Greg Hunt (Flinders, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In supporting this motion on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I begin with article 1 of the declaration. It reads:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

In short, this article—this provision, this motion—at the very beginning of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, summarises the fundamental proposition. It is drawn from a heritage across cultures. Whether it is the United States constitution, the French constitution or one of many other documents from around the world, it is encapsulated, it is embodied and it is brought together in this first article within the great and profound Universal Declaration of Human Rights. To give it a colloquial meaning: it is what the great British explorer Wilfred Thesiger described as giving people the best shot at ‘the life of my choice’. That is ultimately what the declaration says, it is what we on this side of the House as a political movement believe in and it is a rightful aspiration for people all around the world to pursue. In addressing this motion on the universal declaration, I want to look briefly at three things: the first is the reality of human rights today; the second is the role that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can play and has played in improving that situation; and the third is the eternal role of vigilance that we all have in preserving and promoting those rights.

Turning first to the reality, I want to begin in Cambodia in 1998. I was fortunate enough to have had the role of Australia’s chief electoral observer during the 1998 Cambodian elections. One of the most profound experiences of my life was to witness—on the morning of the election, at 7 am, with more than a thousand people lined up for their right to vote—an elderly lady, probably about 80, who would have lived through the conflict associated with the Vietnam War and the Cambodian spillover, lived through the Pol Pot regime, lived through the Vietnamese invasion and lived through the rough transition to democracy. The way in which it was indicated that somebody had completed their vote was by placing an indelible ink print on their forefinger. The first person through this thousand-strong crowd was this elderly woman. She was shuddering and she was frail. After she completed her vote, she walked out, faced the crowd of a thousand and placed her forefinger in the air with the clear mark of the indelible ink on it, and the crowd of a thousand people cheered because they had the right to vote.

She stood for everything that that country had been through and the fact that it was making a transition to democracy and fulfilling, for the first time, the great principles and hopes set out in this universal declaration. This was a country for which the universal declaration was no mere background document. The little blue book which contained it was distributed and taught to primary school children. It was a profound document which was at the forefront of changing every notion about civil society which had been distorted and perverted during the Pol Pot years and the years of imperial occupation. For the first time, Cambodia was transformed into a genuine democracy. There are still flaws, there are still human rights issues, but today it is a very different country to what it was in 1993 at the first of the elections and in 1998 at the first of the real elections.

The second experience I want to relate is that of being in Rwanda just after that country had been through a tragic genocide. I witnessed a society which had been torn apart, which had completely failed every test of human rights. The universal declaration there was nothing more than a theoretical construct. I met families who had lost members, I saw sites which had witnessed unspeakable horrors and I talked with people who had fled for their lives. This was a country which had seen the vacation of all standards of human morality, although in the midst there were stories of great bravery, of people who had placed their lives on the line, and in many cases had lost their lives, to protect others—the most noble of human sentiments. But the system failed, the community was damaged and a million people lost their lives.

The third issue which I have faced was while working for the secretary-general’s special representative for the former Yugoslavia in 1993. It was in Geneva during the period in which the worst of the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia were occurring. There were stories of families being locked in houses and those houses being set alight, stories which I do not wish to repeat but which will stay with me for ever. But what is clear is that this was somewhere where the norms of the universal declaration were in contest, where there was a great battle. Ultimately there was a period of tragedy, but what we see in the former Yugoslavia and in the differing successor states is an attempt, a push forward, to bring a level of stability and to fight down those who would break apart the norms which were established in the universal declaration. It is a tough struggle. That brings me to what this declaration represents. It represents a simple proposition:

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Then, I think very significantly, it has as one of the great bulwarks of protection:

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

These are genuinely universal norms not just for the world today but for the world as it proceeds over the next decade, over the next generation, over the next century and over the next millennium. They are the norms to which we aspire. They are the benchmarks to which we will hold individual countries and individual governments and ourselves accountable as we proceed forward.

This brings me to the third point: it is not enough to have a document. There were powerful words in the former Soviet constitution which were most notable for the fact that they were ignored, most notable for the fact that they represented nothing more than a fabrication and a fraud upon the people and most notable because they were honoured only in the breach. So these words in this universal declaration will mean nothing unless they are backed up by a strong and powerful will amongst the international community to stand up for their enforcement, to stand up for their recognition, to stand up for the people who are the subject of the very declaration. The poorest, the weakest, the most lame are those who most need the strong, the capable and the powerful to enforce those words. That is our task, that is our duty, that is our sacred responsibility and that is my commitment, my pledge and my personal duty.

Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Over the last few years we have had occasion to mark the 60th anniversary of some of the key events in recent human history. The day 27 January 2005 marked the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which I have visited, displays the testimony of Bart Stern, one of the few inmates who was found alive at the death camp when the Soviet army arrived. He recalled:

I was hiding out in the heap of dead bodies because in the last week when the crematoria didn’t function at all, the bodies were just building up higher and higher.

The day of 6 August 2005 marks the 60th anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima. It killed more than 100,000 people. Its terrible impact continues today. Tuesday, 9 December 2008 will mark the 60th anniversary of the adoption by the UN General Assembly of the genocide convention. These anniversaries recall bleak, dark days and also days that showed out of that darkness the emergence again of light, the possibility again of peace. Nations across the globe came together with a new commitment to a standard for humanity, a standard of civilisation.

The United Nations itself was born out of the destruction and the horror of World War II. The UN Security Council chamber has as its central feature a large mural painting by the Norwegian artist Per Krogh. As described by the UN, the mural:

… depicts a phoenix rising from its ashes, as a symbol of the world being rebuilt after the Second World War. Above the dark sinister colours at the bottom different images in bright colours symbolizing the hope for a better future are depicted. Equality is symbolized by a group of people weighing out grain for all to share.

