Its a complex question. How will they balance the various rights that can sometimes come into conflict? The ACL's agenda probably reflects the fact that what a lot of fundamentalistt Christian and other religious groups say about other can at times amount to vilification.

This Human Rights Act is a farce being pushed by the minority weirdo groups. Australian laws adequately cover & reflect Australian values as they are now. The two big groups are the gay lobby & anti-abortion lobby with the free drugs lobby, free guns for everyone & the mentally challanged (not the disabled type)a close third, forth & fifth. It has the full support of Lawyers because they can smell a fat cash cow in the making.
I went to a Get Up meeting where, I think, only 3 out of those at the meeting didn't have some sort of mental problem or personal minority barrow to push. I have a tendancy to think the meeting was minority stacked & they were looking for a favourable outcome, when they didn't get it some of them were quite cranky.

I wonder why I feel the loss of some of my rights comming on, & another hit to my wallet.

Is seems this lot have talked to every special interest group, even been out bush, to talk to a couple of people, & a dog or two. I'm sure they will have a feel for the general community opinion, I don't think.

So we will get some more bull sh1t, another organisation of public, or semi public servants, service for most will be reduced, it always is with more bureaucracy.

Susan will feel good, & will probably have a new job, while we all wonder where our freedom [& money] went.

This Labor ex-Minister believes that: “More than ever, we need it (B of R)…” What, to protect us from the Rudd Labor Government?

We certainly do need protection from Rudd, but a Bill of Rights won’t do that.

As chairwoman for Human Rights Act For Australian Campaign Inc., Ryan is obviously going to tell the rest of us that we ‘need’ a Bill of Rights. She is one of the ‘elite’ who came up with the idea in the first place (based on her personal politics) without any consultation with the Australian people. They are all the same, these people: they feel that something is a good idea, so they try to force in on the rest of us – just like the republic, and just like today’s announcement that the TV ‘personality’, Ray Martin intends to push for a new flag. A media hack presumes to tell us that we should change our flag!

Mainstream Australians have shown that a republic for Australia doesn’t rate very high with them, and it’s very unlikely that a new flag will mean a lot to them either. Opposition to a Bill of Rights seems to have increased, too, as people, sick and tired of being told what’s good for them, are taking the trouble to find out about the pitfalls of another needless interference in their lives and thoughts.

Paul Keating was finally removed by the people because they were sick and tired of his obsession with his own ideas when those ideas did not gel with mainstream Australians: flags, a republic and personal thoughts that pandered to minorities and showed contempt for most Australians. Howard didn’t have a lot to offer, but he beat Keating by sticking to the middle of the road and listening to what people wanted, not telling them what he wanted to force on them.

The big question is: will Rudd make the same mistakes as Keating and push for a Bill of Rights which, so far, has been viewed with suspicion by moderate Australians whose interests lie in the economy, jobs and their standard ...

...of living than they are in airy-fairy ‘rights’.

Ryan’s “…unprecedented level of response for such an exercise” is, of course, meaningless – “40,000” views – hardly a done deal! Objections were “…considered in depth and received full response.” Again, meaningless because we don’t know what the responses were. People pushing a hobby horse are certainly not going to turn around and side with people against the thing they want to do.

Ryan tells us that the “The rights proposed to be protected were primarily the civil and political rights covered by the UN convention long since ratified by Australia…”, but doesn’t tell us why we need separate laws for Australia if we are signatories to the UN version. The fact is, that she and her colleagues never tell us anything that would allow us to make up our own minds; we are simply told that we need a Bill of Rights. Most of us have never been in the position in our own country where our rights even looked like being abused. With politicians’ obsession with minorities (and taking the majority for granted) it is not unreasonable for people to believe that a B of R is a damper on freedom of speech, and gift to immigrating minorities arriving in Australia to help out big business and big, controlling governments. One of the leaders in ‘rights’ is the UK, and look what has happened to freedom of speech if you are in the majority!

The only right I feel that is threated is the right to a free press with the new net censorship act.

Leigh just for my benefit possibly could you please explain the last paragraph alittle more ? Thanks ShazBaz

Oh dear. Here we go again.

When will one of these HRA "activists" come clean and tell us what will be different?

