National Human Rights Consultation Submission 

AGWW-7QQ7UX 

Name: Richard E Mews 

Submission Text: 

2 April 2009
 
National Human Rights Consultation Secretariat
 
Attorney-General's Department
 
Central Office
 
Robert Garran Offices
 
National Circuit
 
BARTON ACT 2600
 
Attention: Father Frank Brennan SJ, The Chairman
 

 
Dear Sir
 

 
This is a personal submission to oppose a “Legislated Bill of Rights” (LBR)
 

 
The objections are put in “Bullet Point” form for brevity and readability
 
but I would be happy to provide substantiating evidence, material etc. I
 
add that I would support completely any “Bill of Rights” which had passed
 
through the Australian Constitutional process, and been approved by the
 
Australian voters in the requisite manner. (State by State, and a majority
 
of the overall vote.)
 

 

1. Adequate Judicial Processes
 
Australia already has adequate judicial processes at State, Federal and
 
National level with other commissions, bureaucracies, etc. specifically
 
charged with the preservation of all “Human Rights”. There is no evidence
 
that these processes are inadequate overall although the area of the Rights
 
of Victims of Crimes is somewhat neglected. Australia, most importantly,
 
has a FREE MEDIA, which has the ability both on a wholesale and retail
 
(internet) basis to air all opinions and grievances.
 

 
2. Politicians are elected, the Judiciary is selected and cannot be
 
dismissed
 
There is no reason to believe even more judicial (unelected) power will be
 
beneficial. We have a constitution which allows for free elections, and
 
the separation of powers. Let us continue to use that, rather than give
 
power to unelected officials of any type, including judges who cannot be
 
removed until they are seventy.
 

 
3. Legislated Human Rights Legislation (HRL) Threatens Free Media and
 
Free Speech
 
The experience in Canada and the UK (similar constitutional histories to
 
Australia) is that so called Human Rights legislation has been and can be
 
used to stifle, threaten and cajole free opinions. The same sequence has
 
happened in Victoria. Similarly there is a resolution before the United
 
Nations which essentially threatens free speech and free opinion in the
 
matter of a specific religion. Religion is merely politics continued by
 
other means in many cases, (or the reverse) this would threaten the only
 
realistic defence most citizens have a free media, in a free democracy.
 
(Refer Christopher Hichens.) Further there is no evidence to suggest that
 
judges are good at theology. Any encouragement to the shutting down of
 
free speech merely perpetrates the pattern of violence that lead to the
 
killings of a number of publishers of a boring novel called “Satanic
 
Verses”.
 

 
4. Legislated Human Rights Legislation Would be Divisive
 
The evidence in Canada and elsewhere is that HRL actually promotes internal
 
strife rather than solving it and the same appears to be the case in the
 
United Kingdom. This is underlined by the comments of longtime Minister
 
Jack Straw. 
Page 1 of 3 


5. Legislated HRL Would Politicise to a Further Degree the
 
Judiciary
 
Currently the judiciary seem very sensitive to external criticism (and can
 
of course use contempt of court to stop free speech). If there is a voted
 
constitutional Bill of Rights then politicisation of the judiciary would
 
occur but it would be at the behest of the majority. If legislated
 
(imposed) HRL is introduced the politicisation will be more significant as
 
it will be seen as lawyers imposing their will on the voting public,
 
without authorization via the constitution.
 

 
5. Legislated HRL Would Hold Back Economic Development and Investment
 
At no time since 1933 has Australia needed economic investment more than in
 
2009. Properly, there are processes and legislative requirements for
 
processing such transactions and these are in place, (whether for
 
industrial, mining, property, infrastructure, etc.) if yet another platform
 
is given to unproductive lawyers to delay approved investment, the economy
 
will suffer substantially over time.
 

 
6. Legislated HRL Will Prevent/Delay the Prosecution of Criminal
 
Violence
 
The nature of crime in Australian cities is changing to the Mexican, South
 
American, Northern Irish and other global models where violence,
 
criminality, drugs, religion and politics are closely intertwined. If
 
criminal defence lawyers are allowed yet another platform to get their
 
violent clients freed, there is a substantial danger to the peaceful
 
population. Columbia, Mexico, Chechenya, Lebanon, are lessons for
 
everybody and not by any means the worst. Legislated HRL would clearly
 
assist this trend, the logic of which is for the population to seek justice
 
directly, and that everybody has to be a member of a “gang”.
 

 
7. Legislated HRL will add to the Contradiction of the Laws
 
There are a number of jurisdictions (the Philippines for example) where
 
there are so many laws that there is almost always a conflict. Australia
 
may not yet be in that situation (but examples of Privacy, DOCS, etc.)
 
suggest we are moving that way. Clearly a legislated HRL would accelerate
 
this contradiction trend. In the end of course the reductio ad absurdum
 
way of conflicting laws is lawlessness.
 

 
8. 
Legislated HRL will not improve Australia’s global standing
 
A suggestion has been made that legislated HRL is necessary for
 
Australia to get rotating
 
membership of the UN Security Council in 2013. The rotating
 
membership is not worth a row
 
of beans except to a few diplomats (the money would be better spent
 
drilling fresh water wells
 
in Africa). However, given that top billing at the UN is given to
 
such wonderful free fair
 
countries as Russia, PRC; Libya; Iran: Syria; Myanmar, Sudan etc. it
 
is hard to believe anybody
 
could seriously hold this opinion.
 



 9. Legislated HRL Would Threaten The External Security of
 
Australia
 
Drugs and terrorism are rife globally and they easily tear down the
 
structures of politics and the
 
laws. UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown estimates there are fifty major
 
terrorists’ plots on foot
 
against the UK in Pakistan at any one time. Mexico has had fifty
 
thousand drug related deaths
 

 



 in the past twelve months. Clearly any reduction in vigilance or
 
further obstructions put in the
 
way of the Australian intelligence and security services would
 
substantially increase the threat
 
of violence in Australia generated overseas. Australia is an open 

Page 2 of 3 


society and it cannot take
 
that risk. Pakistan is unfortunately not the only country where
 
extreme violence is being
 
generated by Terrorism, nor is Mexico the only country terrorised by
 
Drug Cartels. The security


 of resident Australians should be of paramount importance.
 

 
In conclusion, if there is a case for Human Rights legislation, it should
 
be put to the Australian people in a Referendum and if it is passed in the
 
required manner, it will no doubt be an object of wisdom. Legislated HRL
 
on the other hand is an imposed structure which is likely unconstitutional
 
and of no benefit to anybody except to puff up a number of wealthy lawyers.
 
It is a detriment to free media, to free speech, to social harmony, to the
 
internal and external security of citizens and it will necessarily
 
politicize the judiciary. I very much hope that if the Committee finds a
 
reason to support the concept it recommends that its findings be put
 
forward as a Constitutional amendment, and does not on any account
 
recommend legislation.
 

 
Yours sincerely
 
Richard Mews 

Page 3 of 3