That invitation has come because French President Emmanuel Macron decided Australia is one of four excellent examples of countries "committed ... to democratic values and fundamental freedoms".

But in this country, what many see as a key aspect of a democracy is under threat.

Freedom of speech is being undermined.

And there is little political appetite for the one major move that would ensure it isn't eroded any further: a bill of rights.

Australia is the only democracy without a comprehensive statutory or constitutional protection of human rights - including the right to free speech - the Human Rights Law Centre told the powerful parliamentary intelligence and security committee this week.

That committee is examining the impact of law enforcement and intelligence powers on press freedom in the wake of raids on a News Corp journalist's home and the ABC's headquarters in June.

The raids sought to uncover details about whistleblowers who had leaked information on national security matters: in one case about a bid to expand powers to spy on Australians at home and, in the other, documents relating to alleged war crimes by Australian soldiers leaked by a whistleblower who was already being pursued through the courts.

They were widely condemned and prompted belated debate about how the nearly two-decade creeping expansion of national security powers impinges on citizens' rights and the position of the press in a democracy.

The High Court this week handed out a blunt reminder of the limitation of the rights of Australians.

It ruled against a public servant, Michaela Banerji, who was sacked in 2013 for sending more than 9000 pseudonymous tweets critical of government policy, her department and even her own direct boss.

The tweets went against the public service rules, which broadly say bureaucrats should not do or say anything to undermine the public service and, importantly, its apolitical nature.

Banerji had argued - and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal agreed - this unjustifiably limited her implied freedom of political communication.

But the High Court rubbished this, with four of its seven judges saying it was unfortunate she had framed her argument in terms that suggested the implied freedom of political communication was a right such as US First Amendment or those included in the Canadian bill of rights.

The implied freedom - that thing most Australians believe vaguely to be something to be like the First Amendment so often referred to in the popular culture we consume - is nothing of the sort.

"As has been emphasised by this court repeatedly ... the implied freedom of political communication is not a personal right of free speech," Justices Kiefel, Bell, Keane and Nettle wrote.

And Justice Edelman said it was a "highly constrained" freedom that was not a "trump over other values" when the government sought to legislate policy.

The government could even pass laws to restrict the ability of a person or a targeted group of people - like public servants - to make political comment as long as it didn't undermine the whole population's implied freedom, the judges said.

The ruling is likely to have a chilling effect on the public service - some of the nation's most qualified people to comment on policy - just as the raids have for whistleblowers and the press.

The Australian Lawyers Alliance said the Banerji case highlighted the lack of fundamental protections such as freedom of speech fo Australians.

"The lack of a national human rights charter means government can shut down dissent far too easily," spokesman Greg Barns said.

Greens MP Adam Bandt said in the wake of the police raids and the High Court ruling, it had never been more important to establish an Australian Bill of Rights.

The Human Rights Law Centre too called for a charter of rights, as did major media organisations in submissions to the intelligence committee.

The Australia's Right to Know coalition of media organisations, including AAP, cited the US and UK laws enshrining the rights to free speech and press freedom among those considered necessary in a democracy.

"The absence of such an explicit right in Australia means that every law that restricts the public's right to know challenges the fundamental principles that are the foundation of a modern, liberal democratic society."

Australian Associated Press