What will change, from the day before the Act comes into force, to the day after?

The only thing that is guaranteed is that a whole cohort of lawyers will be rubbing their hands - which, it must be said, are already gnarled and wasted from counting their vast riches - with glee, at the prospect of a whole lot of fat fees, simply for standing up and arguing with fellow-lawyers.

If there are problems with current legislation or legislative processes, let's hear about them, and deal with them.

If it is going to be just a load of feelgood waffle, created at enormous expense and open to wide interpretation, it should be resisted.

If there is, on the other hand, some evidence that a Human Rights Act has performed, on balance, to the benefit of a population at large, let's hear about that.

Thing is, you never see it in articles like this. All you get is the wishy-washy motherhood stuff.

"...a moderate, well presented, properly targeted, human rights law reflecting the needs and wishes of Australians in 2010 and beyond."

I suggest there can be no such animal as this, and challenge any pro-Act advocates to show that I am in error.

Facts, please.

Examples, please.

Evidence, please.

I am unable to see any possible advantage that would result from a Bill of Rights. I can see disadvantages however.
Ryan et all want it all ways. They claim a Bill is a good thing because it will make parliament/government better re 'rights'. But they also claim that it would not really affect the Constitution so it need not go to a referendum. So they hope to slide it in through the back door.
I went to one of the so called consultations. It was farcical really. There was no real opportunity to argue that a Bill was not needed. It was a railroad job. Of course they got what they wanted from the meetings.

They accepted mass submissions (and counted them as all valid) especially from their group supporters e.g. Get Up.

Above all else there is the appallingly hypocritical line that goes - 'well, most of the submissions wanted a Bill, so that shows that the people want one'. But they refuse absolutely to go for a referendum. They do not trust the people and they know that in 1988 the referendum on 'Rights and Freedoms' only got 30.8% support - the lowest Yes vote ever.

They rely on the numbers when it suits them, but not otherwise.

They are clearly anti democratic. They distrust the elected Parliament. Well, I often do not like individuals pollies and/or parties. But they are a heck of a lot more responsive to us proles than a mob of lawyers.

I am not Oz born. I had lived in two other continents before coming here 40 years ago. I thought then that the Australian Constitution was the best set up I had ever seen. As an old man now I still think that.

Leave it alone Ryan.

I can see the advantages - though they are mainly in my bank account!

I am a bit concerned about the balancing issue. I'm concerned about rights for the mentally ill overriding the rights of others.

It seems likely that a Bill of Rights for Australia, will be put on the back-burner for a long while, given that it is controversial even in Labor circles and the Rudd government has more pressing matters to consider.

One question that I'd like to ask Ryan though, is why it is necessary that we wait to have a Bill of Rights in place before we start to fix some of the obvious injustices that exist now we have a warm and fuzzy Labor government who is interested in a fair and just Australia.

The glaring matter that has hit the media recently is asylum seekers who have failed ASIO checks with huge repercussions to their future are not given access to the negative information that worked against them, to check it's veracity. The possibilities for ASIO being given the wrong information either from vindictive informants (say village politics back in the old country), or people lying or maybe trying to curry favour with the security forces by pretending they know more than they do, or it simply being the case of mistaken identity are huge, yet people caught up in such things have no redress.

ASIO might say they do not wish to compromise their sources, but natural justice would say that the people should have the right to address the allegations. Afterall what country is likely to take them after they have failed a security check here. Their already traumatic situation is made much worse.

Our Labor government is silent, yet Ryan says Parliament reigns supreme, so they should be able to ensure fairness for these people. So where are they? Waiting for a Bill of Rights to force them to do the right thing? I hope not.

Most posters have already covered the most salient points. We need a HR Act like a hole in the head. Legislation already protects citizens from forms of discrimination and the like. What purpose would it serve and how would it be enacted that is different from the protections and freedoms we enjoy currently?

It seems there is lots of criticism for 'Ryan's proposal' out there. But reading the posts it strikes me as obvious that there is a real uncertainty and vague understanding of the human rightslaws (as stated in the UDHR) that are currently protected at domestic law.

