Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In continuing my remarks in respect of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010 and the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010, I make the point that the fundamental question that needs to be answered is whether the granting of rights to one person simultaneously denies the reasonable rights to another. This argument was frequently made during the consultation period by religious groups, who argued that a bill of rights removed their right to freely practise their religion. That argument is based on an assumption about what would be in a bill or charter of rights. An additional question that also needs to be asked is whether the rights of the individual should take priority over the rights of the wider community. These are complex matters and, not surprisingly, the complexity was reflected in the diversity of submissions put forward during the consultation. This legislation reflects that diversity and I believe provides a sensible compromise.

I note that Australia is the only Western democracy that does not have some form of national charter or bill of rights. Of the 35,014 submissions received, 27,888 were in favour and 4,203 were opposed to a charter of rights. There have been two attempts—1944 and 1998—to amend the Australian Constitution and include a human rights charter. Both those attempts failed. Four attempts—1973, 1981, 1984 and 1985—were made to introduce federal legislation in respect of human rights. Only the Fraser government was successful with the 1981 Human Rights Commission Act. Constitutional changes were opposed by the states because they feared that any change would affect their ability to legislate. The ACT and Victoria have, however, since introduced their own charter of rights. Tasmania and Western Australia have deferred a decision on introducing their own legislation pending the outcome of the federal inquiry—which is what we are debating right now. Queensland and New South Wales had parliamentary committees inquire into this issue. Both committees rejected a human rights act.

Another frequent objection to a human rights act is that power would be transferred from the democratically elected parliament to the unelected judiciary. That argument is very contestable. Politicians are just as likely to make politically popular decisions as they are to ensure that policies are fair and just. Because the judiciary is not elected it is more likely to administer laws which, in fact, are just. Members of the judiciary also have personal political views and at times have served in parliament prior to being appointed to the bench. Judicial appointments have also been made or rejected because of the political views of those being considered for appointment to the bench. So to suggest that somehow members of the judiciary are not influenced by their own political views or to suggest that because politicians are accountable to the public they are more likely to make fair and just decisions are two statements which need to be qualified.

A bill of rights may in fact ensure more fairness and less political sway in judicial appointments. I am very familiar with one particular case where because of a particular person’s views rather than that person’s ability that person was not elected to the bench for many, many years. Ultimately, when he was, he proved to be an eminent member of the bench. Had a bill of rights existed in his time, perhaps he would have been appointed much earlier. However, the reality is that even without a bill of rights the judiciary are hardly constrained. In handing down decisions over the years, the judiciary have drawn on convention, precedence, written law, international law and international conventions and treaties to which we are signatories in order to determine their own decisions. I understand that in the Mabo case Justice Brennan alluded to an international convention to which this country had been a signatory.

The Australian Constitution expressly provides for a limited number of rights. Among them are: section 51, which refers to the acquisition of property on just terms; section 75, which refers to the right to review of government actions; section 80, which refers to the right to trial by jury; section 92, which refers to freedom of interstate trade; section 116, which refers to freedom of religion; and section 117, which refers to a prohibition on discrimination based on residence. The obvious question is why those particular rights were written into the Constitution and others were not. If they had been, the current debate about gay marriage may well have been dealt with differently, as may have been the case with respect to the debate about the Northern Territory intervention. The case against a bill of rights has not been made nor can it be made without a draft bill being drawn up. Interestingly, past Attorneys-General—Lionel Murphy, Gareth Evans and Lionel Bowen—all had bills which attempted to introduce similar legislation, and none of them were successful. I nevertheless acknowledge the genuinely held concerns raised by many of those who oppose a bill of rights. This bill in my view strengthens the preservation of human rights in Australia and is one that we should support.

In closing, can I also commend the committee—led by Father Frank Brennan and including Mary Kostakidis, Tammy Williams and Mick Palmer—for the consultation process that they oversaw as part of the report to parliament that we are now effectively debating. I believe that their work will be incredibly useful not only to this parliament but to future parliaments in determining our position on a bill of rights. It certainly gave the Australian community the opportunity to comment on what I believe is not only a matter of interest to the broader community but is very important for the future of this nation. I commend the bill to the House.

Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010 had its genesis in the human rights consultation undertaken by Father Frank Brennan—which involved a significant number of roundtables and 15 public hearings in every part of this nation, from the most remote parts of the country to urban areas—and Australia’s Human Rights Framework, which the minister announced in April this year.

