There has been a growing body of statute law in Australia that deals with the protection of human rights, this has to do with the increasing volume of international law than a perception that common law has failed. When Australia enters into an international agreement, domestic law is modified by the statute to embody the principles of the agreement. 5 pieces of legislation have been passed based on international human rights legislation; these are the racial discrimination act 1975, the human rights and equal opportunities act 1986, the disability discrimination act 1992, the human rights sexual conduct act 1994 and the sex discrimination act 1984. This is all due to changing social attitudes in Australian society for example since the 1970’s bringing about international instruments which outlawed discrimination, brought about the development of anti discrimination laws. This protects the human rights of minority groups. The focus of these laws is based on individual complaints.
There has been a reliance on common law to protect individual and collective rights but there is now an increasing body of statute law. The most serious limitation on the capacity of common law to protect human rights is that at any given time it can be reversed by legislation. Parliament has authority to over rule any common law rights, making it very easily removable. Common law therefore is considered the least significant source of human rights protection. Certain elements of common law habe protected yet impeded human rights, for example, the concept that a person is not to be denied natural justice is important in establishing the right to a fair trial in Australia, coinciding with the presumption of innocence common law right. It has impeded human rights as well in Dietrich v. the queen (1992), the defendants barrister withdrew the day before the trial was to start, through no fault of the defendant. The judge ordered to trial to proceed and the defendant defended himself against...