‘The law is a reflection of a society’s past, its present needs and the goals it is trying to reach. Society’s laws are, therefore, rarely static, but are adapted to suit changing circumstances and community attitudes.’Discuss in relation to two topical l
...er House, but required the Labour party’s help in the Senate. According to Australian Democrats senator, Brian Greig, the legislation present in Australia contradicts the nation’s ability to accept and embrace its diversity of attitudes, beliefs and values. Jamie Gardiner, vice-president of Liberty Victoria, says “… [it] infringes upon the fundamental human right to equality and freedom from discrimination”. However, those opposed to same-sex marriages support Australia’s legislation regarding the issue. Joining Mr. Howard are Sydney’s Anglican bishops, a supposed majority of Australia, the Vatican and U.S. President George W. Bush. The Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act is designed to protect heterosexuals against discrimination on the basis of marital status, but it does not provide the same protection for homosexuals, as their marital status is seen as ‘single’ by law. The legislation present in Australia discriminates against homosexual relationships in almost all aspects of life, by refraining from the rights that heterosexual relationships possess. The Federal Marriage Act confers a certain legal status on heterosexual relationships, which is not applicable to homosexual relationships, thus making them invisible in law. However, the Australian Capital Territory passed the Domestic Relationships Act (1994), which gave equal standing to homosexual relationships concerning financial and property distribution upon the collapse of a relationship. While this may seem like an insignificant in recognising same-sex relationships and their rights, little such development has occurred throughout the remainder of Australia. In designing options for new legislation to recognise same-sex marriages, a variety of complications arise. The amendment of the Marriage Act to include homosexual marriages would require an amendment to federal legislation, posing obvious complications, as the federal government is far more conservative than many State governments. Amendments to the Marriage Act are possible through High Court intervention; through a challenge on Constitutional grounds or breach of International agreements. Even if amending the act to recognise homosexual marriages was successful, there would still be a number of same-sex couples who do not wish to see their relationships defined by a union dedicated to heterosexual couples. Other provisions would have to be devised in order to accommodate the needs of same-sex couples who wish to be married and same-sex couples who wish to have the legal rights of married couples without marrying. The very mention of homosexuality provokes many different emotional responses, not to mention those of indifference. Even if a majority of society becomes supportive of same-sex relationships, the conservative nature of the government will prove the process of eventual homosexual recognition to be a very slow and complicated one. Just as it is necessary for the Australian legal system to work towards a more just and equitable application of its same-sex marriage laws, so it is necessary for clear goals to be set in relation to voluntary active euthanasia and the law. Australia’s traditional Christian-Judaeo values oppose euthanasia, as it concerns an individual’s right to end their life, which is considered suicide and, until recently, was punishable under common law. Voluntary active euthanasia is the means of bringing about a painless death to an individual who requests it as a release from a terminal illness. The Northern Territory played a significant role in bringing the issue of euthanasia into the spotlight. In May 1995, the Rights of the Terminally Ill Act was passed by the Northern Territory Parliament. The legislation established guidelines for doctors to assist patients in the decision to end their own life. Chief Minister, Marshall Perron, introduced the new legislation in reply to public pressure regarding the issue, which highlighted the law’s adaptation to suit society’s changing circumstances and community attitudes. However, those opposed to the voluntary active euthanasia debate disagree with the legislation, believing it is not within society’s best interests to actively enforce an individual’s right to end their life. Anti-euthanasia advocates include the Australian Medical Association, the Catholic Church, Right to Life Societies and Prime Minister John Howard. In 1996, Kevin Andrews of Liberal, Victoria, introduced a Private Member’s Bill into the House of Representatives. The Euthanasia Laws Bill (1996) was designed to overturn the Northern Territory legislation, as Mr. Andrews did not believe it represented the views of a majority of Australia. However, it was introduced to avoid any direct government responsibility for an opinion regarding such a controversial issue, as it could not lose valuable votes, which is known as a ‘conscience vote’. In 1997, the Euthanasia Laws Act, was passed by both Federal Houses of Parliament. The Act repealed the Northern Territory’s and, as the government has powers under Section 122 of the Constitution regarding the territories’, the self-governing powers established under enabling Acts. The difficulty subordinate authorities have in creating laws to reflect society’s present needs and goals was emphasised by the issue of the division of powers and the increasing Commonwealth power. The recent Euthanasia Laws (Repeal) Bill (2004) was tabled in Federal Parliament by senator Allison of the Australia Democrats, which highlighted the concerns felt towards the current laws restricting the operation of voluntary ...