Currently Australians have very little access to remedying human rights abuses due the lack of a comprehensive domestic human rights law. International law remains out of reach or not at all adequate for individual claims. What will change you ask? Well for one, there will be a system for holding the government to account in terms of human rights and this includes in respect to new policies in the public service.

The Brennan report outlines a variety of recommendations which need to be considered to fully protect human rights in Australia and one of these is the need for education around what are human rights.

A few more suggestions apart from allowing asylum seekers access to the information used for their negative security assessments, for the Labor MP's who are interested in promoting a Bill of Rights to keep them busy until it happens. The Howard years were certainly useful for showing where some of the holes in human rights protection are in Australia are.

Firstly, changing the immigaration act so it is not lawful to lock up stateless people for the term of their natural life if a government so chooses, when they can't leave the country even when they wanted too.

Secondly, allowing people like Scott Parkin access to the information that got them deported.

Thirdly, if the Howard sedition laws have been removed by Labor, it has happened quietly. True, the secular Civil Libertarians would saddle up and ride to the aid of people charged defence (it's only medicos with a moral objection to being involved in what they regard as murder who should either be hit with coercive, draconian, useless and ill-thought out legislation, or remained silent on, in some current Australian secular Civil Libertarian thinking) but it would be more desirable to not have people charged for thought crimes to begin with.

The wish list could go on for pages, but this might get the social justice labor people started. True a Bill of Rights might help in all these cases, but why wait for one when the power is in Labor hands?

pericles, i'm not sure what you would regard as evidence. i would have thought the american bill of rights has been hugely beneficial. would you argue not, or that the example is irrelevant?

Susan Ryan wrote:
"Why does this group operating under a “Christian” banner choose to create such confusion about protecting human rights?"

I dunno, maybe this has something to do with it?

"Parliament in relation to legislation is always supreme and the existence of human rights act would not change that."

So the rules are: Government reserves the right to change the rules. Hmm, great game, I don't think I'll play that one!

I think it is a very good example, bushbasher.

>>i would have thought the american bill of rights has been hugely beneficial. would you argue not, or that the example is irrelevant?<<

The problem is, I'm not sure that the rights have always been used the way they were intended.

The First amendment:

http://media.www.dakotastudent.com/media/storage/paper970/news/2006/08/25/Opinion/Wbc-Using.Hate.To.Abuse.First.Amendment.Rights-2239003.shtml

"members of the Westboro Baptist church "have picketed the funerals of military personnel ... claiming the deaths are punishment for the country's tolerance of homosexuality. [with] picket signs that read: "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Semper Fi Fags."

I think our existing laws are capable of determining the difference between free speech (here protected), and straightforward vilification. It certainly did not in this case protect the families of the dead soldiers.

The Second Amendment.

http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/4425-the-second-amendment-under-fire

It has been consistently used to "protect the right" of citizens to use guns to kill people. A classic example of unintended consequences.

The Fifth.

An absolute playground for lawyers wanting to buy their next yacht.

http://www.nacdl.org/CHAMPION/ARTICLES/98jan06.htm

"The Fifth Amendment means different things to different people, or different courts. To the Second Circuit, the Fifth Amendment plays a "role in preserving an individual's privacy and dignity," preserving our criminal justice system and protecting the individual citizen against governmental overreaching... To the Third Circuit, the Fifth Amendment is an annoyance that may hinder the government in establishing a defendant's guilt of the crime, but is no impediment to the more enjoyable act of imposing sentence"

Sadly, the evidence is that "Human Rights Acts" create a new level of debate on "what the law intended". Instead of acting to protect ordinary people, they ultimately serve only to further inflate the income of lawyers.

Bushbasher refers to the 'american bill of rights' as having been good for the US and he put that example to Pericles as a sample of the 'evidence' that Pericles asked for.

If Bushbasher wants to consider the US Bill of Rights as a valuable example for Australia then I put forward the proposition that he should look at the origins of that Bill, what was required to get it passed into the Constitution and also what is the process by which Amendments to it can be passed.
In both cases I would like Bushbasher to compare the (in my opinion) highly democratic methods used in the US and compare the methods proposed here - a Bill put to the Commonwealth Parliament, such a Bill passing into law by a simple majority of the two Houses.
I will deal with the way the first 'Bill of Rights' came into being in a separate posting if I can find the time.

