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!