This is an example of not understanding what a bill of rights is from Phillip Ruddock the Attorney-General; who should, and undoubtedly does, know better. I recall Tony Abbott writing a similar piece, with all the same talking points, not so long ago. A Bill of Rights is exclusionary. It stops the executive and legislative from intruding into liberties that are outside the domain of governance. They negate executive and legislative action. They do not make the judicial legislate. That claim is a furphy.

From the article:

Bills of rights do not protect essential freedoms - all they do is present the very real risk of having judges imposing personal opinions as law, leaving everyone to guess about what the law might be.

They do protect freedoms from executive and legislative intrusion. It is the whole purpose of a Bill of Rights. The mixed constitution we have now is more dangerous for returning judicial opinions than one that fully embraces American Constitutionalism and lays out rights which parliament cannot abrogate. These enable citizens and individuals to sue their government directly for grievance. Only a government who wishes to suppress basic liberty and conduct in tyrannous actions would fear a Bill of Rights.
Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.

Comments
  • Lewis . # . 2/2
    Hear, hear!

    What annoys me is that opponents of a Bill of Rights often cite issues they take with "Human Rights" legislation, which usually deals with "positive" rights - e.g. the 'right to housing' in the A-Gs example or the right not to be discriminated against for gender, age, etc. Bills of Rights should only cover "negative" rights to prevent executive subversion of basic freedoms - the right to freedom of expression, freedom of movement, the right to a fair trial, etc.