In my electorate office in Fremantle I have on the wall a print of a Picasso painting that I originally had in my office when I worked for the United Nations peacekeeping mission in Kosovo and that I have carried around the world with me. The painting is entitled Sun and Dove over Ruins and it depicts a dove flying up towards the sun, away from the smouldering ruins of a town. It symbolises perfectly the hope of peace after destruction.

Next Wednesday, 10 December, we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the adoption by the UN General Assembly of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In the compilation of humanity’s foundation texts, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights belongs at the very front and at the very top. The first 31 words of the preamble are as follows:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world …

In 30 simple yet powerful articles, the declaration goes on to list in detail the substance of our human rights. These are the fundamental entitlements and freedoms of every human being. From article 3, which enshrines the right to life, liberty and security of persons, flow the civil and political rights contained in articles 4 through to 21. From article 22, which rightly presupposes that individuals naturally belong to societies, flow the economic, social and cultural rights contained in articles 23 through to 27. These strands or themes in the declaration in turn find their expression in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with its two optional protocols, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Together with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, these documents comprise the International Bill of Human Rights, the foundations of international human rights law.

The system and administration of international law and the observation and enforcement of human rights are far from perfect. Perhaps the greatest obstacle remains the set of difficulties inherent in a world whose organising principle is the sovereignty of the nation-state. So far in human history we have not reached the point of being able to ensure that the human rights contained in the universal declaration are enjoyed by all people. It may be that we never reach that day, and, if that is the case, it is all the more important that we work harder and harder for those incremental improvements that might stop a child from dying of malnutrition in Bangladesh, a village being wiped out in Sudan or the Congo, a prisoner being subjected to torture at Abu Ghraib or denied habeas corpus at Guantanamo Bay, or an asylum seeker being detained behind razor wire to the point of madness and self-harm in the South Australian desert.

I have already had occasion in this place to quote from one of my favourite poets, Nobel laureate Seamus Heaney, twice this year, but I think I must do it again today, as he has once again perfectly articulated my thoughts, with an eloquence of which I am not capable. Heaney reflected this year on how the universal declaration remains a profound force for historical good. He said:

Since it was framed, the Declaration has succeeded in creating an international moral consensus. It is always there as a means of highlighting abuse if not always as a remedy: it exists instead in the moral imagination as an equivalent of the gold standard in the monetary system. The articulation of its tenets has made them into world currency of a negotiable sort. Even if its Articles are ignored or flouted—in many cases by governments who have signed up to them—it provides a worldwide amplification system for “the still, small voice”.

The 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is an occasion to remember and celebrate what has been achieved, and to consider what more can be done to advance the cause of human rights, both domestically and internationally. As an important component of the Rudd government’s re-engagement with the United Nations, we have issued a standing invitation to UN human rights experts and special rapporteurs to visit Australia and consider the protection of human rights in this country. We join 61 other nations in taking that step—in acknowledging that Australia, like any country, respects international human rights and the supervision of human rights protection by multilateral agencies.

The Rudd government understands that the cause of human rights requires ongoing vigilance, action and international participation. In July we ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and were among the first Western countries to do so. Australia’s nominee, Professor Ron McCallum AO, was successfully nominated to the UN committee monitoring the implementation of the convention.

The Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, of which I am proud to be a member, has recommended that Australia adopt the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The government is also intending to ratify the optional protocol to the convention against torture and to sign the new treaty banning cluster munitions.

The government is committed to tackling, in our region, the Millennium Development Goals, which aim to spur development by improving social and economic conditions in the world’s poorest countries.

In moving to incorporate human rights principles into Australian domestic law, this government has introduced two pieces of legislation that combine to remove the discrimination that exists towards same-sex couples and their children in around 100 current laws. I commend the Attorney-General for this work and for the progress that has been made through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General on the path to harmonisation and consistency when it comes to Commonwealth and state antidiscrimination measures.

I am heartened that this new government is taking a lawful, humane and non-political approach to asylum seekers and border protection. I would like to cite article 14(1) of the declaration, which states:

Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

The entry into the Australian vernacular of the term ‘illegals’ to describe asylum seekers says everything about the previous administration’s willingness to throw human rights overboard in the name of cynical politics.

The Rudd government is also committed to national consultation on the question of an Australian charter of human rights. I welcome the commitment and look forward to that process. It is something that the Australian public should be given the opportunity to discuss.

On Monday, 24 November, the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade held a seminar celebrating the 60th anniversary of the universal declaration, with very special guest speakers Professor Hilary Charlesworth and Emeritus Professor Ivan Shearer, who both have distinguished academic and international credentials in human rights law. I was pleased to hear Professor Shearer speak of his recognition of the need for a charter of rights following the decision in the 2004 Al-Kateb case, in which the High Court held that a stateless person who had committed no offence against any law of Australia and who had requested deportation following the failure of his request for refugee status could be held in detention indefinitely, and, if necessary, for life, if no foreign country were willing to receive him. The court found that the Australian Constitution contained no protections against this clear violation of the fundamental human right to liberty and against arbitrary detention.

By legislating for a charter of rights, Australia will finally incorporate into domestic law its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Furthermore, as I said in this place in the adjournment debate on 1 December, it is vitally important that Australia incorporate into domestic law its obligations under the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is aimed at the universal abolition of the death penalty. Article 1.2 requires that ‘each state party shall take all necessary measures to abolish the death penalty within its jurisdiction’. I believe the time has come to honour that obligation in the form of Commonwealth legislation. Lives depend upon it.

My experience working in the United Nations has shown me that the rights and standards articulated at the international level are concerned with the essential dignity of the individual and the community. They can only be implemented at the local level, whether it is in vaccinating a child or building a toilet in implementation of the Millennium Development Goals; or planting a tree, in implementation of our commitments under Kyoto to combat global warming; or defending the human rights of workers to bargain collectively with their employers.