However re the passage of any Amendment to the Constitution of the US two stages have to occur. Firstly a two thirds majority of both Houses is required before an Amendment can even be proposed.

When a proposal passes that stage it is necessary for three quarters of the State Legislations to pass the Amendment.

Now come on Bushbasher please. Is that even remotely like the quick draw McGraw whip it through the Reps and Senate in short order suggested here?. I draw your attention to the word 'whip'! On that issue alone it is inappropriate to compare the US to the Australian proposal.

"unable to achieve progress by campaigning directly for their objectives, they have chosen to misrepresent the purposes of and manufacture unfounded fears..."

Just who is the author referring to? She claims ACL, but, ironically, this portrays the selective minority groups that want to force public and legislative acceptance of their lifestyle choices upon the majority.

Some stuff should be public policy and other stuff should be left to the bedroom (nightclub etc etc)

A national Human Rights Act should be enacted to protect a broad range of rights recognised at international law, including the right to equality and the right to equal protection of the law without discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation; and the right of a child to be protected from all forms of discrimination on the basis of the sexual orientation of the child’s parents, legal guardians or family members.
Importantly the Act should require Parliament to consider how laws impact on human rights, require the Government to respect human rights in policy development, and provide effective remedies when rights have been violated.
Workplace discrimination against lesbians and gay men remains significant, which results in many modifying their behaviour in particular environments.
Discrimination against lesbian and gay students and teachers also remains a significant problem. It can result in students changing schools, performing below their academic ability, and potentially developing mental health problems including depression.
Children of same-sex families continue to suffer legal and social discrimination. This is evidenced by NSW adoption laws that prohibit adoption by same-sex couples, thereby denying children the same entitlements and protections other children enjoy.
Currently there is no comprehensive federal anti-discrimination legislation which covers discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Yep bring on a Human Rights Bill. Every Gay Teacher/Scoutmaster/Religious Minister/ Childrens Councillor will scream discrimination if they are not allowed to mollest children in their care. Every Gun Nut will scream discrimination if they can't shoot anywhere or anything they want, even people. (see America)

In other posts I have seen people wanting to do all sorts of things to pedophiles. A Human Rights Bill means YOU won't be allowed to protest if one is places next door to you or your school. Think about that. If you demonstrate against him you are breaking the Human Rights Law. Da Dahh. So you will be a Hypocrite.

What about the right to have free uncensored internet? K Rudd is a hypocryt.

My,my,how public opinion changes within 12 months. Ms Ryan urges the Prime Minister to introduce human rights legislation this year citing "a range of public opinion surveys available publicly (which) suggest there is no danger of a significant electoral backlash against a moderate, well presented, properly targeted, human rights law reflecting the needs and wishes of Australians in 2010 and beyond."
Unfortunately she provides no references to these surveys so I can only rely on the survey conducted as part of the Brennan Inquiry which elicited the "wishes" of Australians in 2009.
Here is an extract from the Brennan Enquiry report:
"Of the five specific ways that human rights could be improved that were included in the survey, support for all of them was over 50%, and in some cases as high as 90%.
However, support (and preference) was highest for those options which did not involve any additional definition of rights or protection. Parliament and Government paying attention to human rights when developing or making laws were the most supported; ahead of increased education; then a non-binding statement of human rights issued by the Federal Parliament; and then a specific human rights law, which was the least preferred of these options."
A human rights law then was the least preferred (57%cf 90%) of all options to improve human rights within Australia, presented to the random sample of over 1200 respondents.
So why would a politically savvy person like Prime Minister Rudd get involved in an exercise promoting human rights legislation, legislation which the overwhelming majority of Australian rate as the lowest option for improving human rights in Australia?

The comments in response to Ms Ryan’s article seem to be heralding the same old anti-charter lines. Greedy lawyers. Unelected power-hungry judges. Australians happy with the rights they have.