It is worth noting that, despite the fact that the government did not take up some of the central themes of the consultation and that its response did not meet the expectations of some people who are active in this area, Alex Boxsell in the Australian Financial Review, in reporting the Attorney-General’s response, said:

Human rights groups have praised a federal government bill that will ensure legislation meets key international human rights treaties,

Father Brennan’s committee noted that Australia had a ‘patchwork quilt’ of human rights and made 31 recommendations. The Attorney-General responded by noting that many views on how human rights and responsibility should be protected had been expressed during that inquiry.

The main thrust of the legislation is to ensure that the legislation passed in this country recognises the significant number of international conventions that Australia has signed. Of course, we are well aware of this country’s groundbreaking role in the activities of the United Nations General Assembly in the period after the Second World War, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The international conventions include the International Convention on All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the convention on civil and political rights, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Convention on the Elimination of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

The way in which it is contemplated that this will be acted upon is through a parliamentary committee and through the provision of reports from those responsible for the legislation that the suggested bill is in cognisance of those conventions. Also, importantly, there will be an education campaign, which will essentially concentrate on the Public Service. As people say, they can certainly be controlled by other provisions, but it is obviously desirable that there be more recognition of how actions affect individuals and the degree to which they correspond to the conventions that this country has signed.

It has been a long road to achieving this measure. If we look at history since Federation, we see there were endeavours by Gareth Evans and Lionel Bowen, there was the 1967 referendum, there was the Human Rights Bill of 1973 and earlier convention in the early post-war years, and there was a failed referendum in the late forties. It is understandable that this is an area of some controversy. People are wary of signing up to conventions that they see, in some senses, as beyond our country’s control. We look at Europe and see the debate over the European Community and the reluctance of the United Kingdom, in particular, to sign up to those conventions. We see continuing debates in different countries, most recently in France over its treatment of Roma, and the situations in some of the Eastern European countries with regard to human rights at the moment. It is understandable that some people see any kind of movement in this direction as an erosion of national sovereignty. Equally, without taking a leadership role in some of these conventions, Australia will not have the international influence to accomplish outcomes similar to ours for people in countries where they do not have internal processes that work towards guaranteeing these rights.

In his April response the minister also indicated that there was a move toward streamlining legislation into a single comprehensive act and that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General would look into the feasibility of a national harmonisation of the nation’s antidiscrimination laws. On antidiscrimination, I note the contribution of the member for Banks in indicating that, both under the Labor Party and under the current opposition when they were in government, racial discrimination and whether legislation properly complies with UN conventions has been an area of great question.

Whilst we make this movement forward, it is important that we ensure the committee is properly resourced and that the reports by various ministers and others responsible for a particular bill are not just pro forma and do not just go through the motions but are a thorough analysis of the degree to which the legislation coexists with and respects international conventions.

I for one do not share the great confidence in the judiciary of many of my colleagues in this House. I think on balance that this is probably not as controversial and weak an outcome as others might think. I have a degree of reticence with regard to the judiciary. I actually believe it is often more politicised than many members of this House think. You have to have a look at a few US patterns. For instance, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was having difficulty with labour legislation and industrial standards in the United States, the Supreme Court judges there decided, ‘Let’s get a bit more liberal with regard to the government’s legislation.’ All of a sudden, judges thought that bills that had been knocked back for the previous few years did conform to the US Constitution. It is an example that shows there is a question as to whether we can always trust in judicial decisions in this area.

Another good example recently is Citizens United v Federal Election Commission in the United States. In a five-four vote—very close and, once again, a case where the votes of all the judges were predictable on conservative/liberal lines—the judges decided there was no way in which the McCain-Feingold legislation, otherwise known as the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, could limit spending by large corporations and unions, which had been the intention of that legislation. It was struck down because it supposedly was prohibited under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. The same people, of course, in recent years managed by a similar of partisan majority—clearly along the same lines, though a few people changed in the interim—to make the very controversial decision with regard to the Gore/Bush election.

I think I might be one of the few people in this House who will not be losing too much sleep or crying late at night about the fact that we have a provision that means that the parliament will have more say in this process. Members of parliament will have a committee which will review the legislation. That is a fairly open process. It is something that is transparent to the Australian people. The committee in its consultations was very much of the view that we should legislate for a bill of rights. I know that there are very strong sentiments in the electorate from a significant number of interest groups about going that way, but I do not really think it has been that significant a loss that we did not.

