Judges abandon Rudd's summit

TWO former judges have pulled out of the 2020 Summit barely a week before they were due to join a debate on the republic.

TWO former High Court judges have pulled out of the federal Government's 2020 Summit barely a week before they were due to join a contentious debate on the adoption of a charter of rights and the republic.

It is understood former chief justice Anthony Mason and Mary Gaudron, the first female High Court judge, yesterday told summit organisers of their intention to withdraw.

Sir Anthony and Ms Gaudron were named as members of the 2020 Summit's panel on the future of Australian governance two weeks ago, along with a third former High Court judge, Sir William Deane. The governance panel will debate two of the most contentious issues on the table at the summit to be held in Canberra next weekend - the proposal to adopt a charter of rights and the republic.

Their decision to pull out follows growing criticism of the summit by commentators who claim that the agendas of the panels have been crafted to deliver a pre-determined outcome.

Writing in The Australian yesterday, University of Queensland law professor James Allan described the governance panel as a "little charade" that would call for a charter of rights and a move to a republic.

Professor Allan said the inclusion of three liberal retired High Court justices, who were responsible for developing the concept of implied rights, and the exclusion of conservative justices weighted the panel in favour of major governance overhaul. Neither Sir Anthony nor Ms Gaudron could be contacted last night.

The country's peak human rights body confirmed yesterday it would use the 2020 Summit as a forum to argue for a federal charter of rights, but Attorney-General Robert McClelland immediately ruled out any model that would undermine the authority of parliament.

Labor has ruled out a bill of rights along the US model, which would codify a suite of rights in the Constitution. However, it has committed to consult over a non-binding charter of rights.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has included the recommendation for a charter in its submission to the 2020 Summit, accusing Australian l politicians of systematically violating human rights and ignoring their international legal obligations.

Mr McClelland told The Weekend Australian that although human rights violations had occurred in Australia, it was an exaggeration to say there were widespread abuses. And he urged people on all sides of the debate to "take a cold shower", saying the Government would never allow the role of parliament in deciding policy - a key criticism of a charter of rights - to be eclipsed by the courts.

"I can say two things: Australia won't get a constitutional charter of rights and will not get ... any form of instrument that enables the courts to usurp the proper role of parliament," he said.

HREOC human rights commissioner Graham Innes told The Weekend Australian the commission would seek to have a range of models discussed. These would range from a minimalist charter of rights, which Mr Innes said would not usurp the sovereignty of parliament, to a constitutional amendment, which could give the charter legal supremacy over acts of parliament.
The HREOC submission promises to be one of the more contentious of the 1900 so far received by the summit.

It marks the first time the commission has argued the case for a charter of rights, one of the most contentious areas of law reform. Mr Innes said the debate had been hijacked by partisan voices, and the summit would provide an opportunity to discuss the issue sensibly.

On Thursday, NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos, a vehement opponent of a charter of rights, condemned the proposal.

The chairman of the summit's Future of Australian Governance panel, John Hartigan, agreed the debate had become too polarised.

Mr Hartigan - chairman and chief executive of News Limited, publisher of The Weekend Australian - said the role of the summit would be to "break away from these partisan groups that throw their ideology from the sideline and get nowhere".