“In pursuit of persuading Australians they need a Bill of Rights…”

If a Bill of Rights was such a good idea for Australia, people would not need to be “persuaded”! Perhaps the persuasion (read hassling) from elitists like Robertson, who has spent the last 40 years living away from home, rightly raises suspicion of a totally unnecessary Bill of Rights pushed by people who arrogantly think they know what is best for the rest of us.

How many ordinary Australians have demanded a Bill of Rights? As for judges being “…independent and impartial…”, what rubbish! They have their own ideas, like everybody else, and those ideas may or may not be acceptable to the majority of Australians.

Who the hell is Robertson or judges to decide what is best for “ordinary people”!

Far from being “one of Australia’s favourite sons”, Robertson is an adopted Pom who doesn’t like living in Australia. He should keep his nose, and ideas, out of here.

Obviously, Leigh has never been a victim of either lawyers or courts. Try visiting a few men`s rights websites to get a taste of the feeling out there. The fact that the ‘average’ Australian doesn`t back a Bill of Rights is a tribute to their apathy, not their perspicacity or ethics.

"In addition to England having a Bill of Rights, he said so did New Zealand, Germany, South Africa, and “Obama is creating one”.

If all your friends jump off a cliff, will do jump as well? Just because "everyone else" is doing it doesn't make it right.

There is too much attention "rights" and very little to responsibility. Australians are not apathetic on this issue; rather, it would seem that they are not prepared to accept ideas without rigorous analysis.

"In some contexts, he said a Bill of Rights was useful to politicians. When the UK Parliament did not want to get involved in legislation it was happy to leave it to the courts, as in the area of death with dignity".

I think I'd like to sack any politican that was happy to avoid their responsibility's to society and sneak out of having to take a position on the difficult issues (abortion, death with dignity, euthanasia) by foisting it on the courts. Missing important votes in Parliament on such issues is a bit backboneless too.

“In pursuit of persuading Australians they need a Bill of Rights, he reminded the audience that judges were independent and impartial - beholden to no one. A Bill of Rights was not so much about power, but about principles…”

Most understandable that Robertson should up hold the principles of his profession. It is most commendable that that the alleged high moral and ethical values of lawyers should be on public display for all to see and accept on trust?

The reality is different. Judges are appointed by the government of the day. The criteria of appointment are of course varied. Among the unspoken criteria is the requirement that the potential judge will be in sympathy with the general direction of the Governments philosophies. That way a political party can influence events long after their time is up.

A cursory reading of news papers should show that judges often make wrong decisions, especially in criminal cases. A point to consider is the perceived inadequate sentencing for violent crime. That is why parliaments attempt to introduce mandatory sentences- we the public do not always trust the judiciary.

My understanding of a fair trial: A forum for clever barristers to demonstrate their forensic and thespian skills. A high profile trial provides free advertising for the lucky lawyers and more then justifies any investment in pro bono work.
A legal trial is not a quest for truth; it is a contest between advocates. All too often the guilty party goes free and the innocent convicted. This is especially the case if one of the parties in the case can afford the services of a high powered and expensive legal team.

Thus one concludes that the chief beneficiary of a “Bill of Rights” can only be the legal profession. The proposed bill is nothing less then the opening up of new gold mine accessible only to the legal fraternity.

The problem with any bill of rights especially in a nanny state like Aus, is that people confuse what is desirable to what is right.

When too many fuzzy "rights" are included, legal interpretation gives rise to absurd judgments.

Any bill of rights should be limited to the basic fundamental rights and not all the PC drivel that will dog us for years to come.

As far as the basic human rights are concerned, I don't see any infringements in Aus.