view it is problematical whether the UK authorities would have developed as they did without the benefit of Articles 8 and 10 of the Human Rights Act.  Australia has no such underpinning legislation. The other issue is that in Australia there is a tendency of commentators in the media, especially in the Australian , to critisise "judge made law." And yet the proposed solution is ...judge made law. not on the basis that we've got with our federal constitution, which so many provisions now are totally and utterly out of date, but can't be changed. Amending a law of the Parliament and the Federal Constitution are two different issues entirely.  More to the point, a properly drafted provision(s) should be able to meet the test of time.  These are issues not beyond the wit of good legislative draftsmen and a dilgent Parliament. Michael Rivette : But I...see, I disagree, I think the fact that it's enshrined in a piece of legislation certainly doesn't stop the courts; it addresses the courts to the questions that they have to...have to ask. Agree.  Like the courts consideration of section 52. A clear body of law would be developed fairly quickly on matters that came before the court, but what would be really important, to my mind, is it would focus people's attention on what their relative rights and obligations are, and you posed a question before, why is there not more litigation? And I'll tell you why, because there is ignorance in the