The lefties will be wetting themselves with excitement over this, but James Allan's article in The Australian today clearly spells out the dangers of this sort of nonsense.

The ACT legislative assembly introduced a bill of rights a while ago and we all know what a stupid local council that is.

The High court and our constitution should be all we need. Not state Govts. fiddling in an area that is not thier responsibility.

Fix health and education and stop wasting time and energy on feel good cr*p.

I am pleased that Australia, or at least parts of it, is catching up with the rest of the civilised world in formalising our rights.
James Allan's article in The Australian is premised on the assumption that the courts would have final say. George's article makes it clear that is not the intention in Victoria. Lets wait and see what the Victorian legislation actually provides before condemning on grounds which may not eventuate.

Just as a matter of information, can anyone identify a beneficiary of a Bill of Rights, anywhere in the world?

I find it more useful to look at specific actions and results, rather than wade through a tidal wave of well-meaning words.

Anyone?

This is a genuine enquiry - who, precisely, has ever benefitted?

Apart from lawyers, that is.

To look at Pericles query from another perspective, has any country which has adopted a Bill of Rights scrapped it because noone benefitted from it? I don't think even Bush would be willing to take such a step. Admittedly he chooses to ignore any restrictions on him doing what he wants but that could well lead to his impeachment for acting illegally.

Will this be a constitutional change in Victoria?

If not, it's smoke and mirrors. A Bill of Rights that is nothing more than an Act of Parliament can be amended by Parliament as it sees fit. Such an act does nothing to protect the people from their government.

Sylvia.