!!!
Protection of rights
See also Australian constitutional law – Protection of rights
The Australian constitution does not include a Bill of Rights. Some delegates to the 1898 Constitutional Convention favoured a section similar to the
Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, but the majority felt that the traditional rights and freedoms of British subjects were sufficiently
guaranteed by the Parliamentary system and independent judiciary which the Constitution would create. As a result, the Australian Constitution has
often been criticised for its scant protection of rights and freedoms.
Some express rights were, however, included:
Right to trial by jury – Section 80 creates a right to trial by jury for indictable offences against Commonwealth law. There are serious conceptual
limitations to this right however, since the Commonwealth is free to make any offence, no matter how serious the punishment, triable otherwise than on
indictment. As Justice Higgins said in R v Archdall & Roskruge; Ex parte Carrigan and Brown (1928) 41 CLR 128: "if there be an indictment, there must
be a jury, but there is nothing to compel procedure by indictment". In practice, however, no major issue of abuse of this loophole has been raised.
Right to just compensation – Paragraph 51(xxxi) creates a right to just compensation for assets taken by the Commonwealth.
Right to freedom of religion – Section 116 creates a limited right to freedom of religion, by prohibiting the Commonwealth (but not the states) from
"making any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion." This
section is based on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but is weaker in operation. As the states retain all powers they had as colonies
before federation, except for those explicitly given to the Commonwealth, this section does not affect the states' powers to legislate on religion,
and, in accordance with High Court interpretations, no Federal legislation on religion, short of establishing an official religion of Australia, would
be limited by it either.
Right to freedom from discrimination against out-of-State residents -Section 117 prohibits disability or discrimination in one state against the
resident of another state. This is interpreted widely (Street v Queensland Bar Association), but does not prohibit states from imposing residential
requirements where they are required by the State's autonomy and its responsibility to its people.
In 1992 and 1994, the High Court of Australia found that the Constitution contained an "implied" right to freedom of political communication, in a
series of cases including the Australian Capital Television case and the Theophanous case. This was seen as a necessary part of the democratic system
created by the Constitution. The application of this "implied right" has, however, been restricted in later cases, such as Lange v ABC. It is in no
way equivalent to a freedom of speech, and only protects individuals against the government trying to limit their political communication: it offers
no protection against other individuals.
In 2007, the High Court of Australia in Roach v Electoral Commissioner held that sections 7 and 24 of the Constitution, by providing that members of
the House of Representatives and the Senate be "directly chosen by the people", created a limited right to vote. This entailed the guarantee of a
universal franchise in principle, and limited the Federal Parliament's legislative power to modify that universal franchise. In the case, a
legislative amendment to disqualify from voting all prisoners (as opposed to only those serving sentences of three years or more, as it was before the
amendment) was struck down as contravening that right.
Other attempts to find other "implied rights" in High Court cases have not been successful.