Although I am a little adrift as to some of the legal machinations, the problem with a legislated bill of rights federally (as opposed to a constitutional bill) would be that it would be more open to political manipulation. The next time, for example, a conservative government took office, it could act to amend the legislation without the explicit support of the Australian people. I am not sure rights are things that should be tampered with from government to government. They should be pretty static, and the constitution is pretty much the most static legal instrument our political system has.

On this score I tend to think that if we are going to have a federal bill of rights, we may as well do it properly and enshrine it in the constitution. Of course this means that enough national support for the bill is going to have to be mustered such that the resulting referendum actually passes, but I guess that’s part and parcel of working within a democratic society.

I’d agree on the right to be represented by a union – but I guess with the current state of our IR laws, that right would be undermined from day one anyway with respect to small business – unless those laws were revisited.

I don’t have too much of a problem with something like a bill of rights – provided it’s a simple piece of legislation that can be amended. Keep in mind, though, that progressives could be hindered by such legislation, too. Though listening to Bob Carr on this, I really feel for those who served in cabinet with him – he dismisses every argument he disagrees with as “absurd”.

It might be a bit parochial, but I’d like to see the right to be represented by a union in a charter of rights. I was disappointed during the YRAW campaign that many lawyers concerned with human rights when it came to terrorism laws and refugees didn’t seem to care that much about Star Chamber techniques being used against members of unions.