“This powerful new role of the courts in judging and shaping public policy would significantly reduce the capacity of the people’s elected representatives to give effect to the people’s wishes.”

If this were true, then the bureaucrat author may have a case. But we don't have any elected representatives that give effect to the peoples wishes. They give effect to the wishes of bureaucrats and to justify the countless bribes they receive from corporations.

A properly drafted bill of rights, would circumvent political, bureaucratic and judicial control or influence. Setting out interpretation as part of a bill of rights would go a long way in doing this. With a corrupt useless bureaucracy, political system and judiciary supporting those with money, protecting perpetrators and walking over all others, we have no hope.

The bureaucratic political correct speak, underlying this article shows how circular and backward further rejection of the peoples rights to control their future and society is, our right to be aware and protected from the moronic elite.

Why should we have a bill of rights or any form of legislative or constitutional situation, reflecting the failings of other countries. We should have our own unique bill, advocating no rights because your incapable of seeing beyond the past and other failures is typical of those who are a party to our civil decay

Judges have various political views, some are "left wing", some are conservative.This means it is very dangerous to give them too much power such as in interpreting vague rights legislation. We should continue to be governed by elected representatives over whom we can exercise the vote, not unelected "Philosopher Kings". The country is better off without a Bill of Rights.

It is a pleasant change to have a contributor pointing out the dangers of a bill of rights rather than extolling the ‘virtues’ of handing more power to unelected judges.

A bill of rights must be seen as tool of minorities and those who hate the idea of majority led democracy. Open slather for all types of danger and degeneracy is the aim of some people promoting a bill of rights.

“It has been claimed that judges merely interpret the law when applying bills of rights. In reality, bills of rights force judges to make the law under the guise of interpretation.”

Note that well. In New Zealand, where their bill is said to be going swimmingly, judges have said just that, using legalistic, confusing terms to hide the fact from the punters.

Jim South has precisely dealt with the pros and cons of a bill of rights and has decisively demolished the purported ‘benefits’ of such a dangerous instrument. The proponents of such a bill might very well be sincere, but it is hard to believe that they can have really looked into the ramifications of having such a bill and still believe that Australia should have one

Should judges govern us? A resounding ‘NO’ to that one. Given the reconditeness attached to some judgements handed down from the bench we should not rely on our wigged and gaily attired judges as a source of intelligence. A reading of some of their judgements leads one to conclude that mood swings on the bench reveal bouts of boanthropy through to feelings of entheomania. For instance, the illegal possession of a handgun is something society views as being undesirable but one magistrate at Blacktown doesn’t hold that view. He excused a fellow before him for having an illegal handgun in his possession because the man told the magistrate that gun possession was normal in his country of birth.

We are not amused

One significant failing in the existing system is the lack of a meaningful complaints department for the judicary.

A group with the authority to review complaints about the judicary (and their decisions) and determine if a case exists for further investigation. As I understand it in most cases the only current option is a formal appeal - somewhat similar to a business with a complaints departments with a motto of "If you don't like it sue us".
Not many businesses would get away with that as the only means of dealing with customer complaints. Most now have some kind of group to deal with customer complaints.

I read in the media some time ago that the decisions of one Federal Magistrate were being reviewed. She happened to be the magistrate who handled a family law matter I was involved in and I had been informally advised that one aspect of her decision may not have been within the scope of her authority. I also had serious concerns about the assumptions she appeared to have used to draw conclusions.

I forwarded an outline of my concerns to the chief federal magistrate and was advised that the chief federal magistrate has no authority to review the actions of other federal magistrates and that the only option available to me was a legal appeal.

Justice would be much better served if the judicary had an informal process to review complaints and deal with any which appear to have merrit. I assume that the cost associated with preliminary check of the legality of a court decision or process could be kept quite low if that stage was handled as a credibility check rather than a full blown legal process.

Where the complaints department found a basis for concern they would initiate a more exhaustive process.

The appeal process would remain for those willing and able to pay for it if they were unhappy with the outcome of a complaint.

R0bert

If proponents of a bill of rights believe that Australian democracy does not cater for the rights of everyone, it should point out the weaknesses and lobby for changes in the current system – not look for ways to circumvent the system with the use of unelected judges whose precedents would become law, even if the majority of Australian citizens were totally opposed to that new law.

They would, of course, have to elucidate on the ‘rights’ they believe are being denied to certain people, and this could be a problem for them. Some of the things now regarded as ‘rights’ by minority groups and individuals may not, in fact, be rights at all, but merely things they desire which the majority of people do not.

In Australia, the majority of people are barely aware of any real difference in changes of government, so benign is our political system. Anybody who cannot live well, peacefully and protected in Australia does not have a problem with rights. The problem is in his or her head.

There will always be discontented people with quite unreasonable demands that cannot be satisfied anywhere, by any means. These people have egos so inflated that their only hope lies in psychiatry, not interference with the political system and social mores of Australia.

A Bill of Rights is a crock of poo. It is being proposed by lawyers, to benefit lawyers. But of course most politicians who aren't union reps are lawyers.

Our constitution is doing just fine, it may need a little tweaking by referenda but I will never back a lawyers picnic.

To the public servants,

The focus of the rule of law is upon controlling the exercise of official power by the executive government. The foundational principle is that agencies and officers of government, from the Minister to the desk official, require legal authority for any action they undertake, and must comply with the law in discharging their functions. Government is not above the law, but is subject to it. This contrasts with the position of members of the public: they too are subject to the law, but are free to engage in any activity that is not specifically prohibited. Unlike government, individuals need not point to a source of law in order to move and operate in the world. [Prof John McMillan (Cth Ombudsman) (2005) 44 AIAL Forum 1, 2].

Don't like it, move. Seriously.

The Courts were placed where they are to ensure that the Constitution was complied with, and the majority of people, in a majority of states approved it, want to change it, you'll need a referendum.

Inshallah

2 bob

PS I don't want a bill of rights, I prefer the common law.

The important question is , Why are there growing calls for a bill of rights ?

2bob is correct to assert that public officers require legal authority to operate & to all others that any activity not specifically prohibited is therefore a liberty .

However the trend now is to legislate that cirtain activitys are permissable subject to presribed requirements being met & often clauses are included to remove any liability for any damages caused by public officials in the exercise of their dutys .
Laws that state which activitys are permissable rather than what is specificly prohibited can automaticaly imply that all like activty is prohibited .
The end result is no activty without a permit.
When this is combined with reversal of onus when applying for a permit meaning that the applicant must justify their need for the purpose of the permit & also in some cases to prove that the exercise of the permited activity to be safe , We end up with very few freedoms & many public lords instead of public servants .

Current political & burecratic trends would likely only produce a bill of rights document for referenda that would change nothing or make matters worse .

To move political focus back to the citizen the initiative must be restled away from the mass media , Only voulantry voting will achive this .

Once political focus includes joe average as well as mr big new laws may not require our judges to go against the polycrats to protect the individual .

In my opinion the author being a public servant could honestly only be a proponent of increased government presence in our lives .

An Australian Bill of Rights would make no difference to Australian life.
Do you think any Australian government, left or right-wing is going to give any rights to the people of Australia?
Having a Bill of Rights would be like having an Environmental Policy. A real Environmental Policy means to look after the environment. A Bill of Rights means to look after people's rights. Either will never happen. Hell would freeze over first.

Good heavens, I think we are unanimous on this issue!