World rights approach erodes sovereignty WHAT an enormous pity the great minds on the Senate's legal and constitutional affairs committee were not forced to attend last Friday's spectacular advocacy conference at Adelaide University. Those present were treated to a free-wheeling discussion between Antonin Scalia of the US Supreme Court and Tom Gray, a judge of the South Australian Supreme Court. Had those Senate committee members been present, those who form the majority might have gained an insight into just how silly they were to adopt an approach to human rights that abrogates Australian sovereignty. The majority of that committee has just signed off on a report that accepts that the definition of human rights that will be used by the planned joint parliamentary committee on human rights will make no reference to domestic sources of human rights. Instead of the Australian Constitution, common law and statute law, the committee will define human rights exclusively by reference to seven international conventions. The majority was happy to see this arrangement become law so long as there is a review down the track. The minority report correctly describes this scheme as bizarre. In the view of the minority, it seems to be "an unhappy convergence of internationalist cosmopolitanism and Benthamite zeal." The minority is right. This committee will be a Trojan horse in the heart of the Australian parliament, undermining democratic decision-making by applying criteria that might be at odds with domestic statutory and judicial determinations. Scalia was highly critical of those who believe it is legitimate to adopt international rulings on human rights. This practice, he believed, was based on what he described with clear contempt as "the ethereal concept of human rights -- capital H, capital R." This means all the judges the world over have the responsibility of deciding human rights. It has nothing to do with the people of the society in which they live -- what they wrote into their constitutions. He asserted, tongue in cheek: "Since we are all engaged in the same enterprise, well, of course we should cite what the French think human rights ought to be, and of course they ought to cite us and you ought to cite us and we ought to cite you because we are all engaged in the same enterprise." Before a silent audience of judges, lawyers and law students, Scalia made it clear that he did not for one moment believe all judges were engaged in the same enterprise, regardless of national boundaries. I have my constitution which was adopted by my people, and certain things were very clear. And I am bound by that and I think you are bound by yours. Once you buy into the notion that it is up there in the stratosphere and it is up to judges to decide what human rights are, you have abandoned self-government . . . unless you want to elect your judges. If the purpose of the joint parliamentary committee on human rights is to downgrade democracy and embrace international jurisprudence, this will certainly do it. If the committee is bound to define human rights according to the meaning of international instruments, it will be forced to turn to international jurisprudence, not Australian law, for guidance. Such an approach will deliver exactly the outcome that Scalia detests.