IF Australians were asked whether they wanted non-elected judges to enjoy the final say on all public policy, it is pretty clear how they would vote. A modest increase in judicial review was proposed in 1988. Voters were asked only to endorse trial by jury, freedom of religion and fair terms for property acquired by government, by inserting these as rights in the constitution. The referendum lost in every state and territory by votes of up to 75 per cent.
Now the federal Government has an inquiry into how rights can best be protected in Australia. The advocates of a bill of rights have watered down their proposal to a charter based on legislation and not added to the constitution, and which parliaments can in theory overrule.
This faces a bigger hurdle than mere public disdain: there is now close to a consensus that it would be unconstitutional.
"How can anyone be opposed?" ask the frustrated enthusiasts who've tried to agitate for this issue. Well, to start with, a charter or a bill of rights guarantees nothing. Read more.