A bill of wrongs, not rights

The final problem with positive liberties is they are probably not enforceable and even if they are could cost millions of our tax money in litigation by those seeking “positive liberties” - compensation better spent on housing for Indigenous people, Mr Rudd!

A bill of (positive) rights is inefficient and unnecessary

A bill of positive rights could also bureaucratically delay, even restrict, evolving individual rights in response to scientific or academic knowledge. The simple addition of rights such as a civil or social right or a scientific breakthrough that threatens an existing right would need the approval of the courts to be overturned (unless Parliament, of course, amends the bill of rights, which raises the question of why have one if Parliament can simply overrule it).

Education vouchers might give poorer students the chance to attend a private school and increase literacy rates as recent studies have shown, but positive rights like a “free education” may strike such laws down.

Cases such as Roe v Wade allow for a woman’s right to choose to abort a fetus up to 24 weeks gestation; but this is clearly out of date with contemporary scientific developments. Science tells that between 10 to 12 weeks an unborn baby has brainwaves and can sense pain. For a legal system to fully protect rights it must be able to quickly and efficiently adapt to changing needs and information whether they be a result of shifting values or off advancements in science and technology.

Anyway, the issue here is the inflexibility. Without a bill of positive liberties, Parliament can efficiently adjust the bar accordingly, not needing to go through the bureaucracy of the court system to examine an ideological tug-a-war. Such policy questions should be left to an election and Parliamentary debates, not the courts.

Conclusion

Australia does not need a bill of rights but a bill of wrongs (i.e. a prohibition of government power, not more government power).

First, a bill of positive-based rights could limit the scope of policy ideas needed to starve of positive liberties in the first place.

Second, most of the rights themselves would be unenforceable.

Third, a bill of positive rights creates a democratic deficit and allows politicians to evade the big issues involved with policy deliberation.

Therefore, we must be alert (and perhaps even alarmed) of any bill of rights proposal. We must make sure some topics are “off limits”. The best attitude to have towards a bill of rights is the sort of attitude we should always take towards our government: beware, beware.