This thought was expressed eloquently by Eleanor Roosevelt, who played a key role in drafting the universal declaration and referred to it as ‘the international Magna Carta of all mankind’. Mrs Roosevelt chaired the Human Rights Commission in its first years. She asked:

Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home—so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any map of the world. Yet they are the world of the individual person: the neighbourhood he lives in; the school or college he attends; the factory, farm or office where he works. Such are the places where every man, woman and child seeks equal justice, equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination. Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.

I want to conclude by returning to where I began. As the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, said with regard to the campaign to recognise the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

This campaign reminds us that in a world still reeling from the horrors of the Second World War, the Declaration was the first global statement of what we now take for granted—the inherent dignity and equality of all human beings.

I would only add, with the greatest respect to my former boss, that there are still too many people in the world who cannot take such dignity and equality for granted. As Aung San Suu Kyi has said:

Please use your liberty to promote ours.

Steve Irons (Swan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would first like to acknowledge the contributions made by the member for Flinders and the member for Fremantle. I know that the member for Fremantle has a long-term interest in human rights and has worked with the United Nations overseas. I applaud her contribution. I would also like to acknowledge the contributions made yesterday on this matter by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is remarkable. It was designed in 1948 by the then 58 member states of the United Nations. These states represented a diversity of cultures, political systems and ideas. However, they were able to produce a strong document which shared common goals and ideas. This achievement gives us great hope for the future. Globalisation has meant that issues that were once able to be settled within national borders are now inherently international in nature. Climate change and the global financial crisis are two such issues that have been important topics in this place this year.

As the shadow minister for the environment, the member for Flinders, who spoke before me, would remind us, one of the three pillars of the coalition’s approach to climate change is that any response must be part of a concerted international effort. Globalisation is often defined as the interaction of economies on a global scale. The domino effect the world witnessed after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the US proves that we are part of a delicate global community.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights shows that we can transcend international borders and find common ground. I am hopeful that in the coming years we can achieve this. The great libertarian philosophers of the 19th century, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, laid the foundation stones on which our modern liberal democracy was built. It was John Stuart Mill who in 1859 wrote:

The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good, in our own way.

It is this principle that individualism and individual freedom are fundamentally and absolutely important that has inspired generations of conservatives to stand in this place and fight for those rights not only with words but with actions.

It is also this philosophy of individualism and freedom that forms the foundations on which the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was built and exists today. In celebrating the 60th anniversary of the declaration on 10 December 2008, we must also remember that fundamental to the protection of human rights and freedoms is the eternal vigilance of all citizens. The biggest danger in codifying human rights is that, in doing so, we lose that sense of vigilance and find ourselves caught off-guard when our freedom is genuinely threatened.

There has been much discussion across the states and territories and in this place about legislating bills of rights and human rights acts. What we must always remember when considering these important pieces of legislation is that documents on their own do not protect our rights. These pieces of legislation are often controversial and must be considered case by case and bill by bill. The content of any human rights legislation is significant and important and must be heavily reviewed before any decision is made. It is easy to use hollow words to proclaim the importance of human rights and the protection of those rights, but it is another thing entirely to move beyond mere words to take the action needed to ensure that the inalienable rights of each individual are properly protected.

In rising today to speak on this motion, I would like to emphasise that the declaration in and of itself does not protect our rights; what protects our rights is the vigilance of citizens who believe in and live by the rights that are enshrined in the declaration. In particular, article 20(2) of the declaration states that:

No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

It is important that we as members of parliament remember this article. The mere codification of this right, although important, does not protect it.

The advocates for the codification of human rights are rarely those people who are oppressed or discriminated against. The advocates for the codification of human rights are too often those who would benefit the most from a more litigious society. Lord Robert Walker of the House of Lords, when speaking to the New South Wales Charter Group in August 2007, said:

… the promotion of freedom, equality and civility in human societies depends not only on the text of laws enacted by the legislature … but also on the way we have been brought up to behave towards each other, and the way we bring up our children to behave towards each other.

The protection of human rights is best maintained by a vigilant society in which every citizen is relentlessly conscious of the ability of others to infringe on their rights and is constantly aware of the need to defend their personal rights and freedoms.

In celebrating the anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we must ask ourselves: what difference does the codification of human rights make on its own? An answer to this question can be found by comparing the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The United Kingdom parliament has supreme sovereignty, whereas the USSR was bound by a charter of rights. These included freedom of speech, under article 50, freedom of the press, also under article 50, freedom of assembly, under article 50 as well, and the right to religious belief and worship, under article 52. Yet it was in the United Kingdom, without a codified bill of rights or human rights act, where the rights of citizens were protected and are still protected today, while in the USSR, despite a codified bill of rights, important individual freedoms were abused and withheld.

This morning at the doors of parliament the media asked me what my thoughts were on a bill of rights. This issue has been discussed in Western Australia and nationally. My thoughts on a bill of rights are that, without having seen a definitive proposal, it is difficult to support or oppose something without knowing whether it is going to improve the lives of Australians and not take away some of the already existing inalienable rights in our Constitution. We need to ensure that any proposed bill of rights does not override any existing legislation and take away the rights that already exist and are the cornerstone of our society.

In concluding, I would like to say that I am a proud supporter of the principles in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But, more importantly, I am a supporter of upholding those very human and eternal values which the declaration upholds—not only in words but in action as well.

