Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Last week, this parliament was the site for the launch of an important and also very challenging report, Safeguarding democracy, prepared by a very important community organisation, the Human Rights Law Centre. This report, which I have had the opportunity to consider over the past week, presents some challenges that demand deep consideration in this place and in the community. They also require, in my view, a substantial response from politicians—government, opposition and other parties—but also from our parties. Last Monday, I had the privilege of being able to discuss the report and the concerns it raises with representatives of the civil society groups which lent their support to it. I note that a wide variety of groups, not just the Human Rights Law Centre, came together, representing diverse aspects of our vibrant civil society in Australia but with a shared series of concerns about the state of rights in Australia and the state of our democracy more generally. It was pleasing for me to see such diverse groups, like the Australian Council of Social Service, the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Council of Trade Unions, coming together to tell one story about a series of concerns which affect all of their organisations individually but, more profoundly, shape the workings of our democracy in this place and in the community.

It is very important that we are now talking in this parliament, particularly from the Labor side, about economic inequality and its consequences—its consequences for individuals and for economic growth more broadly—but we cannot dismiss from this consideration political inequality, which should also be firmly on our radar, not least because there is clearly a relationship between these two phenomena. We do face, in my view, a vicious cycle. If we do not attend to our democratic deficit, we are unlikely to bridge the economic divide between haves and have-nots. We are aware, as I speak now, that participation in most forms of formal political involvement are dropping off in Australia, whether it is enrolment to vote, voting or, as most of us are probably aware, participation in political parties, which is also in decline. This is a phenomenon that is occurring right across the developed world, not just in Australia. We are seeing the rise of a new populism. This is bad news for rights and, I think, bad news for economic prospects as well. This report highlights the fragile nature of our democratic foundations in Australia, while acknowledging that Australians have done a pretty good job of preserving rights across the board. We have many proud firsts in Australia's democratic evolution, and these successes, while they should be celebrated, we should not regard as some sort of fail-safe insurance against some of the significant threats to rights.

In looking to this—in looking beyond government itself—I ask myself this: whatever happened to the big society? As the current government prepared for the last election, we heard much about a revitalised civil society from former Minister Andrews, but, over the last 2½ years, this notion of a big society has shrunk dramatically to just a commitment to small government and a civil society which has been under attack through cuts but also through some directives of this government of an administrative nature and through the making of laws. These are matters which this report effectively highlights.

I will touch on a couple of matters of the report in particular shortly, but I would first make some general remarks. I think it is important to say that I do not agree with all the criticisms contained within the report. I believe that some criticisms of particular legislative provisions are overstated, and perhaps some are also misconceived. But I do not think this really is the point of the document. What is clear is that preserving a robust democracy is about more than just the express effects of individual laws on individuals. We must also have regard to what can be the chilling effect of policies and of the tenor of debate in this place and beyond it. How politics and government are practised clearly matters. People are looking to all of us in this place for leadership in the wider sense, and inclusive leadership.

So I turn to the report's consideration of how the institutional framework of rights has been treated. In this regard, it is important to touch upon, in the first instance, the attacks by senior members of this government on the Australian Human Rights Commission and in particular its president, Professor Triggs. This no doubt has significantly impacted on our capacity to maintain a proper dialogue about the preservation of rights and a proper exchange between executive government and those who should, from time to time, be critical of its decisions.

We have seen this echoed in a lack of respect, as I see it, for the courts and for due legal process. I have been personally concerned, and I note the concerns raised in this report, about the manner in which litigants and their representatives have been described by senior ministers of this government, simply for pursuing their rights under law to advance either their interests or, in many cases, the interests of others—the interests of those unable to bring those matters before the courts. As someone who was a lawyer in a former life, I do find this concerning. A fundamental foundation of a democratic society must give citizens the ability to challenge government decisions. To see senior members of a government not simply debate the substance of matters which have been brought before the courts but seek to raise issue with the motivations of those seeking to hold the government to account is disturbing and impacts, in my view, significantly on the health of our democracy, which goes again to these questions of tone—of whether we choose to encourage a vibrant democracy or seek to discourage those who raise questions.

This goes to the other significant limb of the report, which goes to advocacy. I note in The Sydney Morning Herald, in the aftermath of this report being handed down, comments by the Executive Director of the Human Rights Law Centre, Mr Hugh de Kretser, who said:

Governments—

and he was referring not just to the federal government but to a range of state governments, I should point out—

are using a range of funding levers to make it harder for community organisations to speak out, to advocate on behalf of the groups they represent (and) the natural environment and that's bad for the health of our democracy

I agree, and we see in respect of community legal centres a very dramatic illustration of how important it is that community organisations be supported not simply to maintain casework but also to deal with systemic problems our society faces. It is a false dichotomy to suggest that advocacy is a separate remit from casework. We see that in the very important work that so many community legal centres have done in highlighting violence against women and demonstrating that this is not a matter of individual circumstances but a sad phenomenon built on gender inequality. It is that sort of advocacy that governments need to pressure them to make good decisions for wider wellbeing.

I note that there is a reference to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on the Environment, of which I am a member, which touches on similar matters. There will be a report in due course around that, but it is concerning to see that advocacy has not always been regarded as an important thing to be valued in civil society but has been seen as something to be suspicious of. I say briefly: what a contrast the record of this government has been to that of the former government, which put in place a range of mechanisms to ensure a robust civil society—in particular when it came to its support for social services agencies, where explicit provision was made to enable agencies to speak out, even if it were against policies of that government.

A particularly pointed question on the issue of advocacy is how we treat whistleblowers. This is a matter that is highlighted at some length in the report of the Human Rights Law Centre. One thing that I think needs to be given very serious consideration by anyone who is serious about public administration is to think about not just about offering protection for whistleblowers but also giving some thought to incentives, knowing what we know about how whistleblowers are treated. I think of the recent example of those former Save the Children workers and the consequences that their lives have suffered because of their courage in speaking out on matters that they believes to be important.

This document provides us with some signs of hope. Decisions of recent state governments, like that in Victoria that by Daniel Andrews and that in Queensland by Annastacia Palaszczuk, have reversed previous attacks on rights, particularly in going to the right of assembly. This could and should be a foundation for all of us in this place to think about our shared interest in the state of our democracy, recognising that we will not always agree on how that democracy should be constructed. On the need to maintain not simply robust debate in this place but a robust and well-supported civil society that holds us all to account, if we do not pay closer attention to the state of our democracy, as this report demands, our jobs will become much more difficult and the challenge of sharing a vision of the future will become under threat.