The SMH announces as its headline Bill of rights to rein in Parliament which sounds great in theory but when you read underneath you get this (emphases added):

AUSTRALIA is a step closer to getting a bill of rights, which could enshrine rights to free speech and non-discrimination. The Federal Government is set to begin a consultation process into what the document should look like next week.

The charter would outline a set of rights and require the Parliament to ensure legislation complies with them. It is unlikely to be a US-style constitutional document - which allows courts to declare laws invalid - but will probably be based on those in Victoria, the ACT and Britain …

The Government will use the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, next Wednesday, to call for options on a human rights charter.

The Australian National University’s Professor Hilary Charlesworth said the bill of rights would probably include civil and political rights such as the right to free speech and protection from discrimination. What was less clear was whether economic, social and cultural rights would be included, such as the right to education, to a high standard of health care and the right to work.

I suppose, to be fair, that it’s still too early to tell. But it does not augur very well that the proposed bill of rights does not on the one hand allow for judicial review of overly-restrictive legislation which would be one of the best means of curbing the power of the State but on the other hand seems to leave open the open-ended notion of positive rights such as the ‘right’ to education and ‘right’ to work (which in practice usually means the right not to get fired). In other words, the worst of both worlds. While the protection of freedom of speech is commendable, how long before this legislation-based approach (as opposed to an approach of striking down bad legislation like the incoming Internet censorship laws) becomes intrerpreted to give parties a ‘positive’ right to free speech so that we end up with legislation for instance that allows property rights to be overridden by pamphleteers and protestors? The fact that the jurisdictions this proposal is modelled on such bastions of free speech as Victoria is not very encouraging.

I tend to agree with PJ O’ Rourke that “There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.” If we must have a bill of rights, let it be of the US variety which already leaves more than enough scope for government to provide basic public goods but strikes down overly expansive legislation.