I believe that this will be a way in which we will genuinely make significant progress. We know that often there is not a consideration of the way in which conventions are impinged upon by legislation. There is a lot of controversy in the immigration field. There have been a variety of cases around the question of the exclusion of parents from Australia and impacts upon the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That has been somewhat controversial on occasion, but it is a good example of legislation which has gone through the House before and which probably did not gain enough interest of members with regard to its adherence.

I recommend the legislation. It is, in a sense, not the victory that many of the Labor governments in past decades, many of them crusaders in this issue, would have expected, but there has been a history of defeats of referendums around this issue. I note that the committee commissioned in the inquiry some independent research which showed that there were a significant number of people—37 per cent, I think—who did not have an opinion and were neutral. Of those who had an opinion, approximately 80 per cent were supportive of a bill of rights. I am not too clear tonight as to how that question was fashioned, but it is an indication that without a campaign against it, which is an important factor, there was broad support for a bill of rights. I commend the legislation.

Maria Vamvakinou (Calwell, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010 along with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010. I welcome this legislation for an act to establish a parliamentary joint committee on human rights, and for related purposes, as I believe it serves to reflect the government’s commitment to implementing the legislative elements of Australia’s Human Rights Framework, which arose out of the recommendations put forward by the National Human Rights Consultation Committee. I also want to welcome the efforts of the Attorney-General, the Hon. Robert McClelland, who is in the chamber, for introducing this very important piece of legislation, which goes very much to the heart of our national judicial framework in protecting and promoting human rights in Australia.

It is not possible to speak of democracy without checks and balances. A democracy that has defining rights and duties needs to function within a human rights framework that takes into account the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of its citizens. Democracy needs oversight mechanisms to ensure that power is not abused and that accountability exists within a legislative framework, whereby policy development gives due consideration to issues of human rights. In functioning democracies it is common that there are different ideologies that shape our political persuasions. So what is it that ensures that, regardless of the make-up of the executive and regardless of the make-up of parliament, there remains a framework of rights and freedoms, a framework which in itself recognises and affirms Australians’ human rights obligations?

This involves the ratification of core United Nations human rights treaties as they apply to Australia. With this consideration in mind, it is incumbent upon us that legislation passed through this parliament is informed by, and indeed reflects, those human rights obligations as they apply to us. It ensures that rights and freedoms are beyond political expediency, that the rule of law and principles of justice operate within a defined framework. It is about recognising that, as Professor of International Relations at Adelaide’s Flinders University, Anthony J. Langlois, puts it:

… human rights amount to little more than charity if they are not functioning in a democratic framework …

That is why it is import to ensure that measures are put forward so that there is an early and ongoing consideration of human rights issues during the parliamentary process of policy and legislative development.

During the 42nd Parliament I was a member of the Human Rights Subcommittee, which operates under the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. In the subcommittee’s inquiry into human rights mechanisms and the Asia-Pacific, the Human Rights Law Resource Centre put forward the opinion that, while parliamentarians were ‘essential actors’ in the protection and promotion of human rights, in Australia:

… there are currently no formal domestic mechanisms to ensure comprehensive parliamentary scrutiny of human rights, including by independently monitoring and reporting on the implementation of the recommendations of UN treaty bodies or Special Procedures.

That is why I especially welcome this bill, because it is through the establishment of a parliamentary joint committee on human rights that parliamentary scrutiny can be enhanced.

Of particular importance is the reference point for the committee, which will be centred on the rights and freedoms recognised or declared by the seven core United Nations human rights treaties as they apply to Australia. It is worth mentioning those treaties. They are: the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. They are very important oversight mechanisms which will serve to promote and protect human rights standards. They are guiding treaties for Australia to fulfil its international obligations. Treaties such as these have allowed for the introduction of very important pieces of legislation which have gone very much to the heart of our national judicial framework.

When the federal government introduced the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Torture Prohibition and Death Penalty Abolition) Bill 2009, along with amendments to the Death Penalty Abolition Act 1973, torture was enacted as a specific Commonwealth offence in the Commonwealth Criminal Code. That fulfilled Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment as well as highlighted Australia’s commitment to its obligations under the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This demonstrates that these treaties will serve as the reference point for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights as it examines acts, bills and legislative instruments for compatibility with human rights and inquires into and reports to parliament on human rights matters referred to it by the Attorney-General.

