Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Disclaimer: The Parliamentary Library does not warrant the accuracy of closed captions. These are derived automatically from the broadcaster's signal.
ABC News Breakfast -

View in ParlView

(generated from captions) the bulls by the horns in

many ways and started to do

that. Pressure for a national

charter of human rights is building. The issue is back

in the news with the

publication of a report from the Federal Government

appointed human rights

consultation panel. It says

many Australians are not

informed about what human

rights are or how they are

currently protected. Senator

George Brandis is the

Opposition spokesman on this

issue and he joins us from

Canberra. What is wrong with

ensuring that people's most

basic human rights are

protected? There is nothing

wrong with that. In fact that

is what our system does and

to the ex-Trent to which

there are gaps or short

comings in that system they

should be remedied but that

the opposition says is the

way to do that is not to have

a charter of rights which

inevitably will rebalance

political power from the

elected arms of Government t

Parliament of the executive

into the hands of unelected

judges and in doing so both

diminish the Parliament and

polite sties the judiciary. Under the act

judges could not strike

outlaws they find discriminatory, would it have

to be referred back to Parliament where the

Government would have the

final say Well, I know that

model has been proposed but

for all practical purposes if

the High Court were to make

what is called a declaration

of in compatibility between

and acted passed by the Parliament and its current

view of the meaning of the

charter of rights that would

for all practical purposes be

regarded as the High Court for all practical purposes be

striking down the bill. There

is no equivalent in power in

those circumstances between

the Parliament and the High

Court and to the extent by

the way to which over the

years there may develop an

equivalence of power between

the Parliament and the High

Court that could only come

about by people beginning to

conceive of the High Court

not as a court of law but as

essentially a political

institution which we would

think would be a very

dangerous development. The

former Chief Justice Murray

Gleeson said in a recent

lecture there are those who

oppose the human rights act

on the base is that will give

judges more power, thee are

the one thanks can say it can

be done by the common law.

Guess what? The common law is

done only by judge goes and

not Parliament so that is

not Parliament so that is a

spurious argument? Well I

think that the argument is

more sophisticated than that.

There is a range of protections of human rights

both in the common law that

is true but more particularly

by statute including

anti-discrimination statutes

enacted by Parliament. The

reality is that law reform

these days is more located in

the Parliament through the

the Parliament through the

amendment of statute law

within in the courts through

the gradual evolution of

common law so I think one has

to look at the whole of the

law not focus on the common

law because the common law is

not where one looks for most

human rights protections. A

lot of people in the

Australian community though

might be more comfortable

with judges having a say on

these issues rather than

politicians anyway. I don't think they would.

think they would. Let me give

you an example. Most of the

of the human rights that the

committee proposes be

included in a commit. The

right to private property for

example. But what happens

when you have a competition

where the boundaries of one

right end and another begins?

What happens with

inconsistent rights because

they are contestable

concepts. Who makes the

choice? We say it should be

parliamentarians elected by

the people having these

debates in the clear light of

today rather than an Archeaan

process of adjudication in

the courts. Who is to say the

the courts. Who is to say the

rights to marry includes the

rights of gay people or the

right of freedom to forced

labour or the rights of

unions, these are issues on

which people of goodwill can

have different opinions and

we say the forum in which

those different opinions

could be argued for and

could be argued for and resolve of the is the

Parliament speaking through representatives of the

public. We will turn to the

Liberal Party now. You a strong supporter of Malcolm

Turnbull. I am. Last night

we had Julian McGauran saying

he would not support the

Emissions Trading Scheme Bill

under any circumstances.

Should he pull his head in?

I'm not saying he should. One

of the big differences

between the Liberal Party and

the Labor Party is that on

most sides of politics we

allow the expression of

individual dissent. If he

were in the Labor Party and

had dissent from the Labor

Party line he would have been

dispelled in 24 hours so we

are proud of that on our side

that there is a tolerance of

difference and there are

others as well but my view

that is Malcolm Turnbull and

the shadow Cabinet's handling of

of this matter will be

endorsed by the party room.

There will be a number that

will have a different view

and they are free to have it. Does Malcolm Turnbull

have to change his leadership

style if he is to keep the

job and get everybody on

board? I think Malcolm

Turnbull - everybody has

their own particular style. I

think Malcolm Turnbull is a

leader who leads from the

front. He is a very strong

and purposeful man and I

think we saw that last week

and I think rather than a

simpering poll-driven leader

like Kevin Rudd Malcolm

Turnbull is an awe thon tick

strong leader who leads from

the front and I support that

style very much. Not

necessarily about with the

support of everybody behind

him? Let's get this into

context. Senator McGauran is

one voice, there are a few

others as well but there are

about 80 people in the

Liberal Party room.

Inevitably when somebody says

they dissent from the party

position or want the attack

the leader they will attract

to themselves an enormous

amounts of publicity. That does not mean they represent

where the weight of opinion

lies in the party room which

Senator McGauran in my view certainly does not.