Well seeing I have been annointed the George defender, and thus must provide examples to the 'aint broke don't fix it' troopers, I'll give it a crack.

Eg#1: prevention of the government enacting legislation breaching people's right to a fair trial and to not be detained without charge (terror legislation). Would essentially act as a counter-balance, it could provide a framework in which police, parliament and the courts could work together to make sure we strike the right balance – protecting the community from terrorism, but also preserving our basic rights.

Eg#2 - similiar to above to place pressure on the immigration department to actually process refugee claims rather than indefinate detention. (this is ridiculous even on a costs view point. It has been estimated that it costs, on average: Villawood about $120 per person per day, Baxter costs about $380 per person per day, Christmas Island about $650, and Nauru about $1500).

Eg#3 - right to housing for all Australians - make sure goverments on state and federal level ensuring adequate housing and accomodation for its citizens (you will notice the public housing crisis at the moment, not surprising..). See the UN special rapporteur on housing's recent report: www.newmatilda.com/admin/imageLibrary/images/Preliminary_observations_UN%20Rapporteur%20on%20HousingcGWj04Lyy7Bw.pdf

Eg#4 - prevent government from enacting legislation restricting peoples right to vote (recent amendments restricting the ability of young people to vote, as well as short term prisoners).

Eg#5 - In any proceedings that touch on security, the Attorney-General can, by conclusive certificate, prevent a person from calling relevant evidence to advance their case or to contradict the Government’s case. This is made possible by the National Security Information (Criminal and Civil Trials) Act. It can be done when the Attorney-General considers that the evidence might jeopardise our national security.

Essentially, a bill of rights in Australia would reinforce the position that NO-ONE is above the law, not rich people, not poor people, not corporations, and certainly not the government.

Given that Governments are the main threat to human rights how much protection can an Act of Rights (a Bill is not even passed by Parliament) give to a citizen when the Government is really determined.

In the meantime an Act of rights gives an excuse for lawyers to interfere in the expressed wishes of a democratically elected Parliament.

Once the lawyers obtain this power we will need a Act of Human Rights to prevent tha abuse of free people by the lawyers.

this of course will need another group to sit in judgement ad infinitum.

Lets stay as we are common law with imperfections and 'recognise a need to be vigilant to preserve our freedom

I am obviously having a bad communication day.

I didn't ask for yet another half-dozen examples of vague wishful thinking, but for specific examples of where - anywhere - it can be shown that a Bill of Rights has specifically benefitted an individual, anywhere in the world.

Just one example, that's all.

If this is so difficult an exercise, why is it so urgent that we should have a Bill of Rights at all?

In the meantime, jkenno illustrates perfectly the muddled thinking involved.

All the examples given have a high level of meaninglessness, but the classic has to be the "right to housing for all Australians".

Why should this be a "right"? How should home-owners who fund their own houses be compensated, if those too lazy to buy one themselves have one as a "right"?

What constitutes "housing"? A humpy on the Eyre peninsula? Would the owner of a "right to housing" have to move there if that was all that is available, or could he wait for one to come free in Toorak?

What defines "all Australians"? If my son decides to leave home next week, would the country be obliged to house him?

But all this stupidity aside, I'd still appreciate an answer to the main question - who benefits?

Little wonder you are having difficulty communicating Pericles – you don’t even seem to be able to recall the very thing you asked for. Your request was quite ambiguous to begin with: ‘Don't just prattle slogans at us. Give examples’. So I did, and now, unsurprisingly, they are referred to as wishful thinking. I hardly think preventing government from enacting legislation to ensure Australian CITIZENS (and that is, fairly obviously, what ‘all Australians’ means) are not imprisoned without charge or trial is wishful thinking. The government should not be allowed to detain people without charge or access to trial indefinitely. Unsurprisingly, politicians are anxious to keep on side with popular sentiment, even more so when popular sentiment has been fanned by media-fuelled anxiety about threats to security. So the political process is willing to compromise on basic rights and on the rule of law so as to convey the impression that politicians are seen as tough on terrorism. A bill of rights would prevent that what is happening under terror laws right now. Specific enough? I would like to believe that is a human right that we are lucky to enjoy, and should be willing to go lengths to protect. If you truly believe that human rights are meaningless, that is obviously because in your sheltered little privileged life, you have never had to question the notion of human rights, because you have never had yours violated. A classic case of small mindedness from a big L libby

Beyond that, it can go to anyone. If the government were to pass an act to prevent free speech, it would invalidate that legislation. The first amendment in the US clearly states: ‘Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble..’. This has been used countlessly throughout history – for more recent examples try - http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?item=0506_SCT_tracker .

What stops parliament from currently enacting legislation forcing all Australian families to present their elderly family members above the age of 80 to their nearest hospital to be euthenased? What prevents parliament from simply scrapping any HRA or similar legislation as being inconvenient with a view to the enactment of ever greater totalitarian laws? Nothing, absolutely nothing. Parliament needs restraint and restraint is not to be found in some general notion of democracy – the Howard government is proof of that. As the world becomes more globalised and corporatised, and governments find new ways to not be held accountable, I am entirely comfortable with the notion of enacting a core set of principles that are guaranteed to all Australian citizens no matter the time, the environment or the government. Australia now stands alone in the Western World without a general Bill of Rights, it is now a central feature of the constitutional or public law arrangements of other major jurisdictions which share the common law tradition – the United Kingdom itself, the United States, Canada and New Zealand, to name four of them.
The experience in other countries also confirms the lesson of history – that the rights of individuals are better protected by judges than by politicians. Only those fortunate enough to enjoy the full protection of their rights via economic status are unable to understand why such an bill would be required, as their blinkers prevent them from looking anywhere but in one direction. In the meantime, I anticipate a similar reply from ‘pericles’ in the view of ‘we don’t need it cause I am fine’. Way to be open-minded mate

By Standers in high heels and suits join governments with deaf ears adding more unjust denials to mainstream Australia.

A Bill that helps to re-balance Rights in Australia is core, especially in todays climate.

Well said jkenno;

"Only those fortunate enough to enjoy the full protection of their rights via economic status are unable to understand why such an bill would be required, as their blinkers prevent them from looking anywhere but in one direction."

It is difficult to feel earnest with so much disconcert and ostentatiously coming from the fancy footing prank makers.

And what about the 1994 Burdekin Report.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Burdekin+Report+1993&btnG=Google+Search

I ask how could anyone negate it's content.... especially as things have worsened since this report, they have not improved.

Fair-Go No-Where... it is "shameful" Australia!