Human Rights Act 2004

Queensland is not only trampling the rights of children, it is setting a concerning legal precedent

Retrieved on: 
Tuesday, August 29, 2023
Review, International, Crime, Disability, Public, COVID-19, Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Rights, Convention, Rehabilitation, Human Rights Act 2004, Attention, Holocene, Government, Human Rights Act, Abuse, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities, Police, Human rights, Supreme court, First Nations, Health, Trauma, Victorian, News, Hopefully, Property management, Holding company, Private investigator, Residential care, Toy, Child

This was not the first time it had taken such a step.

Key Points: 
  • This was not the first time it had taken such a step.
  • These moves have attracted a significant amount of criticism because they come so soon after the state’s Human Rights Act was adopted.
  • In addition, overriding the Human Rights Act twice could create a pattern we should be extremely concerned about.

International human rights protections

    • International conventions broadly obligate parties to make the best interests of children a primary consideration in all actions concerning them.
    • These conventions and applicable international standards also assert that the incarceration of children should be a last resort and juveniles should be treated in an age-appropriate way in criminal justice proceedings.
    • The Queensland government relied on these specific international human rights protections when it drafted its Human Rights Act, which I have extensively reviewed in my new book (written with Peter Billings).

Youth offenders and detention

    • But consequences for youth offenders must take into account their age, intellectual and physical development and disabilities, and potential for rehabilitation.
    • In other words, youth offenders should not be held in detention facilities with adults.
    • However, there is overwhelming evidence that youth detention does not necessarily make communities safer or deter or rehabilitate young offenders.

Concerning trend of legislative overrides

    • In 2015, a review of the charter recommended the repeal of the override power, calling it unnecessary and unhelpful.
    • Surprisingly, no such overrides were declared either in Victoria or Queensland – the two states that have human rights laws with this provision – during the COVID-19 public health emergency.
    • The Human Rights Act itself is an ordinary law, which means future governments could dilute, amend or even repeal it.
    • The Act can also be weakened if the parliament overrides its protections too many times.

A new monarch who is a divorcee would once have scandalised. But Charles' accession shows how much has changed

Retrieved on: 
Tuesday, May 2, 2023
Marriage Act 1836, Group, Act of Settlement 1701, Katherine, International human rights law, Religion, Royal Marriages Act 1772, Church, European Convention, Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, Marriage, Protestantism, Human Rights Act 2004, Anglicanism, Person, Government, Parliament, Christianity, House, Marriage Act 1949, Anne, Princess Royal, Time, Divorce, Prince, Human rights, Legislation, Private investigator, Self storage, Jewellery, Lace, Birth control, Casino

King Charles III is the first British monarch who has previously had a civil marriage and a civil divorce.

Key Points: 
  • King Charles III is the first British monarch who has previously had a civil marriage and a civil divorce.
  • In 1981, Charles, then the Prince of Wales, married Lady Diana Spencer in a fairytale wedding watched by 750 million people worldwide.
  • However, the royal couple separated in 1992 and they were divorced in 1996.
  • Read more:
    King Charles, defender of faith: what the monarchy's long relationship with religion may look like under the new sovereign

Royal divorces

    • King George IV was almost successful in divorcing his wife Queen Caroline in 1820.
    • While Charles was in a similar position to his great-uncle in his marriage to Camilla, they lived in different worlds.
    • Queen Elizabeth called 1992 the “annus horribilis” (horrible year) for the royal family.
    • Read more:
      Australia has a new head of state: what will Charles be like as king?

Royal civil marriage

    • There was controversy at the time whether a member of the royal family could legally marry in a civil ceremony.
    • The British government released a statement declaring Charles could legally enter into a civil marriage.
    • The civil marriage of Charles and Camilla symbolised the changing values of society.

A modern monarchy

    • But Charles embodies the modern character of monarchy and the liberal values of wider society.
    • Read more:
      Beheaded and exiled: the two previous King Charleses bookended the abolition of the monarchy

      Yet Charles is also pushing for a modern monarchy.

    • The monarchy faces a tension between modernity and tradition.