OZschwitz slave pen: Rights bill may corrupt judiciary, says ex-judge

A BILL of rights risked politicising the court system and corrupting members of the judiciary with power, the former High Court judge Ian Callinan warns.

He says a bill of rights would outsource political power to the courts. "That is not good government and can be worse for the courts. Judges are not immune to the narcotic of power. Most but certainly not all avoid addiction.

"That some cannot, and then even those who do, have no choice under a bill of rights but to decide a vague rights question as best they can, are factors which influence me."

Mr Callinan sounds his warning in a book to be released today in Sydney. Compiled by the Menzies Research Centre, a conservative think tank, the book contains essays by 24 prominent Australians, including the former prime minister John Howard, arguing against a bill of rights.

Not all the contributors are conservatives. The former Keating government minister Gary Johns argues such a bill would make it "even harder" to improve the lot of indigenous Australians.

"If critical aspects of the Northern Territory emergency response were prohibited by 'rights' in a bill of rights it will be harder for future Australian governments to do the necessary balancing act between rights and responsibilities," he says.

The book comes amid the debate sparked in December when the Rudd Government set up a committee chaired by Father Frank Brennan to gauge opinion on how best to achieve more rights protection. A bill would codify the human rights of citizens, allowing political decisions to be tested in court.

The executive director of the Menzies centre, Julian Leeser, and his co-editor and a Brisbane lawyer, Ryan Haddrick, argue in the foreword that Father Brennan and the "kangaroo committee's" terms of reference are biased towards a bill. The matter, if considered, should be decided by a plebiscite, they say.

Mr Callinan says Australian courts, including the High Court, are apolitical but the same cannot be said for the US.

"In my view, constant exposure to the political and social questions thrown up for decision under the US Bill of Rights may have infected the decision-making processes of the courts in that country," he says.

Other contributors include the acting Judge of the NSW Court of Appeal, Kenneth Handley, who says judges' opinions on social and ethical matters are no better than anyone else's and should be left to the Parliament.

Mr Howard says a bill would transfer responsibility from an elected legislature to an "essentially unaccountable judiciary".

A robust parliament, independent judiciary and a "free and sceptical press" are "the best guarantee any society can have of fundamental rights and we have them in Australia", he says.

"Over time it would frustrate citizens as the realisation dawned on them that there was little point putting their views … [to] members of Parliament as the response would inevitably be that it was really something out of the hands of Parliament."

LNK

OZschwitz slave pen: Rights bill may corrupt judiciary, says ex-judge

OZschwitz slave pen: Rights bill may corrupt judiciary, says ex-judge

Anarcho-Capitalist Categorical Imperatives

Via AnCaps: Law & Enforced Unnatural Order