The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal George Pell, says human rights are best protected by a democratically elected parliament rather than the courts. A charter or bill of rights was one of the proposals at the recent Australia 2020 summit that is set to spark debate in federal parliament.
Dr Pell says he believes the push for a charter of rights springs from a suspicion of majority rule.
“Rights are best protected by the common law and by parliament when the people are equally aware of their responsibilities,” he told an audience at the Brisbane Institute tonight.
“Democratic law-making is imperfect, but preferable to rule by the courts.”
Dr Pell noted that in Canada, the Supreme Court has given a charter of rights a substantive rather than procedural meaning, so that any infringements against them are ruled to be major rights violations.
“As a consequence, the threshold for excluding evidence from criminal trials has been progressively lowered, seriously hampering the administration of criminal justice, and making these rights a matter of controversy,” he said.
“So, it is not only in areas of life, family, freedom of religion, discrimination and equality that a bill or charter of rights causes trouble.
“The irony is that the uses to which courts put a bill of rights often generate exactly the hostile majority reaction to rights that this sort of legislation is meant to avert.
“We don’t have a culture war here in Australia in the way the United States does, but a bill or charter of rights could help provoke one.”
Dr Pell pointed out that Zimbabwe has a constitutional bill of rights which protects rights to personal liberty, freedom of expression, and freedom of assembly, association and movement.
“The Zimbabwe bill of rights also provides protections against inhuman treatment, deprivation of property, arbitrary search or entry, and discrimination,” he added.
“Just to list these rights against the present situation in Zimbabwe shows how fragile they are.”
The Rudd government has committed to an inquiry on a charter of rights but has ruled out any model that would undermine the authority of parliament.
Former NSW premier Bob Carr is an opponent of the proposal, recently saying a bill of rights would transfer too much power to the courts and lead to increased litigation on trivial matters.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No responsibility or liability shall attach itself to either myself or to the blogspot ‘Clerical Whispers’ for any or all of the articles placed here.
The placing of an article hereupon does not necessarily imply that I agree or accept the contents of the article as being necessarily factual in theology, dogma or otherwise.
Sotto Voce