Human Rights

+ Cardinal George Pell, Archbishop of Sydney
18 Oct 2009

Many years ago I attended a school famous (or infamous) for producing many fine Aussie Rules footballers and many priests.

A major part of the school's football success was a champion coach, who taught a then unusual play-on game, but he had one good conservative principle.  He was reluctant to change a winning side.

Australia was recently ranked the second best country in the world after Norway.  Apparently climate was not one of the criteria!

Recently a National Human Rights Committee, made up of like minded members, released a report recommending that Australia adopt a charter or statutory bill of rights, whereby parliamentary legislation would be reviewed to ensure its conformity with the charter.

This would change a winning side.  If implemented, it could do to the Rudd government what Work Choices did to John Howard.

The recommendations are long-winded, and vague ("no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of life").  Within a week the chairman conceded one key mechanism for the charter was not going to be workable.

The Charter transfers power from the elected lawmakers the parliamentarians to unelected judges.  When judges are there to implement the law, it makes sense for them not to be elected, but chosen by governments for their competence and integrity.  If judges were seen to be interfering excessively in law making, people would want to elect them also.

Why would parliamentarians hand over their power to judges, except perhaps because some believed judges could impose through their rulings what could not be achieved by a parliamentary vote?

I fear a charter could be used or abused to limit all sorts of freedom, and religious freedom.  Already in Victoria legislation is attempting to coerce prolife doctors to co-operate in abortions.  However that government will answer for this in the next and subsequent elections.  It will be much harder to oppose judges, given our respect for the judiciary.

We should always remember that there is no consensus on any list of human rights; not even on some meanings.  What does the right to life mean? 

Nor is there agreement on the foundations of human rights; no acceptance of any common human nature.

If human rights are government grants, people have a right to reward or punish the government who creates or withdraws any such right.

Governments should not be allowed to slide this responsibility to judges, who are quite properly shielded from the immediate judgement of the people.