A Bill of Rights is constitutionally explicit and brutal language which limits the ability of government to legislate. Such language does not enable rights, it prohibits government from infringing on them. Any legislation which violates the constitutional language of the Bill of Rights can be taken to the judicial arm of government who will interpret the constitutional language to determine if the legislation is valid. A Bill of Rights does not impact social cohesion, national cohesion, nor create conflict. It dictates a sphere of liberty where government is unable to trespass.

John Howard's Australia Day speech contained;

Our social cohesion and national unity is pivotal in enabling Australia to contribute effectively to the international effort to combat terrorism, and to safeguard Australia domestically. This Government will do what is necessary to protect the Australian community, but we will do it in a way that does not diminish us as a community or as a nation. This means finding the right balance between the legitimate interests of the community on the one hand and individual civil rights on the other. And inevitably this will be a matter for passionate debate.

Some Australians have argued in recent times that the balance has moved too far. They want to shift it in the other direction, principally through a Bill of Rights. I believe this would be a big mistake for our democracy. A Bill of Rights would not materially increase the freedoms of Australian citizens. It will not make us more united, indeed I believe it would lessen our ability to manage and to resolve conflict in a free society. It would also take us further away from the type of civic culture we need to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow. No matter how skilfully crafted, a Bill of Rights always embodies the potential for misinterpretation, unintended consequences or accidental exclusion. History is replete with examples of where grand charters and lyric phrases have failed to protect the basic rights and freedoms of a nation's citizens.

The only political body affected by a Bill of Rights is the government of the day. It sets areas of individual and civic behaviour off-bounds so they cannot be legislated over. A Bill of Rights does not contain feel-good rubbish like the right to dignity . It is constitutionally brutal , ie;

Parliament shall make no law; the Governor-General shall pass no law; that,

1. detains an individual indefinitely without charge for a specific crime.
2. limits or removes an individuals right to have counsel with them upon arrest or questioning.
3. limits or removes an individuals right to a writ of habeous corpus upon detention.
4. back-dates punitive measures for an offence.
5. permits an individual to be detained for long than six months without trial or resolution.
6. enabling an individual to be tried for an offence more than once.
7. limits or removes an individuals right to refuse law enforcement access to their property, or permission to search their person and property, unless there is a warrant issued to search specific property for evidence of a specific crime.
8. limits, reduces or removes an individuals right to own property.
9. deprives the individual of property, or devalues an individuals property without fair exchange or consent.

Those examples were permutations of Avocadia's Australian Bill of Rights phrased in a negative manner toward government. Take the second one for example. The government can make no law which deprives an individual from having a lawyer with them when arrested or being questioned. That is simple. It is a limitation on government. That is what a Bill of Rights is for.

Earlier in the speech, John Howard appeals to the progressive nature of the Enlightenment. The American Republic was the triumph of the Enlightenment. It put many of the liberal philosophies and thought into practice. The two main innovations were the heavy separation of powers and the Bill of Rights.

John Howard's progressive support of the Enlightenment ends where it limits government and favours the individual. In this he is not unlike the Bearded Men. Apparently Andrew Inglis-Clark's first draft of the Australian Constitution contained a Bill of Rights which was removed once Samuel Griffith got his hands on it. The reason? The federal government wanted the ability to discriminate against the Chinese in Australia.

The rights of an individual are paramount. They are not a privilege, nor are they granted by accidents of birth and geography. They are the function of being human - an individual under the jurisdiction of a government. Australia needs to catch up to the political innovations of the Enlightenment, and put in place a Bill of Rights that contains brutal and explicit limits on government. Liberty demands it.

More Reading on John howard

• John Howard
• Bill of Rights
• Enlightenment
• Market Interfering With Political Outcomes
• Political Retribution
• Dont Taunt The Shadow State
• Howard's Frasernomics
• Sound And Honest Finance
• Trusting Government
• A Good Question From Beazley
• Prohibiting Government Constitutionally
• The Politics of Making Bad News Positive
• The Species Australus Nostalgus