While the bills before us serve to implement the legislative elements of Australia’s Human Rights Framework, it is also important to reflect on what the framework means in action. It is about reaffirming our commitment to promoting and respecting human rights in Australia. It is about education and information on human rights and responsibilities throughout the community. It is about engagement with the international community on issues of human rights both at home, in our region and across the globe. Ultimately, it is about ensuring accountability and transparency in the process associated with parliamentary scrutiny.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises that ‘the inherent dignity of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world’. So how do we apply this fundamental principle in examining bills for acts and legislative instruments? What are some of the considerable issues facing Australia that we need to ensure that our approach is compatible with human rights? Of course, there is the issue of fundamental rights of the Indigenous people of Australia. Addressing the gaps in health, education, employment and housing all need to occur within a human rights framework.

For Australia’s Indigenous community, recognition within the Constitution is a human rights issue. Of great importance during this parliamentary term will be proposals put forward to amend the Constitution to recognise our first Australians. It is about recognising the struggle and the enormous sacrifices that so many members of Australia’s Indigenous community have made and continue to make in their efforts towards reconciliation and justice. As I have previously stated, targets associated with the Closing the gap report, investment in housing, health, early childhood, economic participation and remote service delivery will help ensure that Indigenous communities across Australia benefit from the government’s agenda. This agenda will see the advancement of the plight of Indigenous Australians strengthened by the establishment of the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples. It is about ensuring that we continue to move forward in our nation’s long journey towards reconciliation and about ensuring that Australia’s founding charter embodies the spirit in which the path of reconciliation is being shaped by Australia’s ongoing commitment to human rights and freedoms.

I will conclude by quoting a part of the preamble of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It may appear obvious; but, because it is sometimes all too obvious and, hence, often taken for granted, there is a need to place a special emphasis on it. It says:

… 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.

It is in this spirit and with this in mind that our laws need to be enshrined and that I welcome the government’s human rights agenda. I commend these important bills to the House.

Judi Moylan (Pearce, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is interesting that, as far back as 1992—just before I was elected to this House—the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade delivered its first report titled A review of Australia’s efforts to promote and protect human rights. It was tabled in the 37th Parliament. It was a bipartisan report, with the conclusions and recommendations supported by both major parties and a dissenting report from the then Senator Dee Margetts. On the front of the report was a quotation from TS Eliot. It read: ‘Between the idea and the reality… Falls the Shadow.’ In fact, the full quote by TS Elliott is:

Between the idea

And the reality

Between the motion

And the act

Falls the Shadow

The ‘shadow’ between the very thorough 1992 report and its outstanding recommendations, as I said, supported by both sides of this House and the bringing of this legislation before the House has been a very long shadow indeed. It has been about 18 years long.

Human rights are at the centre of our system of governance. Our democratic system is based on the separation of powers and the rule of law is designed to protect individual rights. So it has been a very long priority for Australian society to ensure adequate protection of human rights. It is one thing to enact black-letter law, as I have often said in this place, and quite another to change the hearts and minds of people. In matters to do with the equality of rights and human rights of women, Indigenous people, people with a disability and children in particular, old prejudices and antiquated notions have at times inhibited these rights and the rights of other sections of the community, and the changes have been hard won indeed. So we do have to be vigilant. We have to be always looking out and making sure that we are doing our job. The recommendations that were made for the drafting of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010 are in general very sensible.

In 2007, the Attorney-General announced that the Rudd Labor government would commission a panel—the National Human Rights Consultation—to inquire into how human rights in Australia could best be protected and promoted. The Attorney-General, in his second reading speech on the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010 and the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010, said that there was no predetermined outcome in mind. I am not quite sure that that was quite right. One option—a constitutionally entrenched bill of rights—was specifically excluded. Another option—a legislative bill of rights following the model adopted by Labor governments in Victoria and the ACT—I think, it would be correct to say, was the subtext and expected outcome of the entire process.