One reader wishes that our leaders would just cater to the demands of the mainstream and shelve any laws that might benefit minority groups. Australia’s cherished “democracy” isn’t just about making the majority happy; it’s about representing the whole of society; majority and minorities alike. Yes, Jayb, that includes the “minority weirdo groups” and the “gay lobby and anti-abortion lobby” and the “free drugs lobby, free guns for everyone” and the “mentally challenged”. The fact that Australia has ratified international human rights conventions like the ICCPR and ICESCR doesn’t mean those international obligations have been fully implemented domestically. This is evident from the ongoing coverage of human rights abuses against women and children, asylum seekers and indigenous Australians.

For eight months, the National Human Rights Consultation Committee engaged with the Australian public; Australians, mind you, not just picked out from those minority weirdo groups but from all over the country, from urban and rural regions, from trades and professional occupations, from different faiths and political backgrounds. The majority of that wide spread of people thought that specific groups were still in need of further protection of their rights.

The human rights act would help to fulfil Australia’s international obligations and provide better protection of those minority rights we feel we need to reinforce. The unelected judiciary will continue in the role that they hold now; judges of whether laws are compatible. No fear, Parliament will always have the last word

The spirit of Mandy Rice-Davies is alive and well.

>>For eight months, the National Human Rights Consultation Committee engaged with the Australian public... The majority of that wide spread of people thought that specific groups were still in need of further protection of their rights.<<

Well they would say that, wouldn't they?

What the "consultation committee" probably omitted to ask - a mere oversight of course - was whether those same people believed that a Human Rights Act was the best, most appropriate, most efficient, most effective, least open-to-abuse method to rectify the situation. I'm sure they wouldn't have asked the question in a manner that achieved the result they were after, now would they.

The fact that "further protection" might be needed doesn't automatically deliver a result for the HRA activists. Although if you are on a junket that roams "all over the country, from urban and rural regions..." you are going to want a positive result, aren't you. Especially with such terms of reference as "The National Human Rights Consultation Committee will undertake an Australia-wide community consultation for protecting and promoting human rights"

You wouldn't want to discover that they were already sufficiently protected. would you?

I wonder how much that exercise in self-promotion and arse-covering cost us?

One clear finding of the Committee is that Australians know little about their human rights. According to the Report, Australians are
generally unaware as to what human rights are, where they evolved from
and how they are promoted and protected. It is not surprising then thatthe Committee recommended "that education be the highest priority for improving and promoting human rights in Australia". You only need to read the user Jayb's comments as proof.

I just wish the bleeding heart liberals in Australia would shut up and do some research. All Rudd has to do to introduce a fair just impartial Bill of Rights into Australia is sack Robert McClelland, Nye Perrem the Federal Court Judge in denial, and a few other of his scumbag ( a Paul Keating word) advisers, and accept that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was legitimately enacted in 1981 by Malcolm Fraser, and confirmed in 1986 under Hawke.

A good researcher, and there MUST be at least one in Kevin07’s entourage, knows that it is referred to in the Privacy Act 1988, the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) where it makes it a 17 years jail term to ignore it, in S 268:12, the Dictionary of the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth) where you are told it is Schedule 2 to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 , S 138 (3) (f) Evidence Act 1995, (Cth) where it is again made a condition precedent on the admission of evidence in any trial, and you must understand what a bunch of dishonest mongrels we have as Federal Court Judges in Australia. Every one of these scoundrels could take 10 minutes and this comment, and know they are rogues.

Rudd should publicly sack every Judge in the Federal Courts for dishonesty. They are dishonest according to the standards of ordinary people. Not my words, words from the Criminal Code Act 1995 ( Cth). On the other hand he could be a Christian and forgive them. But only if he makes like Almighty God, and hears them repent. Repentence is a turning towards Almighty God, and Almighty God is truth and honesty.

Lets just try a bit of prophesy. False prophets are a dime a dozen, but just lets say Tony Abbott, does the research first, and promises to bush the lot of them, without their flash pensions for fraud. I would then prophesy that Tony will win and Rudd will be a oncer. Man proposes God disposes. Howard’s sins visited on Rudd

Jayson84: "that education be the highest priority for improving and promoting human rights in Australia". You only need to read the user Jayb's comments as proof.

Jayson, could you please spell out for me exactly what you would want included in a Human Rights Bill. Please don't tell me that you are not qualifyed to comment as I would feel that, that was a cop out.

