Whether Dr Haneef is guilty or not, a Bill of Rights will not save you from having your Visa canceled. It appears on the surface that the Immigration Minister can cancel a person visa just because a family member maybe a terrorist, despite the fact that you may not have any involvement with or an association with a terrorist group.

Should Dr Haneef visa be reinstated than this will simply be 'Tampa' all over again.

It is all very fine to have a Bill of Rights. But if the Justice system belives a law is unjust, than does not challenge such a law in the High Court than seeking to create a Bill of Rights is a waste of time.

Interesting article by Julian. After eventually getting past the lines “Here it is important to distinguish the special case of the US Bill of Rights. It is not much concerned with human rights.” (gee: right to due process; freedom of speech; freedom of the press; peaceably assemble, security in their persons, houses, papers; not be a witness against himself; property not taken without just compensation; right to bear arms; right to same rights as other citizens; right to a speedy and public trial by impartial jury and to address accusers; no cruel and unusual punishment etc etc), I find I do agree with his general point that populist democracy is not a good thing and governments should not have the unrestricted right to make just any law.
However two things must be considered.
#1 Judges. Julian is being exceedingly naïve if not bordering on dishonest to declare “Judges simply apply the law passed by the parliament.“ Acres of trees have been spent on newsprint complaining about appellate judges ignoring the law and substituting their own personal values. To have a bill of rights we first need some vehicle of judicial removal/ discipline instituted such that there is a meaningful deterrence to the judiciary ‘doing their own thing’. True, this would be difficult to oversee, but that does not mean we should not try. Date rape is difficult to prove when there are no witnesses and no physical evidence, but prosecutions sometimes still happen.
#2 Specific rights or woolly values. It is one thing to have the right of habeas corpus or trial by jury, but when we start talking about “cruel inhuman and degrading treatment” then we really are abdicating power to unelected judges. These terms are really subjective and in this instance it would be possible that seven judges, acting in good faith, could give seven different interpretations on the constitutionally of any piece of legislation.

Why do we need a bill of rights? This implies rights are granted to the people form the government. If the people are sovereign as they should be in a valid democracy they allm ready have all rights. Should we not introduce a bill of government where the people limit the powers of the government to certain functions . This would create limited government and clearly fix it responsibilties and areas of action

David, you say:

'The people Frank mentioned are not equally straight forward.' But you latch on to only one of the four I listed. Interesting avoidance.

I'm surprised you still don't get the David Hicks case. As a committed Christian I thought you could see that even the apparently guilty should have the right to hear the charges against them and to be heard in their defence - and to have this process applied within a reasonable time.

You yourself argued: 'WE ALREADY HAVE RIGHTS and they are enshrined in our legal code.' The trouble is that sometimes Governments fail to apply the law fairly and consistently.

Even on a utilitarian argument, the interests of the rest of society are better served if governments give accused persons a fair and timely trial so that if they are found guilty they are punished appropriately. We don't want doubts to linger, do we? And accusations of something-to-hide arising, do we? It is plain that Hicks was only brought home - after a mockery of a trial - because the politicians were feeling the heat of public opinion. Not because of a sense that they should do the right thing.

More generally, I am bemused by some of the claims being made against Burnside's case. Australia is already a signatory to several international conventions on rights - and these rights are not woolly as Edward Carson suggests they would be.

Nor are judges usurping power under these conventions as others suggest they would.

The real issue is that our Government sometimes fails to apply these agreements and denies people their rights. A Bill of Rights would add a further protection for citizens whose government puts itself above the law.

Dear Julian,
A question I(a long standing paid up and passionate member of the Australian Human Rights Society)have wanted to ask you. Are you not appalled that not only blue eyed babies but babies with eyes of all hues are amongst the 100,000 babies aborted in Australia annually,given your committment to the Human Rights Bills to which you refer,which guarantee "the right not to be deprived of life"? In a few days time a bill, already introduced into the Victorian Parliament, will formally deprive blue eyed and babies with other coloured eyes, of their lives...right up to birth, according to no less than a colleague of the mover of the bill. I have yet to hear you speak out about this totally unacceptable deprivation of human rights. Surely it is only academic to speak of any human right without the guarantee of the most fundamental human right....the right to life? After all, one has to be alive to exercise the right to vote.... for a Parliament that respects human rights, for example? Like you Julian, I am actively against capital punishment...from the womb to the tomb. How about you?

No doubts those in favour of a bill of rights would want to protect the unborn! Leigh has summed up the topic well.