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.