In the end the successful operation of democracy is up to the people. The suggestion that a court might be more able than parliament to represent the views of the community, and that it might come to exercise a right to do so, created something of a furore. The Minister for Justice, Senator Tate, objected strongly, despite the efforts of the Attorney-General, Mr. Duffy, to quieten the matter and remove the whole discussion from the public domain. Senator Shacht was another to be 'up in arms' with the suggested diminishment of the role of parliament. In calling such a trend undemocratic he is in company with Aristotle.
Democracy means government in the hands of 'the many' rather than 'the few'.
He too clearly wants to see parliament regain its true representative and decisive role. The Law Institute of Victoria has called for a legislative bill of rights to ease the burden of the High Court, a change which would eventually be embodied in the Constitution by referendum. Canada, in separating from the United Kingdom, followed the American example of a bill of rights, and is finding a resultant politicisation of the judiciary. Any change in the rights and powers under the Constitution should certainly be submitted to the people by way of referendum not by legal decision. He questions the right of judges, who are not elected and for whom there is no review, to 'veto the will of the majority expressed through Parliament', an elected body.