Not sure why we should be listening to a Cardinal on the issue of a Bill of Rights, especially when their specialisation is religion, not politics or constitutionalism, however Cardinal Pell decided to weigh in on the subject recently.

Gary Sauer-Thompson discussed Pell's framing it within the culture wars, while Graham Young discusses Pell's speech as being intellectually slight and looks at differences between constitutional and statutory rights.

As I have commented before, a Bill of Rights is exclusionary. It stops the executive and legislative from intruding into liberties that are outside the domain of governance. It is particularly ironic in Pell's case as freedom of religion is one of the few entrenched constitutional rights in Australia. (more)
Via avo: Cameron Reilly is an Australian tech entrepreneur who started the Pod Cast Network. Not only do we share the same name (I am Cameron Riley not Cameron Reilly) we are also the same age and know the same people, one of who publishes on SSR. A small world. Cameron Reilly has a podcast exploring the issue of whether Australia should have a Bill of Rights and if it will give Australia its moral compass back. He interviews Julian Burnside. (more)
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. (more)
The American innovation on English Constitutionalism was that there is fundamental law - expressed in the constitution - that cannot be ignored by the executive and cannot be statutorily pasted over by the legislative. The Americans called them natural rights and entrenched those political rights in their federal and state constitutions.

Where an English judicial had to be activist, the American judicature could be constructionist. The English judicial established Habeas Corpus as accepted practice through activism two hundred years before it was legislated in 1679. The American judicial had a series of ongoing and increasing 'rights' laid out in fundamental law for them to protect from executive and legislative over-reach.

Despite having 130 years to digest and deliberate on the American innovation Australia did it half-arsed. Ingliss-Clark had a bill of rights in the first draft of his Washminster constitution, but this was taken out apart from a protection for religious freedom. Consequently the constitution has not been able to inform judicial doctrine like it has in the United States. So we get a half-arsed and often seemingly arbitrary judicial doctrine that gives tips of the hat to the English style of executive/legislative dominance and at other times the American style of fundamental law. (more)
The current conservative philosophy for governance is well described by Paul Kelly in a recent op-ed titled: At war over the law. This is the new brand of conservatism which is now competing with liberalism as the basis for governance. Forget left-right, that is gone as a binary distinction and the only use for it is to construct strawmen. Conservatism is based on executive dominance where the interests of the state trump individual rights. This is the opposite to republicanism and liberal democracy. (more)

Lisa Adamson has an interesting article on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Freedoms and the speeches Steve Harper and Rob Nicholson made on the issue. Adamson writes that Harper and Nicholson are opposed to constitutional rights due to the conservative belief in the supremacy of the legislative. This is an incorrect reading, especially in a parliamentary system which collapses the executive and legislative into the one body in the lower house. She should have written that conservatism believes in executive supremacy. (more)

An interesting article in the Independent titled: Brown may bring in written constitution . Britain's constitution is a non-written one, unlike America's and Australia's. Britain has non-contiguous acts which make up what would be called a constitution, but they are not in one entrenched or statutory act. A written constitution would bring Britain into line with modern constitutional practice. (more)

A common question asked of political rights is where do they come from and how are they granted. There are several different justifications for the inclusion of rights in a constitutional system. These vary slightly depending on how the political philosophy views the individual. (more)

There are two competing dominant political forms in liberal democracy, these are the individual and the state. Political philosophies can be divided along these lines. In Australian Republicanism, the individual is the dominant, indivisible and discrete political entity. (more)
If you have a look at a site called 'Freedom House' , and then have a look at the country entry for ' Australia ', you will see that there are 3 divisions; 'Free', 'Partly Free', 'Not Free'.

Australia is listed as 'Free' (thanks guys). On this I mostly agree. We are freer than our northern neighbours in SE Asia (Why then would we want to consider ourselves 'part of Asia' Mr Keating?).

I do however feel that we achieve a level of freedom somewhat less than the ideal. Don't get me wrong there, I have worn the uniform of this country, I believe the political institutions of this country work reasonably well, but it could be better. (more)
Cam Riley: South Sea Republic. Freedom, liberty, equity and an Australian Republic.