Kerry Rea (Bonner, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too am very proud to stand in this chamber this morning to support the Prime Minister’s motion commemorating and celebrating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was developed by the United Nations 60 years ago next week. The day of 10 December will certainly mark a significant anniversary for us as Australian citizens and for many around the world who have benefited directly from the incredible power of those 30 articles which have already been referred to by previous speakers. I once again congratulate the Prime Minister for coming into the House yesterday and moving a motion on the universal declaration. It showed how significant the issue of human rights is for the Rudd Labor government that the Prime Minister himself came into the chamber and took the opportunity to move that motion. I cannot think of anybody else in the chamber or any other member who, in a sense, has a greater knowledge, understanding and passion for the United Nations, for international events and indeed for support across the globe of the protection of human rights than our current Prime Minister. I think it is very fitting that it is he who has the opportunity to celebrate the 60th anniversary in such a prestigious way.

The RSL, as we know, is an organisation that exists to support and protect the rights of returned soldiers in this country, many of whom are victims or indeed survivors of World War II, the war which led to the development of this particular declaration. The RSL’s motto is: ‘The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.’ Whilst many see that in a military context, I think it is just as important to apply it to the protection of human rights. I had the opportunity on Monday in the grievance debate to talk about the 60th anniversary. I did not know then that the Prime Minister was going to move a motion on it. As Chair of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I felt it was important not only to highlight this anniversary on Monday evening but to once again talk about this very significant event as a result of support for the Prime Minister’s motion.

The RSL’s slogan—the price of liberty is eternal vigilance—is one that is perhaps highlighted more today than when it was first drafted. As I said on Monday night, the random and irrational violence, terror and cruelty that we see occurring, no less recently than last weekend in the city of Mumbai, highlight how significant the challenge is for governments across the world to try and ensure that balance exists between protecting national security and at the same time ensuring that we also protect the rights and individual freedoms of individual citizens. To try and find that balance in law and government policy is a real challenge and I think it is one that highlights more than anything else how significant this declaration is and how, as the previous speaker, the member for Fremantle, said, important it is that we as a country engage in a debate and a discussion about how we can enshrine human rights and individual freedoms in some form of law to protect all of us.

I also think it is timely when we are considering this anniversary to focus on the human rights of our own citizens within Australia. We often pride ourselves on being a very free, progressive and civilised democracy and therefore tend to discuss human rights in the context of other countries where unfortunately their citizens do not have the same rights and freedoms that we enjoy here. But we must be very careful and ever vigilant about our own backyard as much as others’. I am very pleased that this year the Rudd government has acknowledged that there are still people within our own country whose human rights are not ‘as equal as others.’ We have seen the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which I do want to mention specifically today as it is, in fact, the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. I think it is quite fitting that we should acknowledge that today.

Australia also supports the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, and we are doing work on the convention against torture.

Of course, the reason we are having this debate here in the Committee is that many people are in the other chamber debating the fair work legislation that this government introduced which restores the individual rights and freedoms of people to work in a workplace without exploitation and to have certain legal rights, and ensures that they are the beneficiaries of a fair industrial relations system. The legislation introduced by the Deputy Prime Minister goes a long way to ensuring that the rights of working people in this country have once again been restored after having suffered under such extreme and terrible legislation from the previous government.

I encourage everybody over the next couple of weeks, particularly members of this parliament, to go back and read the universal declaration and the 30 articles that it contains. It is a beautifully written document. It also goes far in its wording, to really make it hit home how important individual rights are, to describe the various ways in which people can suffer if those rights are not protected. It not only talks about what those rights are—the right to freedom of association, the right to education, to right to equality, the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of religion or culture and other factors—but also talks about the causes and the reasons that often exist which deprive individual citizens in many countries of very basic human rights.

It talks about the issue of poverty and it talks about the need for education as being not just a means to enable people to fend for themselves or seek a livelihood but important to give individual people the understanding and the self-knowledge to fight against possible oppression and the deprivation of their own liberties and those of others if ever it does occur. It talks about legal freedoms and how important it is in any democracy for people to not just have the right to vote in an election and elect their representatives in their government but have an independent judiciary, and how important it is that the rule of law is there to protect the individual rights of citizens and that everybody has access to that.

The Prime Minister referred yesterday to the Millennium Development Goals. In the context of addressing the reasons why many people are deprived of human rights, it is nowhere more poignantly evident than when looking at the Millennium Development Goals that we as a nation and indeed as a global community must strive to see those goals reached. They are the ways in which many individual people throughout the world will in fact be able to not just achieve the human rights that we enjoy but have the knowledge and the resources to protect them.

By way of closing I suggest that all members in the House read article 24 of the declaration, which says:

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

As members of parliament, as we count down to the end of the year, I suggest we all familiarise ourselves with that very article and remember that we have families, friends and holidays to enjoy over the Christmas season. We should, first and foremost, see that article in our minds every day and ensure that we always keep that balance between leisure and our commitment to our parliamentary duties.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to acknowledge the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 10 December. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was introduced in 1948 when the world was reeling from the horrors of the Second World War—when the full extent of the attempted extermination of the Jewish race was unfolding and when the full extent of the horror of Russia under the Stalinist regime was bringing itself to the fore. The declaration states what we have always taken for granted and what the Americans had enshrined in their lead document so many centuries ago: all people are created equal and there is inherent dignity and equality in all human beings.

As I look across the chamber I acknowledge the member for Eden-Monaro. Like me, he has seen many of the horrors of mankind. I saw troops in Rwanda in 1995 in Kubeo during the great massacre, I was with the US Seventh Fleet outside of Cambodia in 1995 and I spent five months in the war-torn province of Bougainville in PNG following the civil war. Every year for the last five years I have gone to Uganda, being the secretary of the international board of Watoto, which seeks to address the horrifying incidence of two million orphaned children in Uganda, the highest rate of orphaned children anywhere in the world. I reflect on the nation of Uganda that reeled from the horrors of Milton Obote through to Idi Amin in the seventies, and then back to Milton Obote, and the violence that that country has been through. I reflect on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and look at some of those two million orphans, of whom we only care for some 2,000. Those orphaned children have inherent dignity and equality, as do all human beings. Everyone should be able to rely on just laws. Everyone should be able to live freely—free from fear of large and imposing governments that know best; free from incarceration without charge, as per article 9; free from torture, as per article 5; and, as article 13 states, everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within each state—free from any borders, any checks or, indeed, any permit system.