I would suggest the first, most fundamental human right should be the right to jury trial, where the jury is properly instructed to not only test the guilt or innocence of the accused, but also the validity of the Law(s) allegedly broken.
Too many recent laws seem to demonstrate the cultural, social or economic bias of the legislators, rather than any consistent ethical code.
Our legislators have too often either shown slavish obedience to the lobby groups/benefactors who helped get them elected, or simply got elected for the purpose of grinding their own axe.
Such ethically ambivalent laws need to be tested by an impartial, non partisan jury on their ethical merits, rather than by who benefits. Indeed, the first question a jury should ask is Cui Bono

I think all of the questions of "what rights for whom" have been fairly well covered in this topic, along with a few in the past, as well as the tendency of rights for some detracting from the rights of others (a right to trial by jury requires 12 people having their rights stripped away until the trial is complete- for the benefit of one person only).

But I would like to add that I find it strange that in a period where Australia is facing a net filter that this golden opportunity to actually get support for a Bill of Rights- for an actual nation-wide rights crisis, is mostly completely ignored!
But then again, the introduction of conscription, the introduction of compulsory super, the rather near-compulsory requirement to have a bank account, governments being allowed to compulsorily-acquire properties, the privatisation of national companies and property, to mention a few issues never got touched on either.
And of course, abortion and Euthanasia STILL not being properly legal in this country.

I'm still waiting for even THESE to even be mentioned in a BOR advocacy speech, before I even move forward to join Pericle's request for concrete evidence of efficiency of such rights, and others' questions about the degree of democracy and permenancy of such a proposal either.

It is certainly an interesting proposition, King Hazza.

>>I find it strange that in a period where Australia is facing a net filter that this golden opportunity to actually get support for a Bill of Rights- for an actual nation-wide rights crisis<<

However, even with my most rosy-tinted spectacles, I cannot see any government, anywhere, allowing a Bill of Rights to interfere with the implementation of a policy they believe might garner them some additional votes.

Can you?

Sure, I can see a whole load of "advocacy groups" paying a lot of lawyers for their day (-s, weeks, months, years) in court. And another bank of lawyers, paid for by the taxpaying citizen, to support the government's contention that their policy in no way contravenes the citizens' Rights.

The problem is, that it is impossible to phrase a Bill that is so watertight that it cannot be demonstrated to be open to "interpretation" by a half-competent legal team. Your example of the trade-off between trial-by-jury and the rights of the juror is nicely identified; rights are never absolute.

Your additional examples are also quite informative, in the sense "how do you clearly identify a Right"? Governments are not particularly choosy in those that they grant, and those they withhold, and it is unlikely that we proles would ever be in a position to realistically challenge any.

Which is why I believe that the whole "Human Rights" industry is no more than a shop-window - hey look, we care about our people - while the business of exerting political control over legislation continues unabated.

It's quite simple Susan.

Rudd only does what General Jimbo from the ACL tells him to.

Rudd made a deal with the ACL before the last election.

I'll support you, you say nice things about me, seems to have been the tenor of the deal.

So, no HRB under Rudd, Susan.

You have you friends in the ALP to blame for that.

Thanks Pericles and I absolutely agree with you:
"Which is why I believe that the whole "Human Rights" industry is no more than a shop-window - hey look, we care about our people - while the business of exerting political control over legislation continues unabated."

Also, I'm convinced that these sellers are actually appealing to the very political parties themselves. This is a customer who is (lazily) trying to grab some votes from the Human-Rights advocating voters, by giving them a panel-for-hire to substantiate their own human-rights credentials enough to ensure the support into the elections (and possibly some funding).
It would actually explain why there's only wishy-washy talk about helping old people and children- they're simply issues that don't step on any toes or raise any questions about policy*, but are enough to pull the heartstrings.

*that is, if the group are sure the policies only belong to the party that wouldn't want anything to do with a Bill of Rights and not any party that DOES support it- hence why refugees and Aboriginal rights are the only "contentious" issue ever raised- as only the Libs seem to make a point of doing both to their own audiences while Labor pretends not to and still gets support.

