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

I also rise this morning to make a contribution on Senator Bernardi's private senator's bill, the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Australian Freedoms) Bill 2019. In the short time that's available to me, I don't want to reprosecute what I think are the very compelling and comprehensive arguments that have been put by coalition senators in the debate this morning, but I do want to point to a couple of matters.

It's good to see that Senator McKim is in the chamber. I am someone who has served on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights with Senator McKim and, for a period, was the Chairman of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. I don't want to recanvass the debate around the substance of Senator Bernardi's bill. To quote Senator O'Sullivan, 'The coalition supports its high intent but doesn't necessarily support the approach that Senator Bernardi has taken.'

That's not to say that it's a debate that we should end or shut down—not at all. I would argue that, if you look at Australian politics over the last few years, there's been a number of themes that are very, very consistent or top of mind in the attitudes of Australians. One is the pre-eminence of economic issues, and I don't think anyone would doubt that as a result of the federal election. The second I would talk to is the point that there is this increasing discussion, whether on the Centre Left or Centre Right of Australian politics, around human rights issues—or liberties, as some people like to call them.

This is an important debate, and some of us will remember that the last time we had a substantive debate on this matter was with regard to the section 18C debate with regard to how to rework or recalibrate discrimination laws in our country. Then, of course, an element of the marriage equality debate in this Senate chamber looked at how best to incorporate peoples' religious attitudes with regard to same-sex marriage, and I think that the parliament struck exactly the right balance by supporting that bill that was brought to this place in its original form.

I'd just like to focus my comments on a slightly different angle. I won't take up all of the Senate's time this morning, but I will come back to this point at a later juncture. I think there's a fundamental issue here with regard to the operation of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. One of the functions of the Australian Senate that is universally poorly understood not only by senators when they first come to this place but also most definitely by members of the House of Representatives is the scrutiny function that the Australian Senate undertakes.

This parliament has three scrutiny committees. It has the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, it has the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills and it has the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. What makes two of those committees markedly different from the third is that the first two of those committees are comprised solely of senators. The third committee is comprised of senators and members of the House of Representatives. Now, I don't want to be disparaging to members of the House of Representatives, and that's not how this next comment should be interpreted, but senators and members of the House of Representatives go about their duties in different ways, and they put different emphasis on certain elements of their responsibilities as members of the House of Representatives or members of the Senate. I think everyone would agree that senators conduct their scrutiny functions with a high degree of care and a high degree of diligence. I think, in addition to keeping top of mind the sentiment that Senator Bernardi has brought to the Senate on this bill, we should keep our mind open to the idea of making the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights a better scrutiny committee by having its composition made up only of senators.

Informally, when I was the chairman of the committee, I canvassed this idea with senators and members from other parties, and there's a reticence. They say, 'Senator Smith, we like the idea that it's got members of the House and senators because that means that these human rights issues are top of mind across the parliament.' Well, that might have been the intent, but I don't think that has been the outcome. Actually, it has not been the outcome.

The scrutiny function that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights provides is important. I am someone who believes that, if our country has signed up to international treaties, it has a moral and ethical obligation to uphold those treaties. That's why I would like to see perhaps the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties apply its consideration to these matters much more intensely—and perhaps we can modify the way that committee goes about its work. But my first point would be that if Australia has signed up to international treaties then it has an ethical obligation to uphold them. Secondly, I would say that the scrutiny function is not a function that every member of the Australian parliament understands, or understands well, and that that is a scrutiny function that properly falls wholly and solely on the plates of senators. Thirdly, it is important that the parliament's committee structure—whether they be Senate committees or joint parliamentary committees—does, where it is necessary, in very, very prudent ways hold executive government to account. That is exactly the reason why we have a bicameral parliament, which is exactly the reason why the Australian Senate has one of the most well-developed and well-regarded committee systems of any second chamber in the world. So this is an issue that deserves ongoing consideration.

Those senators who are interested in understanding how we got to a Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights in the first place and how we got to this particular debate initiated by Senator Bernardi's private senator's bill might like to take themselves back to the Senate Hansard of 25 November 2011, when the Senate chamber first debated and agreed to legislate for the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2010, which is effectively the legislation that gave rise to the joint committee. In that contribution, Senator George Brandis, who was at the time the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate—and I'm sure Senator Payne will correct me if I'm wrong there—talked very eloquently about why parliamentary scrutiny of human rights issues was important. My colleagues might be interested to learn that he actually supported the creation of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights. My final point—and this is why I think Senator Bernardi's matters deserve ongoing consideration—is that Senator Brandis suggested a wider definition of human rights matters when the proposition of a joint parliamentary committee was first brought to the Senate.

So there are a number of elements in the debate this morning. I agree absolutely with the comments of my coalition Senate colleagues that this is an issue that is worthy of development. The high intent of what Senator Bernardi is seeking to achieve does deserve further consideration; we are opposed to where we actually get to in the detail of his private senator's bill. I would encourage my Senate colleagues to think carefully about how they could add their voice to some of the ideas I have about how we could improve the scrutiny function of that joint committee. I believe it should be a committee of senators only. It is not an easy committee to serve and it is certainly not an easy committee to chair. But I think the attitude of all Australians would be that they like the idea of a committee of some type examining and reviewing how we uphold our international treaty considerations. With that, I'll reserve my comments for another time and seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

Debate interrupted.