Sadly Shorbe, while agreeing that our rights should be "self-evident", the practical reality seems rather different. The Federal Anti-Terrorism Bill (2005), for example, abolishes habeas corpus, due process and the presumption of innocence. A bill of rights, being a Parliamentary act, is not a guarantee of course as it can be modified, or repealed by Parliament. Changes to the Constitution to include a charter of rights would be more robust, but without all-party support (a remote possibility) would be unlikely to pass a referendum.

Our rights under the Constitution are extremely limited. These are the right to vote (section 41), protection against acquisition of property on unjust terms (section 51(xxxi)), the right to a trial by jury (section 80), freedom of religion (section 116) and prohibition of discrimination on the basis of State of residency (section 117). The High Court has "disovered" a few more rights implied in the Constitution, including (in 1992) freedom for individuals to discuss and debate political issues.

An implied right, or a right under common law, is a defence in court. Supposing I am charged (heaven forbid) with defaming a politician, I could defend myself by claiming freedom of speech as an implied right under the Constitution. Thus, if a bill of rights codifies a right to free speech (for example) it means that my defense is strengthened. My understanding is that not only does the prosecution (or claimant) have to prove defamation, but they also have to prove that this overrides my right to freedom of speech. If any lawyers out there could clarify this I would appreciate it.

Johnj: I agree with what you're saying in theory, it's just that practically, I'm extremely sceptical about whether 1) anyone would actually know what his or her rights were, 2) if anyone would care, and 3) if the powers that be would care. Jefferson and friends envisaged a loose union of states with little or no interference in the lives of people and tried to enshrine this in fairly straight-forward language. The modern reality is a behemoth that laughs at that project and an ignorant or compliant populace. I fail to see how it would be any different here. I think the whole thing would just be a very expensive exercise in bad taste.

Considering that I have seen Rob Hulls' Justice system in action, where there is no real oversight of the magistracy largely because of laziness and political expediency, I hate to be on his side in anything.
But this becomes an exercise in RealPolitik.

Australians assume that they have certain rights. The reality is they have none.
The exercise of internationally accepted human and civil rights is merely at the whim of the government in power.
Because of that fact the government may restrict or eliminate any of your rights at any time.
In fact, by simply exercising their authority to accept or deny evidence, any magistrate can severely limit your rights. There are no Rules of Evidence because the Hulls Justice Department does not enforce them. The magistrates are free to do whatever they choose in a courtroom.
Your only recourse is to spend thousands to hire a lawyer to find a magistrate whose whims match your own.
That is the sort of justice system that exists without a Bill of Rights.
That is the sort of justice system that exists in third world countries.

The fact that Australia has no guarantees of civil and human rights for every person, -- citizen, resident, or whatever -- identifies its society as immature, at best adolescent. More, it shows that the government(s) of Australia seeks to keep the citizen at the lowest level of society. (And we all know what flows downhill, right?)

Historically, right-wing governments seek to limit or abolish human and civil rights; left-wing governments seek to establish them. But human and civil rights are not a right or left issue.
Rights are a statement about respect for the individual, without regard to race, creed, or color.
Explicitly defined Rights force a government to respect the individual.

If you want Australia to remain a nation of apathetic whingers, forego what every other english-speaking democracy in the world has; indeed, leave Australia as an international hypocrite before the world. Don't give the citizens rights.
Let the government at all levels continue to preach to your apathy. The nation can whinge forever.

Unfortunately, I've seen James Allen's editorials before. As a law professor, he is astoundingly ignorant of the foundations of western law.
His previous article against a Bill of Rights for Australia cited an example of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.
He condemned the proposed national Bill of Rights on the grounds that such a thing would be allowed under the US Bill of Rights free speech amendment.
This is exactly the example every 5th grader in the US is shown to illustrate why the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution is limited by reason and changes over time.

According to Prof Allen, the US system didn't exercise judgment in such a case, and the rights were absolute. Prof Allen needs to return to his law and history books. How he became a law professor has to be called into question. (Who's mate was he?)

Amoranthus: Again, it depends upon whether or not a Bill of Rights would actually be respected. The Bill of Rights in the U.S. hasn't been. Whether you agree with the rights therein or not is not the point, the point is that the 2nd (right to bear arms) has certainly been infringed, and so has the 4th (regarding government searches of people). Likewise, the 9th and 10th (ie. that you have rights not explicitly stated, and that if a power isn't explicitly granted to the federal government it remains the right of the people or the states). A classic example here is that some states have legalised marijuana for medical use, yet the federal government has overturned it, which is clearly unconstitutional. Likewise, the alphabet soup of government (eg. FBI, ATF, DEA, etc.) shouldn't exist, but they do. Ultimately, he who has power can do anything, regardless of a Bill of Rights.

Likewise, your point "historically, right-wing governments seek to limit or abolish human and civil rights; left-wing governments seek to establish them" is false. The ALP were the ones who wanted to bring in a national identity card in Australia, and the Clinton Administration in the U.S. were the ones who brought in Omnivore and Carnivore, as well as a whole host of other unconstitutional programmes (whilst continuing the War on Drugs or just generally being involved in things such as education, which they're not allowed to under the 9th and 10th). Of course, Bush has been much worse, though in many ways, it's simply been government business as usual. Look up the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. Screwing with the populace goes back that far and everything since has just been icing on the cake.

"Explicitly defined Rights force a government to respect the individual."

That's simply not true. Go to any libertarian website based in the U.S. (Libertarian Enterprise/L. Neil Smith, Lew Rockwell, etc.), or if you prefer a "left wing" approach, try the A.C.L.U.