David, don't listen to the rubbish being churned over here.
You have the backing of the people who still know the difference between right, wrong and just plain stupidity.
Those who oppose you are what I call 'males' who's most relevant feature is having been neutered by the loony left 'females'.
I and millions of other MEN support you and your policies.
Whatever you do, do not appologise to this smart arse little miss 'two dads'.
She is not a person of any value to the parliament or the people of Australia.
I have already tagged her as a 'JOKE' on this forum.
I may totally disagree with Alan B's perception of your position but I whole heartedly endorse his un-relentless push for Thorium.
You would not do your career any harm if you looked into thorium, and please, not withstanding HIS political lean, I would go so far as to contact him for a quick tutorial on the subject.
You will not be disappointed.
As for any emotionally driven comments of your being re-elected, I can say that these people are so twisted by their beliefs of the far left, they are way too far removed from reality.
I in fact have spoken of the fact you will gain followers and La La two dads will get the arse.
If the talk out in the 'real' world is anything to go on. One can only hope.
Finally I am pleased to see you mixing it with the riff-raff.
It won't do your political carrier any harm.
Good for you.
Keep it up.

ttbn. We stand alone as the only western democracy without an irrevocable bill of rights!

If it's so wrong? Why has every other democracy on earth have one?

Seriously. Do we still regard ourselves as a penal colony?

Which would lend weight to your obtuse asinine argument for not having one

Everywhere that has one, freedom of speech is enshrined!

One cannot be half pregnant! Either we all have rights that must needs include freedom of expression, assembly and freedom of religion?

Or the current status quo. Privileges handed down from on high by our lords and masters!

And it's not only the loony left that stands in the way. But the extreme right control freak fringe as well!? Who to a virtual generic man oppose a bill of rights on the completely spurious grounds we don't need one!

Tell that to Doctor Haneef and the hundreds of other wrongly accused or maligned by officialdom?

The Senator was entirely out of order and now wants to cherry pick his right to be a blatant misogynist?

By creating a right to (highly selective) free speech as his straw man argument! Ostensibly to avoid taking responsibility for conduct not fit and becoming a gentleman!?
Alan B.

Alan B.
the downside of free speech is that we're constantly exposed to your drivel. There's no upside when you consider that free speech is available on this site, but not on the taxpayer funded Green Bee Cee.

Alan B, don't you feel constrained enough already by this system and it's mountain of useless laws?
I do!
Good people don't need laws, they are good people and do the 'right thing' naturally, without threats or continual oversight by a corrupt and inept, law enforcement machine.
The bad guys, on the other hand, completely ignore the laws and do whatever they want with impunity.
So what is the point of a bill of rights with all these constraints already in place?
More rules?
Iv'e had it up to here and back with rules and laws.
We are way too overgoverned.
I would in fact collect up all the pollies and the judiciary and the police, and shoot them all.
We would still carry on without any change in society.
The good guys keep on being good.
The bad guys keep on being bad, and so on.
If all these laws and cops were so good, the jails would be well and truly overflowing by now.
But NO we have to put up with the scum and then watch them get a slap on the hand and back on the street.
Is your bill of rights going to put these same people in jail instead of releasing them back into the community to do it all over again?
No I didn't think so.
Free speech must be left alone, in doing so we can highlight the flaws in the system so eventually something might be done about it.
Freedom of speech is pointless if we do not also remove Political Correctness.
You cannot remove one without the other.
They have always worked in tandem with one another and therefore cause great harm to the freedom of speech agenda if tampered with.

Alan B, don't you feel constrained enough already by this system and it's mountain of useless laws?
I do!
Good people don't need laws, they are good people and do the 'right thing' naturally, without threats or continual oversight by a corrupt and inept, law enforcement machine.
The bad guys, on the other hand, completely ignore the laws and do whatever they want with impunity.
So what is the point of a bill of rights with all these constraints already in place?
More rules?
Iv'e had it up to here and back with rules and laws.
We are way too overgoverned.
I would in fact collect up all the pollies and the judiciary and the police, and drown them all.
We would still carry on without any change in society.
The good guys keep on being good.
The bad guys keep on being bad, and so on.
If all these laws and cops were so good, the jails would be well and truly overflowing by now.
But NO we have to put up with the scum and then watch them get a slap on the hand and back on the street.
Is your bill of rights going to put these same people in jail instead of releasing them back into the community to do it all over again?
No I didn't think so.
Free speech must be left alone, in doing so we can highlight the flaws in the system so eventually something might be done about it.
Freedom of speech is pointless if we do not also remove Political Correctness.
You cannot remove one without the other.
They have always worked in tandem with one another and therefore cause great harm to the freedom of speech agenda if tampered with.

It's a fact that we do not have the legislated right to free speech, just an "implied right".
People have absorbed US culture so much that they think they have that right plus the "right to remain silent" and so on.

Our Constitution intends (hopes) that individual rights would be protected under the democratic process but does not guarantee them.

Democracies require freedom of political communication.
Because the country is to be led by the people (or individuals representing the people’s interests), then the people must be heard, and be able to develop informed opinions - but that can't be used as a claim to the right of "free speech" generally.

We are subject to a variety of laws restricting free speech, including defamation laws, hate speech laws, sexual harassment laws, and laws against threatening others.

However, the 18C fiasco was never about "free speech". The Bolt case was about deliberate factual distortion intended to racially vilify a specific group - not the same thing. In that instance, somebody finally decided to call him out on one of his false claims.
Then he complained on his TV show, Radio show, Facebook and Twitter accounts and in his newspaper column that he had been "silenced".