The coalition’s submission to the National Human Rights Consultation recommended the establishment of a parliamentary committee to consider legislation from a human rights point of view. The following is the relevant portion of the coalition’s submission:

… the Opposition urges the NHRC to recommend against the adoption of a statutory bill of rights as its preferred model. Instead, the Opposition recommends that expanded Parliamentary scrutiny of legislation from a human rights point of view is a better alternative. The option we propose has the advantage of locating greater emphasis on human rights at the heart of the political system itself, while it is free of the potentially undemocratic consequences of placing unprecedented power to resolve essentially political questions in the hands of the judiciary.

Specifically, the Opposition invites the NHRC to consider recommending the establishment of a new Parliamentary Committee (either a Joint Standing Committee or a Standing Committee of the Senate), which would be given the specific task of considering legislation from a human rights point of view.

The new parliamentary committee would able to examine legislation and to conduct broad inquiries relating to human rights referred to it by the Attorney-General of the day. Its operation would be similar to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties.

The purpose of statements of compatibility will be to inform parliamentary debate and, where appropriate, to justify restrictions or limitations upon rights where those restrictions are in the interests of other individuals or society more generally. The requirement to include statements of compatibility for disallowable instruments extends the responsibility for such statements from the committee to the executive. The workload and cost implications of this must be considered by the Senate committee.

Notwithstanding the fact that the bill reflects coalition policy, there are some concerns about the breadth of the definition of ‘human rights’ in terms of seven international instruments and the possible introduction by the back door of those instruments into Australian domestic law. The coalition supports in principle the establishment of the parliamentary committee, however, it does hold concerns about the balance of the legislation, in particular the definition of human rights.

Before we can ever fully implement and protect human rights, we do have to have a clear idea of what they are. It seems that there are a number of different definitions. I looked up the Amnesty International definition. It defines human rights as the basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, sex, national or ethnic origin, race, religion, language and other status. Human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life, liberty and freedom of expression; and social, cultural and economic rights including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work and the right to receive an education.

Human rights are protected and upheld by international and domestic laws and treaties. On the international stage part of that process is agreeing to international treaties, and over the years Australia has signed up to many treaties. For a very long time—in fact, for a number of years when I first came into this place and before—these treaties were signed by individual ministers, often without reference to the parliament and in some cases without reference to executive government. That is why under the Howard government we implemented a treaties committee which now oversights all international treaties and makes recommendations to government. This is a much more open and accountable system and I would foresee that such a human rights committee would have a similar role to play. The bill proposes a similar process for the human rights committee of this parliament. As with binding Australia to international treaties without proper scrutiny of the representatives of the people in this parliament, we should take much care in the implementation of human rights and ensure that the process is at all times open and accountable through this parliament.

The Human Rights Law Resource Centre made a strong argument for the bill in their submission to the Senate inquiry. Human rights matter deeply to Australians and they rightly point out that they resonate with Australian democratic values, the rule of law and our sense of a fair go. While Australia has strong democratic and legal institutions, they do not provide comprehensive or even adequate protection for human rights. The patchwork quilt of human rights protection is missing pieces and these ‘inadequacies are felt most keenly by the marginalised and the vulnerable’. As their submission says:

… human rights are not enjoyed fully or equally by all Australians, including people experiencing homelessness, people with mental illness, Aboriginal Australians, asylum seekers and people with disability.

I would add to that people with a mental illness and children.

Earlier this week I spoke on the private member’s motion of the member for Fremantle regarding the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I commend the member for bringing that motion to the House as children are often the greatest sufferers of human rights violations. In speaking on that I shared many alarming statistics, and I feel it is important to share these again. Statistics from UNICEF show that, for every 100 children born today, 30 will suffer malnutrition in the first five years of life, 26 will never be immunised against disease, 19 will have no access to clean drinking water and 17 will never go to school—and, of those 83 that do, 20 will not reach fifth grade. It is also estimated that over one million children are trafficked each year and forced into work.

The Liberal Party recognises that parliament can always do more to ensure that human rights are adequately recognised and that, where competing rights must be balanced, explain the reasons for its decisions. That is why our submission to the consultation recommended the establishment of a parliamentary committee specifically charged with the consideration of legislation from a human rights perspective. However, questions remain as to whether this bill, as drafted, achieves this in the way that is consistent with human rights law in Australia. In particular, the bill requires the proposed committee to have regard to seven international instruments. Some of those instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, are not controversial. However, there are others, such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which contain articles that are aspirational in nature rather than capable of being recognised as justiciable rights in this country.

