Joo-Cheong,

When I have heard Australian politicians justify their non-acceptance of the Bill of Rights, usually on the basis that our Courts operate of the basis of precedent and, precedent is more flexible than a Bill of Rights. But I think said posit misses the point: Why do we need a Bill of Rights?

An Australian Bill of Rights would exist to hold Parliaments and Courts accountable to basic intrinsic standards and place the Rights of the People people above those whom govern and those whom adjudicate. Continuing a tradition of Referrenda, would permit amendments.

“This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.” - FDR

Roosevelt believed the above to represent the US Bill of Rights, as it stood in 1944. He felt it inadequate, because it did not include, "the pursuit of happiness".

Relaredly,

Three rights, that I posit are necessary, can be on conflict:

1. The Right of Free Speech
2. The Right of Security
3. The Right of "Equal" Protection

As one cannot call-out fire in a theatre, under free speech; Security, ensuring the freee enjoyment of one's life without hinding, must be maintained.

However, not the exclusion free speech and equal protection. Parliament should not be answerable unto itelf, but, to the People for the Stardard. Voting undre our two-party system is merely a dotted line control.

Moreover,

The test question for the existence of Facism or State Capitalism [as opposed to Market Capitalism] or other political system is;

In whose interests does Government act to protect?

[Cite: Wassermann. Modern Political Philosophies and What they Mean, 1944].

- The employer above the employee?
- The company above the consumer?
- The politician above the citizen?

What do you think?

If one posits the left-hand entities, surely, we need a Bill of Rights to make Parliament accountable to us.

I think the solution is quite simple:

(1) We need not a Bill of Rights but rather a Bill of Wrongs (call it a Bill of Rights but it purpose is to codify prohibitions on government and court power). Becuase to define a right is to limit another right. Therefore, the rights shall be reworded as such:

Parliament shall pass no law which impinges on X...unless it...
Parliament shall pass no law which prohibits on Y...insofar as it...

The clause may go into detail of it means.

(2) Free speech and security do not conflict: you can still have hate speech an but not hurt anyone. Considering the right to bodily integrity would come into play, then security prevails. But the real issue then would be the efficiency of law enforcement and the like. Anyways, if clauses conflict courts should analyse which interpretation 'promotes individual liberty to a greater degree' and go along with that interpretation (in this case hate speech of neonazis vs the bodily integrity of an entire minority) and

(3) In addition, a Constitutional BORs would allow Parliament to veto spurious interpretations of the High Court if a 2/3 majority can be attained in the Senate. And you would allow Parliament to define such things as when 'life' begins - not the courts. So a Bill of Wrongs would also be a prohibtion on the power of the Courts.

(4) Extend the rights to the law of torts (if, however, tort law conflicts with an exiting right/prohibition, then codified rights prevail)and

(5) Finally, allow a 2/3 majority of Parliament to add on new rights/prohibtions but to remove them you need a Referendum.

That I think solve most of the problems with a Bill of Rights.

Margaret Thatcher said it best...

"We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society, not a society where the state is responsible for everything and no-one is responsible for the state."

I am led to believe that the only right we have in Australia is free and uninterrupted travel whilst on lawful business. No other rights are explicit.

Common sense and our Judaeo-Christian belief system tend to make other rights implicit. As long as we don't forget that BEFORE rights come responsibilities..