Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 1) Bill 2014 today. I am not going to have the opportunity to say everything this afternoon but I am going to specifically comment on the less than accurate—I know Senator Moore, I know Senator Siewert and I work closely with them so I will not use the word 'mischievous'—comments that have been in the paper today about the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and its deliberations. I will come to that in a moment.

It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the bill today because this legislation is designed to do something long overdue in this country. All of us in this parliament are committed to assisting the most vulnerable in our community. We all share an interest in helping those who are unable to fend for themselves financially. I happily believe that senators from other parties share that same aspiration, which makes some of the attacks we hear from those opposite all the more galling.

No political party in this country has a monopoly on compassion. And the consistent attempts by some of those opposite to cast debates on these matters in these Dickensian terms are as false as they are tiresome. But the simple fact is that if we want to make sure that the generations to come enjoy the same sorts of social support, networks and frameworks as current generations, we have a responsibility today to get government spending in our country onto a more sustainable footing. I know that this is a point that many opposite either cannot or will not accept but we cannot continue to spend the way we have been spending. Without wanting to traverse the same ground at length, we have to look at the situation this government inherited when it came to office just over a year ago. We face a situation where government debt, in the absence of any action to correct our current course, was on track to hit $667 billion in a decade's time. I would have thought it was pretty clear that was a very obvious signal of the unsustainable nature of our spending.

Looked at another way, between 2012 2014, the former Labor government was planning to increase government spending by about 16 per cent. On an international basis, that puts Australia right at the top of the list in government spending. While there are certain tables where it would be good to see Australia at the top, this is certainly not one of them.

In more immediate terms, what Labor's runaway debt position means is an interest bill for the nation of around $1 billion every month. That is a huge opportunity cost for this generation and for future generations. Just imagine what a government could do with an extra billion dollars per month in delivering critical infrastructure, providing support for health and education services or, indeed, giving the people's money back to them because it is not government money ultimately, it belongs to those who paid the tax in the first instance. But, bizarrely, the position of those opposite is that we should continue living it up today and let tomorrow look after itself. That is not the responsible way; that is not the new government's way. We were elected because we said we would get the budget back on track and that is what we are determined to do and that is what we will do.

Future generations will not thank those of us in this parliament today if they find the cupboard is bare when they need support down the track and, indeed, in more perilous times. Let me declare: I have supported all of the government budget measures. I am not just on the public record in Western Australia but I am on the public record in many of our nation's papers as supporting the budget measures, all of them. These are difficult times; they require difficult answers.

I was not surprised to learn that Labor today had sought to scaremonger, to misrepresent the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. I was disappointed that ACOSS, who I have met a couple of times, decided to join in that scaremongering. What ACOSS said was not wrong; it Was just not completely true. What Labor has said was not wrong; it was just not completely true. I am personally disappointed because Senator Moore and others will know that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in our parliament, like other scrutiny committees, has a cherished and valuable role. It is free from the partisan politics that dominate other committees.

Just for the information of senators and those who might have an interest, let me just explain what it is that the committee does. The main function of the committee is to examine bills and legislative instruments that come before the parliament for compatibility with human rights, as defined by seven core international and human rights conventions to which Australia is a party. In simple terms, those conventions define a range of civil and political rights, as well as rights collectively described as economic, social and cultural rights. To understand the way in which the committee undertakes its examination of legislation it is critical to note that, aside from absolute rights such as the right not to be subject to torture, human rights may be generally subject to what are termed permissible limitations under international human rights law. Accordingly, the committee's analytical framework focuses on, firstly, identifying if a proposed measure might have the effect of limiting the enjoyment of a specific right and, secondly, whether any such limitations may be regarded as permissible or justified.

Today we read about an issue in The Australian newspaper and, again, I was disappointed because the journalist concerned—whose stories I normally like reading—did not have the courtesy to speak to the chairman of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. If she had chosen to, if Labor had been interested in a thorough debate on the human rights implications and if ACOSS had been concerned about engaging in a thorough debate on the human rights implications, they would have gone not just to the report but to the chairman's tabling statement, the statement that I give in this parliament every time I present a human rights report. What would they have found? I might just add here that Senator Siewert or Senator Moore did not talk about it; they gave incomplete explanations. What did the chairman say? I would like to draw senators' attention to one bill in this report, which is of particular interest and relevance to the committee's task of assessing legislation for compatibility with human rights. The bill, the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 2) Bill 2014, seeks to amend various acts relating to social security, family assistance, veterans' entitlements and farm household support to make a number of changes to certain Australian government payments. The report says:

The committee previously sought the advice of the minister—

that is accurate—

as to whether the measures are compatible with these rights, noting that the statement of compatibility did not adequately identify and assess how potential limitations on the right to social security, the right to an adequate standard of living and the rights to quality and non-discrimination would be reasonable, necessary and proportionate in each case.

That is not a sin. Many government departments do not meet the statement of compatibility test in the first instance. That is not new to this government; it was a feature of the previous government. And Senator Moore is nodding her head in agreement! But this is the critical point:

The further information provided by the minister in this case is an excellent model—

I did not hear that from either Senator Moore or Senator Siewert.

for the kind of detailed information and analysis required to assist the committee in its assessment of the human rights compatibility of legislation. This further information has allowed the committee to conclude that the measures are largely compatible with the right to social security and the right to an adequate standard of living, with identified limitations of rights being generally assessed as reasonable, necessary and proportionate in pursuit of a legitimate objective.

This is the other point that Senator Moore, Senator Siewert, The Australian, ACOSS and the Labor Party omitted from their coverage today.

Significantly, out of the twelve matters raised by the committee in relation to measures in the bill, the committee has concluded that ten of these are compatible with human rights.

I do not know about you, Mr Acting Deputy President, but in my language that is a distinction. It is more than a pass; it is a distinction. But this is the critical point: in an effort to prosecute their argument, Labor, ACOSS and The AustralianI cannot believe I am saying it—decided to go for a half-truth, not the full truth. That is very disappointing.

In the few moments available to me, let me say that it is not new for governments to suffer the ire of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which speaks to its scrutiny value and its parliamentary value. I was just reflecting this morning: what other common, familiar issue was there last year or the year before? Of course, it was Labor's media reforms that fell foul of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights. They, deservedly, fell foul. I now read from a report in TheSydney Morning Herald:

Of particular concern to the committee—

that is, the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights—

is Labor's proposal to appoint a single person—the public interest media advocate—to oversee newspaper regulators and judge whether media ownership is ''in the public interest''.

''These bills appear to limit the right to freedom of expression and freedom of association,'' wrote the committee about the two bills that govern the self-regulation of newspapers.

It is true and I think that many Australians would be surprised to learn that there is a human right to an adequate standard of living and a human right to food and shelter, but the fact is that our country, under the stewardship of then Prime Minister Holt—and I might add, for the benefit of my National Party colleagues, also at the table was 'Black Jack' McEwen, the Deputy Prime Minister—rightly or wrongly, signed up to international treaties. It has a parliamentary committee to oversee them. It is doing good work, but Labor could not resist the temptation. I expect better from ACOSS, the Labor Party and The Australian.