As we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we cannot be lax and fall into a false sense of security. We cannot use this bill of rights as an excuse to take away the authority and power from elected politicians who are accountable to the people every three years and put the ability to make laws into the hands of an unaccountable judiciary. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. The world has made great strides following the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The world has made great strides in checking and addressing some of the abuses of the past and has moved towards a more just and humane world. The price of that justice, the price of that liberty, is eternal vigilance, and vigilant we must remain eternally.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great pleasure to rise today to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was a great step forward in the human condition. But the history of the UDHR tells us that, as the member for Fadden has highlighted, progress is not inevitable. There are many times when we need to be vigilant as to the maintenance and upholding of those fundamental rights. The UDHR itself was the product of a long history of the human condition, seeking to describe and instil the essence of the human condition in terms of the natural and inherent rights of each individual person.

It goes back as far as the Hammurabi codes of Babylon, and we have seen the writings of many philosophers through the years trying to find and distil what those natural rights of man are—great writers such as Hugo Grotius, Thomas Aquinas, Baruch Spinoza, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. It was the enlightenment period of the 18th century that really provided the framework and the foundation for Thomas Jefferson’s great piece of work—the one we celebrate so much in the history of democracy on this planet, the United States declaration of independence. That document formally set down as a state instrument the first signalling of the natural rights of the human condition. It was also a reflection of expressions that had been attempted before that—of course, in the Magna Carta in our own British common-law tradition—but we really started to see instruments formulated after the declaration of independence. There was the declaration of the rights of man after the French Revolution. Down through the years we have seen the evolution of the United States Bill of Rights as a result of what Thomas Jefferson produced, the foundation that he laid, for the enshrining of rights in his country.

But there was a hiatus in the development of human rights in terms of international legal instruments, and it was really leapfrogged during the second half of the 19th century by the laws relating to the regulation of armed conflict. We had the Geneva conventions and The Hague conventions during that period. But human rights started to get back on the international agenda following the formation of the League of Nations after the First World War. It is very interesting to note that in the mandate system that was created by the league the very first enunciation in an international body of human rights issues was the calling for the regulation of the condition of the occupants of those mandated territories in relation to fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women and children. That led to the creation in 1920 of the International Labour Organisation. This was really the first step in the development of our modern regime of human rights and it began, interestingly, in looking at the regulation of labour and the conditions of workers.

I think the real impetus, though, obviously came with the Second World War and the lead-up to it, and in particular the horrendous experiences from 1933 in the way that Nazi Germany treated its Jewish minority. That appalling episode in human history highlighted the fact that in a civilised, industrialised country progress was not inevitable. There was an incredible backsliding not only in the conditions of morality and the perceptions of the value of the individual but in bringing to bear the weight of the industrialised system of a modern developed country to execute those warped and detestable ideologies. Of course we know the outcome—six million Jews exterminated, and in the course of the Second World War many millions of people in occupied territories fell victim to the regime of the Nazis and their collaborators in various countries.

This experience led the United States in particular to feel that the international regime needed to set in front of itself a mission to redefine the human condition. It was President Roosevelt who outlined the four freedoms in his speech before the United States congress in 1941. He outlined those as freedom of speech and expression, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. Of course, President Roosevelt was ably aided in his time in the presidency and in the years following the Second World War, as the United States was ably served, by his wife, Eleanor Roosevelt, one of the great figures in the development of the UDHR.

An interesting phenomenon of this process, the groundswell that built up following the Second World War, was the involvement of non-government organisations, and we have seen that flourish more recently too, in relation to the development of conventions like the antipersonnel landmines convention and the convention against cluster munitions. Over 1,300 American non-government organisations got involved in a serious advertising campaign to generate the requirement for the development of a document setting down fundamental human rights. That achieved its expression in the UN Charter itself, which gave human rights a new international legal status. In many of the provisions of the charter—in fact five times, including in the preamble—you will see references to human rights in the founding purposes of the United Nations.

Of course, that charter and its preparation owed a great deal to the Australian delegation and to the great work of Dr Bert Evatt in the work that was done at the United Nations. It shows what an impact a country like Australia can have when it engages constructively with an organisation like the United Nations.

There were many provisions of the UN Charter that called on human rights protection. The charter included, in the first article, the requirement that member states work:

To achieve international co-operation … in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion …

Article 55 stated that the UN will promote ‘universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms’. Article 56 stated that members ‘pledge themselves to take joint and separate action’ to achieve that respect. So there was a platform for building. In article 68 of the charter, it was mandated that the UN Economic and Social Council set up a commission for the promotion of human rights, and that got the ball rolling for the development of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

A number of organisations worked early on to promote the content of the declaration, and these included organisations such as the Commission to Study the Organisation of Peace, the American Jewish Committee, the American Federation of Labor, the American Association for the United Nations, the Federal Council of Churches, the American Bar Association and the Women’s Trade Union League. International non-government organisations also submitted many, many proposals in the early years of the shaping of the document, and it did take a number of years.

As I mentioned, the nuclear commission that worked on developing the declaration was chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt. The UN Economic and Social Council established the official UN Commission on Human Rights in June 1946. Eighteen members were selected, headed by Eleanor Roosevelt, to begin work on the document. A lot of the heavy lifting in drafting was done by a fellow by the name of John P Humphrey, who was the director of the UN Division of Human Rights. But, of course, all through this process was the great work of the Australian delegation and Doc Evatt.

