FWIW, anyone who similarly feels that this ban is completely unwarranted, you might want to sign up tp http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/your-voice/your-say.html and register your disapproval.

(and if you think you’re wasting your time - maybe, but I was recently involved in the bid to overturn the ban for taking bikes on trains - a bid that was ultimately successful, without even needing to stage a shirtless protest!)

In NSW the police commissioner can suspend quite a lot of rights administratively whenever (among other things) a visiting potentate is about to land at mascot. Federally 3 ministers can authorise the armed forces to assume civil functions. Hopefully any charter, whether statutory or constitutional would restrict suspension of rights to parliament, not he Executive or the police commissioner.

(NB ‘charter’ and ‘bill’ are actually interchangeable. Canada has a constitutionally entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms. New Zealand has a statutory Bill of Rights.)

BTW, I have to say, I think the new proposal from Brumby to prevent anyone entering clubs after 2am is the sort of thing that a Bill of Rights should be able to stop a government doing.

That would be a very powerful bill of rights indeed - I don’t believe that any country’s bill of rights achieves that!

How old are you dude? Like 85?

Like, totally, y’know? OMGLOLBBQ

I say Old Bean, I’ve been called many things in my time but a bloomin’ TORY! How old are you dude? Like 85? Otherwise there are only two non-senile Australians who use the denigration “Tory.” The first, that Black Irish oik usurper who does not know whether he is Michael Collins or Anthony Blanche. The second is an old KKKomrade of mine who is a member of the CFMEU. Now, as a Luvvie, you are clearly not the second, and while your mewlings and floursishes are definitely symptomatic of Stage 1 Luvvieness - Moral Narcissism - I suspect the cut of your jib is not fine enough to pass for the Placido Damingo of anything.

Perhaps a turn as Tony Benn at the annual chambers follies, hey what?

Tweet! Tweet!

The problem is that to entrench a charter like this would itself require a constitutional amendment at federal level. The states might be able to entrench some such provisions (at least “negative” rights because they’re really restrictions on legislative power) through ordinary legislation specifying that subsequent changes will require (say) a 2/3 majority - so-called “manner and form” requirements. That’s because of section 6 of the Australia Act 1986. However the consensus is that this can’t be done at federal level; a federal parliament can’t bind its successors, and any later Act can amend earlier ordinary legislation.

The Victorian/ACT model aims to achieve some measure of stability/entrenchment through the mechanisms of:

(1) requiring courts to interpret subsequent legislation consistently with the charter rights wherever possible; and
(2) requiring a “declaration of inconsistent interpretation/incompatibility” where a law ISN’T capable of being read as consistent with protected Charter rights and freedoms i.e. the law abrogates those rights and freedoms. The intended effect of the latter is to make Parliament fully democratically accountable where it seeks to remove basic rights and freedoms. The fact that it is doing so is highlighted by an independent authoritative body (a court, or on my proposal the AAT and then a court on de novo appeal), and that may draw citizens’ attention to the fact that their rights are being attacked and/or cause parliament to think again and seek to devise other less rights-infringing methods of achieving its legislative objectives. The British experience suggests that that is exactly what happens - about 10 of the 18 laws that have been held (without appellate reversal) incompatible with their Charter have been re-enacted in less rights-infringing form, while parliament has “dug its heels in” and left the law as it is on 5 or 6 occasions.

(This addresses Sinclair’s points as well)

It’s highly unlikely that a constitutionalised bill of rights would ever succeed at referendum. That’s not because people don’t want such rights; in fact very few people do’t and in many cases believe they already have them and (erroneously) that they’re already secure. It’s just that, like the republic issue, such proposals are very easy for opponents to demonise and raise spurious fears about.

However, inability to secure a constitutional amendment is not the only reason I favour a legislated charter of rights. I actually do take seriously and accept the concept of responsible government and ultimate accountability of our elected representatives for making the laws and decisions that govern us. Urgent international or other circumstances MIGHT on very odd occasions require temporary suspension or reduction of some basic rights and freedoms (e.g. some aspects of anti-terrorism responses), and social change/evolution might make some rights and freedoms once regarded as “basic” begin to be seen differently (e.g. the US Bill of Rights right to bear arms).

Moreover, we already have partial constitutional entrenchment/protection of a surprisingly wide range of rights and freedoms at federal level:
- right to vote;
- freedom of political communication and associated freedom of association and movement;
- some aspects of due process;
- freedom of religion;
- property rights.

A Victorian-style Charter would mostly simply legislatively widen these freedoms and add a full version of equal protection and due process, but these wider elaborations could be abrogated by Parliament from time to time by a fully democratically accountable process whereby legislative infringements of rights would be assessed and highlighted (but could not be overruled) by the courts or AAT. That strikes me as a good balance between constitutional entrenchment and somewhat milder checks and balances which preserve our elected representatives’ ability to respond to real world threats and challenges.

Sinclair, why does the majority need to agree to a Bill of Rights, any more than it needs to agree with any of the laws we have?

To insert a federal bill of rights would require a constitutional amendment. To insert a charter doesn’t - it is just legislation. That is another problem, I suspect the ALP are going down the charter route because they know (or think they know) a bill of roghts wouldn’t win at a referedum - circumventing the democratic will on this issue. Of course, that might not matter much if it is a successful experiment and people change their minds on this issue.

Gilmae said that tongue in cheek, he is the author of that bill of rights. I incorporated his bill into a couple of constitutions.

Put me in the constitutional camp for rights being constitutionally entrenched rather than statutory. They should be exclusions from governance that cannot be changed without popular will. This is best expressed explicitly in a constitution IMO.

Harry, if you don’t get it properly off your chest you will just feel a right tit.

I know a couple of people that were heavily involved in drafted the Vic Charter of Rights (Hello Louisa!) and they struck me as fairly apolitical (ie: hardnosed ambitious young lawyers doing a networking spell in the Vic DoJ) with a large Centre-Right ALP Rhino still retaining a certain class worrier (sic) attitude, (Rob Hulls) breathing down their neck.

They told me during afterwork drinks that Hullsy kept saying “keep the language as plain and straightforward as possible. Don’t try to use the 18th century US Bill of Rights style.”

And what Vic DoJ came up with is not too bad at all. Y’all notice it includes “responsibilities” as well in its full title.

I do agree with others here that you really can’t constitutionally, or even in legal practice, codify such nebulous concepts as “reputation”, “cultural rights” or even “Humane treatment” when deprived of liberty.

Basically a constitution is a country’s operating manual and a bill or charter of rights is the warranty. And they don’t need to be drowned in legalese end user agreements if the product’s already tried and tested enough.

Actually it probably suggests a plastic surgeon with a bad eye for proportion.