Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill would enshrine a bill of rights in Australian law. It is modelled very closely on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 2001, introduced by the then member for Calwell, and would give effect to a number of international agreements to which Australia is a signatory, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In essence the bill would render invalid any Commonwealth, state or territory law that is inconsistent with the bill of rights to the extent of that inconsistency. It would also specify that Commonwealth, state and territory laws should be interpreted so as to be consistent with the bill of rights.

The bill also allows the Australian Human Rights Commission to inquire into any act or practice, done by the Commonwealth or a state or territory government, that may infringe a right or freedom in the bill of rights. It also allows for people to make complaints to the commission if they feel that an act or practice infringes a right or freedom in this bill of rights.

This bill is necessary. It's necessary because:

This bill is also timely because in recent times there has been an alarming increase in the power of government in Australia, at the expense of the rights of the individual:

The Australian Financial Review

Last year, the Chief Justice of New South Wales found 52 laws in that state alone that impinge on the presumption of innocence. In February this year, the Institute of Public Affairs identified 307 laws that infringe just four rights: the rights of presumption of innocence, natural justice, the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination. And another recent study found 350 current laws that infringe democratic rights such as freedom of speech—

This bill is also timely because of the plummeting threshold for criminality in this country—particularly in and amongst all the terror laws that have been passed by this parliament the threshold for criminality has reached ludicrously low levels. The bill is also timely because we're seeing in this country increasing secrecy, indefinite imprisonment without charge, the denial of full access to the judicial system, and the ignorance of international agreements as evidenced by the government's response to some asylum seekers. We have also seen in this country the rollout of a surveillance system covering virtually all adults in Australia through the mandatory metadata retention regime. We are seeing the bullying of independent safeguards, in particular the bullying of the Human Rights Commissioner and of the ABC, and the defunding of the ABC. We are seeing the misuse of security agencies, like Border Force's attempt to patrol the streets of Melbourne to check people's papers and the inclusion of the AFP logo on Centrelink letters.

This bill will not transfer sovereignty to the courts. Rather, it makes it more likely that human rights will be considered effectively when laws are made. It will provide a benchmark for the review and improvement of our laws. To again quote Professor George Williams, this time referring to the experience of the UK after the enactment of their Human Rights Act, the impact of the United Kingdom law is monitored by the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which has found that the act has not produced a significant increase in litigation or created any 'litigation culture' of rights protection. Where it has been applied in the courts, the Human Rights Act has proved useful in balancing issues like the need to fight terrorism with the democratic principles required for a free society. Indeed, the British department found in its April-June 2001 report that in local and magistrates courts, only a small fraction of the overall caseload involved human rights issues. The figure of 0.01 per cent of cases was given for one county court.

I want to give some time to the honourable member for Indi, who is generously seconding this bill, to offer a few comments, so I will allow her to use my remaining time.

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to second the motion that the Australian Bill of Rights Bill be read a second time. Why am I so proud to be here to support the member for Denison? It's for exactly the reason he says: so much has come before the parliament in the last week that infringes on our human rights. We had the government decide that the most appropriate mechanism for members of the LGBTI community to have the same rights as heterosexual Australians is through a postal survey. That process will create real fear among this community, amongst these people's families and friends—and especially their children—which will potentially open up the doors to bigotry and hatred. I support this bill because it would stop that type of activity. We saw the government introduce legislation attempting to change the citizenship rules, causing huge fear amongst people in my community, who have been living here in Australia as great citizens and perhaps achieving a university level of education, about what their rights are as Australians. So, I totally support this legislation.

What really moved me to support this bill today was my own community. Let me talk about the students at Wodonga Senior Secondary College. Three weeks ago, they had a constitutional convention looking at human rights and how they impact on them as young people, and how human rights impact on our community of Wodonga, Beechworth and Tallangatta. I was moved not only by the knowledge of these students but also by their passion: their passion around homelessness, their passion around the right to be engaged in politics and their passion around the responsibility of the Australian government to govern for everybody, not just small groups. My commitment to that group of young people in particular was to bring their concerns to this parliament in the most practical way I could: by supporting this legislation. I call on the government to bring it on for debate. Let's have a national debate about human rights legislation that governs the whole country. We've got it in the states, particularly in my state of Victoria, and it works very well. What we need is a national approach.

In bringing my comments to a close, I congratulate the member for Denison for bringing this legislation to parliament and I call on my colleagues opposite to give serious consideration to supporting it. The member for Denison did an enormous amount of work on how this could be introduced and on the difference it would make to our country. I'm very pleased to second the motion that this legislation be read a second time.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.