It was an arduous journey that lasted three years, and thousands of hours of intensive study, heated debate and delicate negotiation were involved. The first meetings of the Commission on Human Rights occurred over a two-week period between January and February 1947, following the work that had gone on prior to that, and a smaller group for drafting was formed. That group is interesting in itself, in that it involved a representative from China, Mr Chang, and a representative from Lebanon, Mr Malik, as well as representatives from Australia, Chile, France, the Philippines, the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian SSR, the United Kingdom, Uruguay and Yugoslavia. This group was charged with drafting the declaration. Early on, there was a discussion as to whether this should be a legally binding document or just a declaration. Eleanor Roosevelt astutely recommended that the document be drafted in both contexts, but eventually work focused on producing the document as a declaration rather than a binding convention.

The General Assembly’s third committee ended up dealing with the draft. They held a total of 81 meetings, considering 168 formal resolutions on the declaration. On 6 December the third committee adopted the declaration and sent it to the full General Assembly for final consideration. The General Assembly had a final, extremely vigorous debate that lasted until late in the evening of 10 December 1948. The president called for a vote, and 48 nations voted for the declaration. Eight countries abstained. These included the Soviet bloc countries, South Africa and Saudi Arabia. Two countries were absent.

As Mrs Roosevelt declared at the time, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has proven to be a living document. It has given birth to a great many further human rights instruments that followed on from it. It was interesting to note that the Australian delegation stated on the passing of the declaration:

The Declaration will have great moral force as a standard, and helps to explain the general references to human rights contained in the United Nations Charter. At the same time, the Australian delegation has stated that a covenant and measures of carrying out and enforcing rights should be completed as soon as possible … Australia has from the beginning been one of the leaders in this field. We urged at the Paris Peace Conference that the peace treaties with enemy states should contain effective guarantees of human rights. We have also played our part from the beginning as a member of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights which made the first draft of the convention. Australia was one of the first countries to urge that economic and social rights should be included in the Declaration.

Doc Evatt himself said:

It was the first occasion on which the organised community of nations had made a declaration of human rights and fundamental freedoms. That document was backed by the authority of the body of opinion of the United Nations as a whole and millions of people, men, women, and children all over the world, would turn to it for help, guidance and inspiration.

Eleanor Roosevelt called it ‘the Magna Carta of all mankind’, and she was not wrong. Recently, Mary Gaudron, former Justice of the High Court, stated that it was:

Arguably most important document ever reduced to writing, whether on paper, papyrus, vellum or tablets of stone.

She has proven to be correct as well, as we have seen the flourishing of enforceable instruments that have shaped the way countries behave themselves.

I mentioned the need for eternal vigilance. The member preceding me and the member before that also referred to the need for eternal vigilance. We have had examples in our own country of that need. During the Howard years, we saw the issue of the treatment of refugees rise high on the agenda of moral dilemmas for the body politic and for the community at large. I think and hope that we have moved on from that time. I would hate to see refugees used as a political tool as they were during those years. I commend the many members on the other side who tried to stand up for their principles and who now, I think, reflect very closely on that period. In particular, I would like to pay tribute to the member for Kooyong for his commendably principled stand. What a great loss to this House it will be when the member for Kooyong moves on to another field of endeavour.

Refugees were not the only big issue during the Howard years; Work Choices was another. Here we saw again an erosion of fundamental human rights. It is interesting to note that article 23 of the universal declaration states:

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Those words have been enshrined in many other documents as well. It does highlight that we need to maintain eternal vigilance to maintain these fundamental rights.

When we talk about the treatment and handling of refugees, I would like to highlight that this country has a chequered record in relation to the defence of refugees’ rights. At the Evian conference in 1938 the world was called together to consider the plight of Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. The world closed its doors at that time and mistreated the issue of refugees. This included the delegation from Australia, which infamously stated:

… as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one …

That conference sent the signal to the Nazi regime that it could deal as it pleased with its Jewish community, which of course led on to the horror that subsequently unfolded. In our treatment of refugees, we must bear in mind the impact of the message we send and the example we set to other nations. It is important for us not to try to exploit the situation of refugees—often refugees from countries where we have deployed our troops to resolve the fundamental problems that gave rise to their plight. I call upon all members of this House to refrain from using refugees as a political tool. I commend this document and I commend this celebration of it.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I take great pleasure in having this opportunity and I thank the House for taking note of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I want to associate myself with the comments made by the Prime Minister of the country, Kevin Rudd, and the terms of the motion that he moved in the House in recognition of the 60th anniversary. They made me consider that 60 years in the span of human rights in the world is a very, very short time and that a lot of things have taken place in those 60 years that would make many members of this House and people right around the world consider just what a person’s human rights are, how they define them and how they are observed around the world.

The origins of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights came in the aftermath of the death of more than 70 million people in the Second World War and the persecution of the Jewish people in Nazi Germany. It was a very much needed benchmark. It was a standard that was established after those events to ensure not only that we drew some sort of line in the sand but also hopefully that these events would never take place again. Sadly, although maybe not on same scale, over the past 60 years there have been many tragedies and many abuses of people’s human rights across the globe. It is a great shame that those sorts of things continue to take place.

On 10 December 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Following this historic act, the assembly called on all member countries to publicise the text of the declaration and ‘to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories’. I think that was a very important step forward for the world.

Australia has always considered itself to be a middle-order power but a power that punches well above its weight. It is something that we often say in this country. Nowhere is that truer than in Australia’s participation in that declaration. Following the Second World War, Australia played a very significant part in the shaping of both the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights itself. With 16 other states, Australia was an inaugural member of the human rights commission that began the work on the universal declaration.

