Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I think Senator Scullion said that the nuns were a highly suspect lot anyway. I am sure he said that tongue firmly in cheek.

A few years ago when the Prime Minister was an opposition frontbencher, he wrote an article for The Monthly magazine about Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the role Christianity should take in society. There was a fair amount of criticism aimed at that article and some derision of the Prime Minister when he was then in opposition, but basically I think that the Prime Minister was right, although the arguments he made could apply to anyone, not just Christians. His piece on Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a powerful piece. It was well written, well researched, and it made a point about the issue of moral imperatives in public life. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a German Lutheran pastor and was one of the first and most outspoken opponents of Hitler and Nazism. He is famous for his writings on theology advocating moral imperatives and he assisted people out of Nazi Germany. He assisted Jews to escape Nazi Germany so that they could avoid the fate that befell six million people of the Jewish faith.

Reverend Tim Costello of World Vision—my good friend—has said that, today, Bonhoeffer would be considered a people smuggler. Interestingly, around the same time Bonhoeffer was travelling secretly around East Germany to encourage a Christian movement against Nazism, delegates from countries around the world were gathering for the Evian Conference. The conference held in July of 1938 at Evian-les-Bains in France was called to discuss the issue of growing numbers of Jewish refugees fleeing from Germany. While most of the delegates expressed their sympathy for the refugees, none of the countries, except the Dominican Republic, were too keen on taking more immigrants than their ‘quota’.

One of the Australian delegates was Lieutenant-Colonel Thomas W. White, at the time Minister for Trade and Customs. His attitude on behalf of Australia was:

It will no doubt be appreciated also that as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one by encouraging any scheme of large-scale foreign migration.

He went on to add:

I hope that the conference will find a solution to this tragic world problem.

So, in other words, Australia’s position in 1938 was ‘We are very sorry, but it is not our problem.’ We all know what happened in the events following 1938.

Last week, I received a copy of Australia’s Human Rights Framework which, according to the accompanying letter from the Attorney-General, ‘outlines action the government will take to promote and protect human rights’. Two of the measures outlined in the framework were the establishment of a parliamentary joint committee on human rights and the introduction of statements of compatibility with UN human rights treaties to accompany all new legislation. I believe the government when they say they are committed to human rights and to protecting Australia’s international reputation.

So my preference would be for the government to postpone debate on this bill until these two framework measures are established and introduced. This way, the joint parliamentary committee on human rights can then review this legislation in terms of our human rights obligations. It does not have to be a lengthy process. It is important that we deal with this, but let us put the safeguards in place. Let us not have unintended consequences.

The government can then issue a statement of compatibility on this legislation so that we can be confident in Australia’s dedication to human rights. This is an issue where there are literally lives at stake. Without the government taking these measures to ensure that we have the best possible legislation in place, the most effective legislation in place and one that is fair and without unintended consequences, I cannot support this bill in its current form.