As Chief Justice Brennan has stated, a “Bill of Rights would require the judiciary to protect individual freedoms and interests more fully than they can be protected under the existing Constitution, and that protection may be needed if the Parliament is unwilling or unable to provide it.” (Radio National Transcripts, Tuesday 3 March 1998).

Although implied rights and freedoms have previously been derived from the Constitution, the Constitution  itself does not explicitly protect the human rights and freedoms of individuals. Indeed, the main purpose of the Constitution is to mediate the tension between the powers of various arms of government (the executive, the legislature and the judiciary) while also empowering Parliament to legislate in relation to matters important to the administration of government in Australia.

Not only could a Bill of Rights operate as a check and balance to the power granted to the various arms of government, but it could also provide an express protection against the over exercise of that power or the inactivity of Parliament to human rights breaches.