The Bolt irony

Currently before the courts is a racial vilification case against News Ltd flame thrower Andrew Bolt see here . As part of his defence, Bolt has argued that "the offending pieces ought in any case to be protected by the implied constitutional right to free speech".
This is marvellously ironic due to the fact that he has been an ardent critic of the Victorian Human Rights Charter, as well as being one of the leading voices who successfully scuttled a federal version being introduced. And as this court action is under federal law, there is no Charter to turn to for protection, instead he's being forced to rely on an "implied" right to free speech.
But he may very well find out that relying on "implied" protections are no substitute in a civilised society against the power of the State, or litigious or wealthy individuals.
Irony indeed.

who are we, and where are we headed?

On the 110th anniversary of Australian Federation, I got to thinking.......
What does it say about us as a country that we have few real constitutional rights, they we're reigned over by the descendants of a long dead German aristocrat, that the British Govt has special powers to enact racist laws, but no settlement with descendants of those who have lived here for 50,000 years?
What does it say when (unlike most civilized democracies) the federal govt offers no legal guarantee to it's citizens of rights to live free from torture or inhumane treatment?
So I ask the question, how can any educated thinking person oppose a Republic, or a Bill of Rights?
Some argue, if it aint broke, don't fix it! But I would argue that it is very much broken and needs fixing!....