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?