Arguments For and Against a Bill of Rights

ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST A BILL OF RIGHTS
Many arguments both for and against a Bill of Rights depend on the specific content and form of the Bill being proposed, the rights included, how the rights are expressed, whether the rights are to be enforceable and whether the Bill is entrenched. Here are some of the major arguments put forward in this debate:
Arguments against a Bill of Rights		Arguments for a Bill of Rights
1.	A Bill of Rights is unnecessary in light of the protection given through our independent judges administering common-law principles which safeguard individuals' rights and freedoms. The existing approach of developing, as the need arises, specific Acts which precisely define the operation of specific rights is preferable to laying down a grand scheme of generally expressed and potentially ambiguous rights.	1.	Existing protections of rights and freedoms in Australia and the ACT are not adequate. Common law, constitutional and legislative protection are not comprehensive and leave significant gaps.
2.	The political system itself is the best protector of rights. Australian democracy has appropriate checks and balances in place. A Bill of Rights would encourage lawyers to make frivolous claims on behalf of their clients.	2.	Democracy is not simply the rule of the majority through its representatives in Parliament but is also about effectively balancing the will of the majority with the rights of individuals and the interests of minorities. A Bill of Rights provides an appropriate framework for this. It can be seen as a social contract: a compact between the people and government that is the result of community debate and acceptance.
3.	Enabling judges to enforce the Bill of Rights or to strike down legislation which is inconsistent with an entrenched Bill of Rights undermines the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and is undemocratic. A Bill of Rights could also politicise the courts, diminishing respect for the judiciary.	3.	A Bill of Rights could implement locally the provisions of the international statements of rights to which Australia is committed. A broad statement of human rights would guide judicial development of the common law, which is becoming increasingly "internationalised".
4.	A Bill of Rights could frustrate government business. Legislation dealing with pressing problems or introducing progressive social or economic programs could be challenged if it appeared to impair the rights of an individual. The administration of laws would become more. burdensome as the grounds for challenging administrative action broadened.	4.	A lack of clear and consistent standards can hamper evaluation of legislation, administrative action by bureaucrats and the Executive. A Bill of Rights would improve the quality of government policy-making, and administrative decision-making. It would be more likely to be consistent and predictable in its recognition of human rights.
5.	Rights that are entrenched in a Bill of Rights can also become "fossilised". They might well be the values held by ACT society today but they could become outdated in the future.	5.	A Bill of Rights provides a legally recognised base upon which citizens can assert claims to rights. In particular, it empowers the socially disadvantaged and those most susceptible to rights abuses.