It is fortunate for us that this professor of law is not one of the judges of whom he is so extraordinarily critical. How can someone in that position be so ignorant of the role of a good judge in our legal system? There are parameters that surround the proper exercise of the judicial function and a good judge applies the existing law within those given boundaries. There is never a blank cheque. The law will contain the bill of rights properly enacted by the parliament itself as a well-known part of government policy. The absence of a bill of rights arises to some extent from our old-fashioned type of constitution and the sooner that is remedied the better for our society's erstwhile humane way of life. barb h.

My question about a Bill of Rights (which hopefully someone here can answer):

Is a Bill of Rights exhaustive? Does it restrict our rights? If we have a finite list of rights, surely that means that anything that does not feature in our Bill of Rights is no longer a right?

At present, we have a right to do anything that is not against the law. Will that right be preserved?

I don't feel alienated by a lack of a Bill of Rights. In fact, I am quite happy without one.

I am probably just dumb, or left wing to my right wing friends who think labelling something as left wing dismisses further thought. Bit like Christianity really all the good bits are and any contrary are obviously not.
So what will a bill of rights do that is not already promised by our signing the various UN treaties on the rights of man etc.
Well would a bill of rights have stopped the dishonest hype for the latest Iraq war would such have prevented the politicians shifting grounds to other reasons. What might have a better more investigative media been obliged to do by such a bill? Would such have stopped the ABC being starved of funds? Accused by senior ministers of saying contrary to the party line, that is truth. Would such have stopped idiocy and allowed fact and rebuttal to play not drama and self indulgent hype of lies? Some still believe Saddam and Osama were bosom mates. The wonders of a literate informed nation.
Would a bill of rights make politicians less venal less skilful with weasel words? Perhaps even abide the charter of decency and the UN, such as not letting AWB channel funds to Sadam?
Well just what will a charter do? Stop Kids being locked in detention because the “we say who comes here” rings evocatively powerful and penalises the kids. Hang the parents and the kids too? Will this be stopped? What they are human and deserving of human rights? No they are left wing stirrers, taking jobs and bringing bombs. Would a Ruddock be stopped by the bill and his colleagues who play the man, the migrant, not the cause of the forced emigration?
Will it make politicians speak truth, truth not legalal chicanery? Was the act of free choice for Papua real? Does the reality of foreign affairs demand deceit as it did for so long for Timor? No body whatever political party and whatever class of Australian escapes contumely.
What then will a bill of rights do that a politician or lawyer can’t undo or hyped up popular feeling deny

The story seems to be that unelected judges have no business meddling in laws and rights while those we elect do.

A question or two around what our pollies have done might answer whether or not the ICCPR and declaration of human rights should be made domestic law.

1. Do workers want their employers to have the right to sack them at will because a politician says it is OK?
2. If they do, do the workers want a judge in some court to be able to tell the pollies they got it wrong?
3. Did we elect this government on the basis of doing number 1 without the protection of number 2?
4. How about the reality of locking up innocent children and the shocking harm that has been caused to them, instead of the deranged rhetoric that they are "illegal" and therefore deserve to be abuse?

Come on - Leigh, answer some of these questions for us.

Then let us remember one thing that christendom seems to pretend to rely on - we are all equal.

Otokonoko, Australians have very few enshrined rights. We get an inflated sense of protection under the Australian constitution because we see a lot of American television which talks about a totally different document.

The Australian constitution deals almost exclusively with the process of parliament and how the states interact with the federal government. The rights of citizens are unaddressed.

Freedom of speech, for instance, is not a protected right in Australia. The PM could simply decree that mentioning tax reform is henceforth illegal, and the AFP would be obliged to enforce it.

Most of the rights we DO enjoy have been "interpreted" by judges, who review the constitution and try to decide what the drafter's intentions were when they wrote it.

Historically, when judges get their hands on the constitution, we gain protected rights. When it's left to politicians, rights are taken from us.

Visit these sites for more info (Google has yet more):

www.republic.org.au/ARM-2001/q&a/qa_constitution_outline.htm

www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MULR/1999/31.html#Heading32

Otokonoko: Well, it depends really. The Bill of Rights in the U.S. (Amendments I - X to the Constitution) basically says "if a right isn't stated it doesn't mean you don't have it" (IX) and "any power not specifically given to (federal) politicians isn't theirs for the taking". (X)

[See the real wording here: http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm ]

The reality that most people seem to be missing here is that ultimately a Bill of Rights is meaningless if those in power (politicians or judges) ignore it or interpret it as they like. This has largely been the case in the U.S. for a very long time now, and both the right and left are equally part of the problem. Jefferson, et al. would be rolling over in their graves.

I'd like to see people have rights, though I'm sceptical that setting them down and enforcing them wouldn't become an ultimately costly and pointless exercise for us, and a self-serving exercise for those in power when convenient. Of course, I'd like to think our rights didn't even need to be written down, that they were merely self-evident.