Julien, may I suggest that you take a good look at the Anti-Terrorism Laws of 2005(keep Dr Haneef in mind); the invasion into the Northern Territory in 2007 (why did Howard feel the need to dispense with the Racial Discrimination Act); take a look at the Children Overboard and subsequent and previous detention of men, women AND CHILDREN, and the then medical/legal knowledge, that too many human beings were subjected to acts of abuse, starvation, deprivation, assault and their physical, mental and human health rights were ignored - they were knowingly trodden on - with calm, callous and cruel deliberation. Then, mentally apply these same behaviours to aboriginal people, people from the Middle East etc; workers in the building industry (subjected to the ABCC) and then take a look at the wonderful judicial system that we boast about in this country. Remember, this makes us different to the “terrorists” etc? Does it? How? Go back into the archives and look at the comments of Alexander Downer and his colleagues re the at least 1 million of us who marched, wrote letters and objected to the invasion of Iraq. Look at the at least 250,000 of us who walked across the Sydney Harbour Bridge in 2000! We were sick of the racism, injustice and cruel history metered out to the original Australians. Now, do you really have to ask that question? Have you not read or listened to anything?

What does our Constitution protect? As far as I can gather, nothing much! It doesn’t even protect our right to vote. Aboriginal people were only alluded to in the areas of flora and fauna! I find this revolting. It’s against every basic instinct I have re the rights of every human being to dignity, equality before the law, equality re fair pay for both sexes; the right to every child in this country to food, shelter and protection before the law, regardless of colour creed or ethnicity.

A Bill of Rights, hopefully would address this. It should go further - that the citizens of this country(Australia) do not over-ride the basic human rights of citizens in another country. I think now of the unjust ‘agreement’ between Australia and East Timor re the oil and gas reserve agreement signed (under duress I believe) with the government of East Timor and the Howard Government. (I remember Downer’s comments when there was ‘disagreement’ from East Timor - “after all we’ve done for them” he said?).That we do not forward guns and military training to any government that is oppressing the people of their country - Burma and Indonesia spring readily to mind? That we seek a just agreement for any minerals/mining etc that Australian companies participate in. That the environment of other countries is not sacrificed for the wealth of any Australian company/individual, or any company that has Australia as an added ‘interest’?

That’s what a Human Rights Law should embrace. I find the invasion, occupation and oppression of the citizens of other countries to be repugnant. I don’t believe, that Australia can hold its head high, while we allow big business, big government or greedy individuals to deny the human rights of others - wherever they are! Unrealistic? Tough! If we don’t uphold this principle, then we don’t have any right to boast of any superiority? That simple really!

Those that do not want a Bill/Charter of Rights can nominate to be excluded and not enjoy/suffer its benefits/tribulations without effecting those that want some rights.

In this way we can provide every citizen with the most basic of all human rights, the right not have any rights except those that the benevolent government might confer/remove from time to time and election to election.

I say this as a staunch Republican.

Perhaps this is a task for Super Malcolm after he comples a couple of years as a politician and seeks another challenge.

What I do know however is that the Warlpiri speaking people of Yuendumu could have done with a “right to run their own lives” and the right to “make decisions that affect their lives” as well as a “right to their own identities” and a “right not to be stereotyped and demonised”.
Freedoms?… how about a “freedom from bureaucratic and political bullying”?

And not just under the Howard regime, but also under the current masters of spin.
Spot the difference: Howard/Rudd…. Brough/Macklin… big prizes to be won!

“In Australia, our ways have mostly produced disaster for the Aboriginal people. I suspect that only when their right to be distinctive is accepted, will policy become creative”… Kim Beazley Sr.

Frank Brennan used to be a champion for rights like native title if vague memory serves.

I’ve heard various vigorous arguments for and against but I wouldn’t mind knowing why on earth someone has decided to give us one and how it could have (theoretically) been used the past 10 or so years. (I say 10 or so years because surely the Howard government would have come against at some stage).