It was originally proposed as an international bill of human rights and Australia was one of only eight countries represented on the subsidiary drafting committee. Then, along with 48 other nations, on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, in a plenary session of the General Assembly, we voted to adopt that declaration. I am not sure if ‘congratulations’ is the right word, because it was so important an event that it needs much more than that. An exceptional contribution was made towards these documents by the then Minister for External Affairs, in both the Curtin and Chifley governments, Doc Evatt—Dr H.V. Evatt. That has been widely acknowledged by people in this country and in others as well. All those who understand the history of it understand the important role that he played in ensuring certain sections of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights were what they are today.

I think all Australians should reflect on just what is contained in the declaration and what it does mean, because today we face many of those problems and issues that existed more than 60 years ago. I have in my electorate people of Vietnamese and other ethnic descent who are still fighting for basic human rights in their home countries—the rights of freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom of expression and a range others—that we in Australia just see as so ordinary and normal that we do not give them a second thought. But when people cast their vote in a free, open and democratic society they do not really consider just what it takes to have that right and that freedom when people in other countries not only risk their lives but lose their lives for that same freedom.

I think it is important that Australians reflect on just how significant and important the rights and freedoms are that we have here which are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These rights include the idea that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights, and that people are entitled to rights and freedoms:

… without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

In this country, we accept that as the norm. It is so normal that sometimes we do not even consider its very importance. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude and no-one shall trade in these forms. No-one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment, and everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

They are all things that we consider so ordinary in this country but which are so extraordinary in many other countries around the world today. That no-one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile is something that we should be vigilant about, that we should continue to observe and that we should never let our guard down about. I know other speakers have talked about this, but you can never let your guard down. You must always be vigilant and you must always ensure that the role of government in your own country and everywhere else around the world is to always continue to respect and recognise just what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is all about—that everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution, and that race, asylum and the status of people such as refugees do not become political issues in themselves. History ought to teach us, and teach us well, about those countries that have in the past progressed along those paths and just where those paths may lead.

Everyone has the right to a nationality, and even today in Australia we find that we must deliberate on issues of people’s statehood, of their nationality, of their rights to immigration or asylum and even of their rights to association and freedom. The articles set out that everyone has a right to freedom of thought, of conscience and of religion, and those rights include the freedom to change their religion and to change their beliefs. These are basic human rights. Everyone has a right to the freedom of opinion and expression. Again, these are things that we in Australia find to be so ordinary yet in many other countries those rights are not observed. I have sitting beside me today the member for Moreton, who has in his constituency a number of people from countries where they are not observed, and those people are here in Australia as refugees, seeking asylum, support and the friendship of a country such as Australia in understanding the position that they are in.

Everyone has a right to work, to a free choice of employment, and everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. That is something which, sadly, still does not quite exist in this country. We understand that women in this country are still not paid in general terms equally with men. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of their own interests. That is something that we might take for granted and from time to time slip into debate about in this country and in this place, but it is a basic tenet of human rights. I recall that in one of the very important stages in the Second World War, very strategically, the first people to be persecuted in Nazi Germany were union leaders and union organisers. By removing their capacity to organise people, they removed the ability of ordinary citizens to have a voice and to have a say. So the reason people as an evolutionary process actually organise themselves into such groups is something that we must always respect and that we must understand way beyond political debate. It is for their own protection. They organise themselves to protect themselves from others.

Everyone has the right to education. Everyone also has the right to be free in education and to be given those opportunities. I think that is something that all members of this House agree with and support.

I want to associate myself with the comments of the Prime Minister in supporting and noting the 60 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and ensure in any small way that I can that people do understand and acknowledge its importance and that we are remain vigilant today. It is as important today as it was 60 years ago when it was first instituted.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sixty years ago, on 10 December, the nations of the world, a lot fewer than today’s 192, came together to endorse the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This document has stood the test of time. It has stood the test of universality and being based on primary principles. It traverses and transcends cultures, religions, major world events, conflicts, wars, changing alliances, global arrangements and indeed civilisations, with nearly all of the world’s nations agreeing to subscribe to its tenets—to abide by them, but, more than that, also to promote the articles which contain rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or UDHR, as we commonly refer to it.

Yesterday the Prime Minister moved his motion and it was supported by the Leader of the Opposition, and my comments today will be in that spirit of bipartisanship on this issue because it is an issue that goes to human dignity. The Prime Minister’s statement correctly notes, recalls, recognises, acknowledges and affirms the declaration. This is typical language for the occasion and typical of resolutions of the United Nations, but it is the most appropriate language for a statement on the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I am pleased to celebrate the 60th anniversary, but each year should be a celebration of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Indeed, there are often events around the world to mark the occasion in parliaments, in communities and in many different forums. But I would hope that each day, in a seamless way, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights may be inculcated into our daily lives. That is the strength and the basis of it. The declaration recognises the primacy of the family and the essential relationships among nations and that they should be free and friendly. Sometimes we see human rights as somehow separate from our daily lives, from the parliaments and the other things that we do. We come together and talk about it once a year but do not recognise how it underpins so much of our culture, our law, our policy and our institutions. The articles contained within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are not separate from this parliament or from our family lives, our community lives and our lives with friends, neighbours and nations, but it is easy to see how it may be divorced from those parts of our lives.

Sometimes in political debate and discourse human rights is not seen as something that informs what we do. Consider rule of law, for instance. We all recognise, promote and extol the virtues of the rule of law because our country and our institutions are built on it. If you read through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the rule of law underpins it. Even if you look at the rule of law, which is about four key things, in a minimalist way it is still built into the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If you look at the rule of law in what I call its ‘maximum scope’, which is put out by the OSCE, its 18 principles are all inherent in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are part and parcel of this place—both chambers—and of our institutions. That is why it is good to see that the declaration is brought to life every day, not just on its 60th anniversary or its annual anniversary. It is not out there; it is in here, and it is good to be able to talk about it.