And of course, by paying a panel to merely look into "if Australia could get a human rights act" but go no further, with a few church heads part of the bargain (to get their votes), the anti-rights groups still get their way and don't move their votes either.

This looks like a very good industry to be in actually, and explains why so many business people were jumping on the Republican bandwagon.

I'm sorry, I don't accept that any rights are 'stripped away' from a jury of 12.
Surely -and especially- in a capitalist society, it must be recognised that nothing of value comes without a price, and what could be more valuable than justice?
Or have we become so consumerist, that we think the only things of value are those things we can pay someone else to do for us?
Nor do I accept that justice for an individual only benefits that individual. Peter Spencer has just gone on a hunger strike in an attempt to obtain justice against a land grab by his own democratically elected government.
How else but through jury trial can we call our own government to account for injustices committed? The outcome of this particular trial could not only benefit Mr Spencer, or even all farmers, but everyone who believes they have a right to own property.
If the price of justice is -maybe- being called to serve on a jury once in a lifetime, that doesn't strike me as a very high price to pay, compared to having no recourse against a corrupt or at least morally bereft government, making laws to arbitrarily suit the legislators.

Um Grim, juries don't regulate governments and intervene in policies, and would have nothing to do with Peter Spencer vs the Government- that only happens if we had binding Citizen Initiated Referenda- something totally separate from the legal arm of society (minus being written as a factor into law of course).

With all the respect your high office accords you, Your Majesty, might I respectfully direct His most Gracious Majesty's noble attention to the practice of Jury nullification; a practice not only steeped in history, but particularly pertinent to one such as yourself, no doubt a great and worthy sovereign rightfully accorded his lofty position by the will of Almighty God (or perhaps spaghetti monster, in your particular diocese) in that it was first historically recorded in action against the usurper government of the regicide Cromwell.
Jury nullification under Common Law was effectively the ability of juries to judge according to the conscience of the jurors, rather than merely applying the letter of the Law.
In this manner, common men were able to overturn laws made capriciously or corruptly, and enforce greater accountability in the actions of legislators... and monarchs.
Please understand, I am not defending the current practice of jury trial, or the right of judges to summarily deny the right of jury trial. I believe jurors should be more adequately compensated, and I fervently believe school children should be educated in the importance of Law, as well as it's shortcomings in approximating Justice; but most importantly all citizens should be aware of their rights and their responsibilities as citizens -starting with the right to defend the liberty of all individuals from tyranny; even and including the tyranny of the majority.
Um, it doesn't have to be rewritten into Common Law; I believe the essential rights of jury nullification are laid out in the Magna Carta; you know, that inconvenient bit about Kings not being allowed to just take a free man's land away from him without trial by a jury of his peers...
I'm saying, tediously, we need a better system.

And *I'M* saying that a better system would be to implement BCIR and compulsory-for-government-to-hold referendums for certain legal changes/policies that may impede the rights of citizens- and possibly some de-facto rights against government taking people's property;
That way, it actually GIVES the public rights as opposed to taking someone's rights away.

Juries can ONLY come into play when an individual has been charged with a listed criminal offense- and as virtually almost every government policy has been technically legal, they have no role to stop them- even dubious laws pointed by the most prominent member of the judiciary can simply go through like any other. Also, judges reserve the right to disqualify juries and throw out the case without any input from them, too. There is no 'defense' against any tyranny- they simply don't have the power; and with this established, these 12 people were dragged to the courts for little more than symbolic purposes- even Germany and Switzerland (countries much more democratic than any Westminster nation) make little to no use of juries- you're free to make your own comparisons between their justice and ours.

But of course, if I'm mistaken and the War in Iraq, APEC security measures and Northern Territory interventions went through a jury, I would happily point out the Jury didn't *quite* serve as much a bulwark as theory suggests.

For government actions- It's simple- for public input into policy you either have:

-A binding referendum to the entire public to debate on as broad terms as possible and actually change/remove flawed laws and rights

-Conscript 12 random people (and hope they're 12 smart people that wanted to attend instead of 12 dummies who couldn't get out of it or had no other job to do) and leave it entirely at their discretion only at the exclusion of everybody else.

It's pretty obvious which is more practical and gets to the heart of the problem.

