Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Human Rights Commission was established in 1986 as Australia's national human rights watchdog. While the commission's overall remit has expanded over time, its overarching role remains clear. It is here to see that human rights and fundamental freedoms are understood and respected in law, policy and practice. Its job is to work towards an Australia in which human rights are respected, protected and promoted, to find practical solutions to issues of concern, to advocate for systemic change and to raise awareness across the community.

As an independent statutory organisation, the commission plays a vital role in upholding the rights of all Australians and, indeed, of everyone who arrives in Australia. They operate without fear or favour, not to silence dissent or to shield governments from what they might not want to hear. In recent times, they have been critical of both the current government and the opposition, based on their independent assessment of a range of issues. Under their current President, Professor Gillian Triggs, the commission has made a number of significant achievements, albeit in the face of an unprecedented attack on its independence and its work from the Liberal government.

Rather than treat information provided by the commission and others, like Amnesty International, as an important input for policy improvement and development, this government prefers to shoot the messenger. Earlier this year, the former Prime Minister, the Member for Warringah, accused the commission of a 'political stitch-up' over their inquiry into children in detention—an inquiry, I must add, that was highly critical of both the former Labor government and the current government. The current Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis, said in February that he felt that the impartiality of the Human Rights Commission had been fatally compromised and that he had reached the conclusion that Professor Triggs should reconsider her position. The former Speaker, the Member for Mackellar, joined them, when she broke from the tradition of speakership impartiality by accusing Professor Triggs of partisanship in a televised public debate.

In spite of this open criticism and an obvious lack of resources—which I will come to shortly—the Human Rights Commission continues to do vital work to protect the rights of all Australians. In recent times it concluded The forgotten children: national inquiry into children in immigration detention (2014), completed a review into the treatment of women in the Australian Defence Force, continued the important 'Racism. It Stops with Me' campaign, and are currently undertaking the Willing to work: national inquiry into employment discrimination against older Australians and Australians with disability. This work sits alongside the day-to-day operation of its information and complaints service, which continues to grow in the volume of inquiries, with complaints up 16 per cent in the most recently reported data.

As I mentioned at the outset, the commission's remit has increased over time, usually in line with the introduction of new legislation. Today, it operates to ensure freedom from discrimination on the basis of age, disability, race, sex, sexual orientation, intersex status and gender identity. The individual commissioners defend the rights of those experiencing discrimination and give voice to those who often do not have the opportunity to have a voice of their own. It is vital that the commission is adequately resourced to undertake its work and that individual commissioners are dedicated to specific areas of need within the community. As it stands, this is not the case, and there is a lack of dedicated focus in areas of great need; most notably, in the role of Sex Discrimination Commissioner, which continues to sit vacant, and the lack of a dedicated full-time Disability Discrimination Commissioner.

This lack of resources is easily fixed. It is a matter for government, and to leave these positions vacant speaks volumes to the priorities of this Liberal government. In September, Elizabeth Broderick stepped down from the role of Sex Discrimination Commissioner, vacating a role she had held for eight years. A number of significant gender equality measures were introduced during Ms Broderick's time in office: a national paid parental leave scheme, two weeks of dad and partner pay, the right to request flexible work under law, the number of women on boards doubled, domestic violence was very much acknowledged as a workplace issue and, importantly, one of the strongest repositories of data was generated through the Workplace Gender Equality Agency to enable evidence based policy.

While these achievements are noteworthy, as acknowledged in Ms Broderick's own closing address as commissioner there is still much work to be done: sexual harassment in the workplace is widespread, with one in four women sexually harassed in the workplace in the last five years; more than 75 women have been murdered through acts of violence in Australia this year alone; women continue to be under-represented in leadership positions, in the community, in business, in boardrooms and in parliament; the majority of unpaid caring work, whether for a child, a family member or friend with disability is undertaken by women; and the gender pay-gap for a full-time working woman over a typical 45 year career equates to about $700,000. These are undeniable facts, and a fully-employed Sex Discrimination Commissioner is required to redress these gross inequities and help deliver real change. The role of Sex Discrimination Commissioner must be filled as a matter of urgency. As the UN Women Australia Executive Director Julie McKay said last month about the situation:

You would never have your CEO role vacant indefinitely.

The role of Disability Discrimination Commissioner, too, has never been more important. Twenty per cent of Australians live with disability and about 37 percent of discrimination complaints received by the Human Rights Commission are related to disability. People with a disability face a significantly higher risk of poverty than the average Australian, with some 45 per cent of people with disability living in poverty today. We are also at an unprecedented stage of transition for people with disability as some 460,000 Australians join the National Disability Insurance Scheme—a once-in-a-generation social and economic reform to support a better life for Australians with significant disability and their families and carers. In his closing address to the National Press Club last year, our last dedicated Disability Discrimination Commissioner, Graeme Innes, said that while significant progress had been made in making transport and buildings more accessible, there are still significant challenges for people with disability in finding jobs and for delivering equal justice to people with disabilities. Now, more than ever, we need a full-time disability discrimination commissioner—and a minister as well would be a good start!

While these positions continue to sit vacant, the government has conveniently found the time to appoint a wind farm commissioner. Instead of focusing on the needs of the 20 per cent of Australians with disability, or indeed the needs of half the population, Australian women, who are more likely to experience discrimination based on their sex, the government is focused on their own need to shore up support for their own benefit in passing their legislation through the Senate. Graeme Innes has described the decision to appoint a wind farm commissioner ahead of a dedicated disability discrimination commissioner as follows:

This is saying to people with disabilities, 'your place in the pecking order is below some lobbyists who want to make sure that the numbers are obtained in the Senate'.

I agree with Mr Innes—this is a disgraceful situation. The new Prime Minister has had an opportunity to right this situation but to date he has chosen not to. Under his lead a wind farm commissioner has been appointed, not a sex discrimination commissioner or a dedicated disability discrimination commissioner. While the Prime Minister refused to be drawn in on criticism of Professor Triggs when his colleagues lined up their attacks earlier this year, describing her—and I agree—as 'a very distinguished international academic', he has yet to back Professor Triggs and the Australian Human Rights Commission by ensuring they have enough commissioners working on the identified needs of the Australian community. Prime Minister, it is time to step up and walk the talk. No amount of feel-good rhetoric will suffice—we need action now. This is a test of your values and your priorities. What kind of government do you want to lead? Is it one that will embrace robust discussions, one that does not shy away from criticisms and strives for continuous improvement? That is what the Australian people expect of you, and that is what we deserve—nothing less.