The honourable Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support said that we should be mindful not to use refugees in a political way, and then the speaker after him, the member for Oxley, reiterated that point—and I think most people would agree. We in this place know exactly what each speaker means when they say that, but I submit that refugees are a political issue. That is what we deal with in our parliaments. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says:

Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

How do we do that? How do we give that right to people? We do it through the political process, through the political system whereby we form laws. Most countries have a law, a migration act of some kind, and that law gives expression to article 14 and the refugee convention.

But when I take a look at those acts including our own, it actually reads down that right. That is what most countries have done and that is why all the members on all sides are talking about that particular issue. We know that article 14, written as a primary principle, is correct. It is something that we all say here that we adhere to, we want to subscribe to, we want to implement, but we also know that in various situations it has been read down.

On the subject of refugees and the issue of refugees—and I am going to talk about issues and incidents and not refer to governments—all governments in Australia and elsewhere have issues to answer on the question of refugees. I would just like to note a few incidents in our history. Firstly there is the issue of detention, and we look at article 14 which says that everybody has the right to seek asylum. People come here as asylum seekers and we do not even let them identify themselves as asylum seekers. At various times in our history we have not allowed them to identify themselves as asylum seekers by saying, ‘I am a refugee.’

Then we had mandatory detention. A mandatory detention regime for people fleeing persecution is unconscionable. We have got people fleeing extreme political persecution and then they have this indignity and suffer further persecution, albeit in a safer environment but still under detention. There are other ways of doing it and I am glad to say that we have come to that in this country and people will not be put in mandatory detention just because they are seeking asylum.

Then we have that whole notion of queue jumpers. As I have said before, there is no such thing as a queue jumper. If you are suffering persecution and leaving your country to seek asylum because you fear torture, death—all of those things—then you are not jumping the queue. Many people come here on visas that are legal, and they overstay. Are they queue jumpers? That is one of the questions I always ask. When you get people who cannot get a student visa, cannot get a working visa, cannot get a business visa, cannot get other visas, what other way do they sometimes have of getting here? The whole notion of queue jumpers should be expunged from our discourse when we are talking about refugees. It is one of the things that I would encourage.

I would like to make a few other comments about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and particularly article 3 which talks about the right to life. That is one that I take seriously, and I know that other members in this place also take it seriously. For a long time—decades—I have been very active in the region in an Asia-Pacific anti-death penalty network. This is quite a wide network that operates across our countries. Opposition to the death penalty is one of those issues where, if you are opposed to it, you are opposed to it. It cannot be abridged in any shape or form. That has been my position. It is sometimes challenging, because people do commit heinous crimes. We have seen it here; we see it in our region; we see it internationally.

However, as a legislator—and that is what we are as parliamentarians; that is one of our roles—I do not have the right to pass a law to take anybody’s life. When that happens it is between a person and their maker, whoever they believe that maker to be. It is not up to the legislators. It is one of those issues. We talk about the right to life; I take it seriously and will always speak out on this issue in opposition to the death penalty. Sometimes I think about countries and systems of government—and I will not name the nations of people—that maintain the death penalty. It is hard to think about them in a kindly way.

I have for many decades written my Amnesty International letters. I am a member of Amnesty International. I do not get a lot of time for those activities now, but I dutifully write my letters—when they come—in opposition to the death penalty. They are usually on behalf of people who are waiting on death row somewhere. I know some of those people would have committed crimes that would have had a terrible impact on a family, on a person, on an individual, on a community. I know that. But my opposition to the death penalty is not one that I am willing to trade off because of the nature of the crime. It is not to do with the crime; it is to do with my fundamental belief in the right to life, which is enshrined in article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Sometimes that puts me in a position of speaking out, and it might look as if I am speaking up for certain people, but I am speaking against the death penalty. I wanted to be able to talk about that and have that as a matter of public record. It is something that we are mindful of. We have an anti-death-penalty cross-party working group in parliament. It is commendable that all the parties come together. It is not a party issue. It is one of those fundamental issues of liberty. It is nice that we come together and do that.

I want to talk about a couple of other issues and incidents, ones that have stayed with me. I will talk about the incidents and not about the governments. They are the incidents with the Tampa ship, SIEVX and the ‘children overboard’ incident. They were three events that caused me a great deal of concern and angst at the time. When the Tampa was on the high seas all sides of politics caused me great concern. With respect to the Tampa I spoke at a public rally outside Sydney Town Hall. My opening comment was: ‘This is morally wrong, this is politically wrong and this is legally wrong.’ That position stands. If we go to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly to article 14 and asylum, we see there was nothing else I could say on that occasion. I did that against opposition from all walks of life, but I continued to maintain that position. Sometimes that is hard. All of us are parliamentarians. We are practising politicians. We can be subject to many forces and be pushed and pulled on various occasions.

I recently had an occasion where I had my commitment to these principles tested. I do not have enough time to detail that now. I had to reflect on it and think about it, and I went with my primary principle in advocating to keep someone in this country—in keeping with the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. With those comments, I commend to the House the Prime Minister’s statement, supported by the opposition leader. May we continue to reflect on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in our daily life and in our daily discourse and not just once a year.

Debate (on motion by Ms George) adjourned.

Main Committee adjourned at 12.15 pm, until Thursday, 4 December 2008, at 9.30 am.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms AE Burke) having subsequently fixed 4 pm today as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 4 pm.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That further proceedings be conducted in the House.

Question agreed to.