I have to say I find your faith in referendums quite touching, your Majesty; particularly since only I think about 8 referendums have ever passed, out of 42.
Howard's referendum on the Republic is a classic example. At a time when all the polls clearly showed very strong support (up to 90%) for a republic, it still went down. Why? A strong majority of that majority wanted a popularly elected President; precisely what our pollies didn't want. They want a rubber stamp, to be seen and not heard; someone who will in no way impinge on their own authority.
So naturally, the option of a popularly elected President was simply not offered, the majority voted down Howard's alternative, and the Monarchists claimed this as a victory.
In a truly free democratic society, the government should be just as responsible 'to do no harm' as any individual citizen. The whole point of having a theoretically independent judiciary to the executive/legislature is -I would have thought- so if the government does mistreat a citizen, that person has the right to take the Gov. to court.
In such a case, would you want the defendant to also be the judge and jury?
Without getting into grand juries, it appears to me that Peter Spencer has a genuine case against the government; probably a class action, as it affects many farmers.
He should have the right to a trial by jury.
Are you aware that recently a magistrate put a man in gaol for wearing a T shirt with the words “Trail by Jury is Democracy” on it? The man stayed in for 17 days, and probably would still be there if he hadn't capitulated.
In other words, Australia's judiciary apparently believe they can gaol people indefinitely, without a trial, on a whim.

Are you aware that recently a magistrate put a man in gaol for wearing a T shirt with the words “Trail by Jury is Democracy” on it? The man stayed in for 17 days, and probably would still be there if he hadn't capitulated.
In other words, Australia's judiciary apparently believe they can gaol people indefinitely, without a trial, on a whim.

May I have a reference please.

Hey JayB, Google John Bauskis.
for a transcript of resultant proceedings:
http://forum.dadsontheair.com/viewtopic.php?p=49386&sid=3aa45376307401df58efa4c309b3c88d

Peter Rutherford? Is that the serial pest? Who is Bauskis?

That serial pest need taken on a trip to the reef, for free.

Well yes I don't see what one is wearing or where they are wearing it has any meaning. It may to the person wearing it but to nobody else. It depends on how one reacts to the attempted provocation. I such a provocation is ignored then the provocation has failed. I feel that the Judge is at fault for reacting to the provocation. Rutherfords was wrong to not act on the order to remove himself when ordered to do so. Once he has removed himself then he can file for a Right of Wrongs. Then the Judge is on the wrong foot & explain why Rutherford was ordered to be removed. The act of wearing a T-shirt with writing which may or may not be provocative then can be judged.
However, if Rutherford had not have been thrown out then I presume he would have caused some other commotion in the court so as to cause himself to be ejected. Serial pests are like that.

This isn't about his rights it's about him being a bloody nuisance to everyone & every thing.

Ok Grim, I'll explain it again even more simply:

You have two possible situations:

1- a disaffected person begins a petition demanding a referendum phrased in a manner of his choosing to change a policy or law, and collects signatures freely offered from other concerned citizens until 100K (or less if its a local matter only) citizen's names are on the list, and a referendum (non-compulsory to attend of course- and phrased alike the original petition) is forced upon the government and the issue is stripped from their hands to the public- who may actually change the law, automatically rendering any breach by government an automatic breach either a criminal offence or simply a null declaration.

2- a disaffected person takes the government to a "criminal trial" over a civil disputes matter (which I'm pretty sure requires no jury anyway), but in this case (the person FEELS the government are acting criminally- even though virtually all of their conduct is clearly within their permitted powers as far as the law is concerned), insists 12 people must involuntary relinquish their time to help him get what he wants, and somehow, these 12 people are allowed to override Australian law to make a special exemption for this one person, and possibly somehow translates into broader legal change- at the discretion of only 12 RANDOM people.

Also, voluntary voters are at least sincerely interested in the issue- forced jurors may be just as easily unemployed or simply couldn't figure out how to get out of serving.

Tell me, which of the two is:
1- more democratic
2- respects people's rights more
3- is more workable?

I'm afraid I'm just not convinced that juries are more than just an archaic ritual, nor their existence at the present level of control over a case they actually have actually makes a difference- especially when so many (democratic) European nations have long since ditched them.