The coalition recognises, however, that the basic principle in forming these bills is the affirmation of the centrality of the role of parliament in balancing competing rights. It is always very tricky, as we know, balancing competing rights and balancing competing interests. To the extent that the government recognises the parliament as the only true democratically accountable institution of the Commonwealth and it must never abdicate its ultimate policy-making responsibility, the coalition welcomes this measure. Steps can and must be taken to incorporate the appropriate caucus of human rights law, but that is a matter for the other place and I trust that this House will approve the amendments that have been made. As I have said here tonight and on many other occasions in this House, you can have all the black-letter law that you like but it really comes down to changing hearts and minds and getting people to change the way they think about their rights in relation to other people’s rights and interests. I thought that in his speech to the House our shadow minister, the member for Stirling, made some pertinent comments and I will quote a little of his speech given that we are approaching time. He finished by saying:

…the relationships of Australians with each other and their governments are those to be found in the Constitution, the statutes of the Commonwealth and the states, and in the common law. It is a fact that the principles underpinning and deriving from those traditions have informed the international conventions, rather than vice versa. The great and abiding traditions arising from these sources must find expression in these bills if the committee is to do its job.

I say, ‘Hear, hear’ and commend this legislation to the House.

Robert McClelland (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate on the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010 and also the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010. All contributions, and I have listened for the last hour and a bit, have been very thoughtful and I would commend them highly to anyone interested in this area. Essentially, the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010 together with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010 implement the key legislative measures in the Australian human rights framework announced by the government on 21 April 2010. I note a number of speakers have thanked the consultative committee, which I will also commend.

The changes in the framework are aimed at enhancing understanding of and respect for human rights in Australia and ensuring appropriate recognition of human rights issues in legislative and policy development. The bills will establish a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, introduce a requirement for statements of compatibility on human rights to be presented to parliament for all bills and legislative instruments subject to disallowance, amend the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 to integrate statements of compatibility into existing procedures for tabling legislative instruments, and amend the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act to include the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission as an ex officio member of the Administrative Review Council. Statements of compatibility on human rights for all new laws will establish a dialogue between the executive and the parliament and inform parliamentary debate on human rights issues considered by the executive and, as the speaker before me indicated, the issue of balance in that consideration.

Additionally, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights will contribute to debate on human rights issues by examining and reporting to parliament on human rights compatibility with new and existing laws and in that sense that parliamentary committee process—mirroring much of the work that is undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties—will promote greater participatory democracy by enabling Australian citizens to have a direct say on how their rights might be affected by particular legislation. The amendments will also ensure an appropriate human rights perspective is integrated in the views of the Administrative Review Council by including the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission as an ex officio member of the council.

The two bills comprise a package of reforms aimed at ensuring appropriate recognition of human rights issues in legislative and policy developments. The measures will deliver improved policies and laws in the future by encouraging early and ongoing consideration of human rights issues in the policy and law-making process and informing parliamentary debate on human rights issues. The bills have been referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for inquiry and report. The government looks forward to the committee’s report on the bills, which is due in December 2010.

I think it is fair to say that during the course of the debate the opposition indicated broad support for the concept of the bills and essentially their potential concerns on which they reserve their position are in respect of what has been described as the breadth of definition of human rights, that breadth of definition being a reference in the legislation to the seven fundamental international human rights instruments. I point out to the House that that first stage of identification of human rights according by reference to those seven fundamental human rights instruments, which I suppose are collectively recognised as the core international human rights instruments, was as recommended by the Brennan committee. It was certainly envisaged that, in working through these issues and obtaining grounding and experience in referring to those fundamental principles, the parliament itself may in the future choose to prescribe or list more precisely those fundamental human rights that the parliament determines to be appropriate. It may well be that an early role of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights might well be to examine those instruments to obtain the views of the Australian people, to obtain the views of the parliament and to actually go through those instruments and list an Australian-specific point of reference to those human rights considerations that the Parliament of Australia regards as being specific and fundamental to Australia. This was envisaged as a two-stage step by the Brennan committee, and I refer that to members. It may well be that this could be the first stage of the process to that Australian-specific path. The government is committed to positive and practical changes to promote and protect human rights and I commend the bills to the House.

Harry Jenkins (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2010 be now read a second time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.