Mr RANDALL (4:06 PM) —I rise to present a petition on behalf of Canning constituents and Western Australians calling for the government to reject the adoption and notion of a charter or bill of rights in Australia. The petition has been approved by the Standing Committee on Petitions and I welcome this opportunity to say a few words about the petition and reiterate the views of the signatories. There has been a significant debate about a charter of rights in recent months; in fact, former Prime Minister John Howard spoke in Western Australia last week about this very issue. Coinciding with the 60th anniversary last December of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Attorney-General commenced the consultation process into the necessity of a charter of rights. The signatories to the petition have entered this national debate and today I present their petition about the introduction of an Australian bill of rights. The 600-plus signatories confirm their strong support for the ‘protection of God-given human rights’, but they believe that those best placed to protect these rights are elected representatives of the people. The petition says that the signatories:

It goes on to say:

The petitioners rightly note that Australia’s democratic nature means that the protection of human rights is already well-founded. We have protections in the Constitution and in a multitude of state and federal laws. Australia has embedded freedoms and its human rights record is among the best in the world; it is actually envied. The Liberal Party itself is founded on the core notion of individual rights, and the coalition does not believe that a bill of rights is the best way of protecting human rights in Australia.

There is widespread concern that the effect of a statutory charter of rights would result in the transferring of public power from elected representatives of the people to unelected judges. Attempts to codify the fundamental human rights could in fact restrict rights rather than embed them in law. The breadth of power then placed in the courts to determine the scope of these rights not only would result in significant judicial lawmaking but could also result in the clogging of the court system to the nth degree. As my colleague Senator Brandis said recently:

Let me take this opportunity to commend the organisers of the petition, particularly principal petitioner Gary Kleyn and those who widely circulated it. Signatures have come from far and wide. As Australians we respect the democratic process, and by circulating this petition those signatories are playing a role in that process and putting their views on the record. I therefore present the petition on behalf of the signatories.

The petition read as follows—

from 642 citizens

Petition received.