National Human Rights Consultation Submission 

AGWW-7MU7F8 

Name: David Pennington 

Submission Text: 

The Chairman,
 
Australian Human Rights Commission,
 
Dear Sir,
 

 
I am writing to submit my views on the discussion and deliberations of the
 
Committee chaired by Fr Frank Brennan on whether Australia should adopt a
 
Bill of Rights, such as exists in the US, in the UN Charter, and elsewhere.
 

 
Firstly, contrary to popular belief, the Australian Constitution already
 
enshrines one of the cardinal rights of humans, the right to freedom of
 
worship. That is expounded in Section 116.
 

 
In view of recent trends to marginalise certain minority groups of a
 
different religious persuasion on the grounds of potential terrorist
 
connections, and the introduction of excessively restrictive laws using the
 
excuse of national security, Section 116 becomes all the more important to
 
limit the excesses of government in these areas.
 

 
It is therefore imperative that Section 116 is not tampered with in any
 
way. By that I mean that it should not be modified, nor excised, nor
 
translocated into a separate Bill of Rights.
 

 
In fact, it is my view that a Bill of Rights should ONLY be enacted as it
 
is in the US Constitution, as Amendments to the Constitution. The
 
protection afforded by this manoeuvre would be that the people themselves
 
would decide this, preferably by Referendum. As the fate of the monarchy
 
and the Republican debate may also enter into this equation, and possibly
 
obfuscate the issue, it would be best to allow this a separate life.
 

 
Further amendments to the Constitution could be added as further sections,
 
perhaps appended to Section 116, which is the current part of the
 
Constitution guaranteeing a fundamental Human Right.
 

 
An examination of the history of Section 116 is salient. During the 1890s
 
when the Constitutional conventions were being run around Australia, there
 
was a strong move to include as part of the Constituition a statement that
 
"we are a Christian Nation". All manner of discrimination and abuse of
 
rights would have flowed from such an inclusion. Fortunately for human
 
rights, not only was that sectarian issue defeated, but groups as disparate
 
as humanists, atheists, Jews and Seventh-day Adventists combined to urge
 
the adoption of a section whose wording echoes the famous First Amendment
 
of the US Constitution.
 

 
As Christ famously stated, we should "render unto Caesar the things that
 
are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's". This is the very
 
basis of the notion of separation of church and state, and it was stated by
 
the only real Head of the Christian Church.
 

 
In recent times there has been increasing urging from the papacy to break
 
down this wall of separation, arguing on moral grounds and grounds of
 
expediency, even of environmentalism. This would be a most unsound policy
 
to adopt, with the potential for far-reaching sectarian exploitation,
 
favouritism and even persecution, something which the papacy has never
 
officially deserted.
 

 
For example, in his Letter, Dies Domini,(largely drafted by Benedict before
 
his papal election), Pope John Paul II stated "Therefore, also in the
 
particular circumstances of our own time, Christians will naturally strive 

Page 1 of 2 


to ensure that civil legislation respects their duty to keep Sunday holy."
 
This kind of civil legislation, such as will be enforced by the Croatian
 
parliament in January 2009, cuts across the rights of freedom to open a
 
business at certain times and conduct trade freely, as well as enshrining
 
in law a respect for one religion above another.
 

 
In Australia, that would be in contravention of Section 116,
 
notwithstanding that there are several state laws concerning Sunday trading
 
and the like which have never been challenged constitutionally.
 

 
Finally, one has to ask the question (there is no personal rebuff intended
 
here, and notwithstanding the previously declared disinterest of Fr
 
Brennan), 'Is it appropriate to appoint as the Chairman of a committee
 
examining human rights an ordained priest of one particular religion, when
 
the Head of that religion has already expressed an open opposition to
 
separation of church and state, and to the promotion of civil law to
 
enshrine a day of worship?'
 

 
In view of the fact that freedom of worship is considered one of those
 
basic rights stated in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and that a bias
 
might be perceived in such a committee by way of its chair, should not the
 
Chair consider and declare a conflict of interest and stand down?
 

 
Sincerely,
 

 
David Pennington 

Page 2 of 2