Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Hansard source

In continuing my remarks in respect of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Amendment (Australian Freedoms) Bill 2019, I'm reminded of some comments I made in my maiden speech to this place about how we were being thrust into a realm of competing rights, where we had to choose, in a new industry based rights policy, whose rights would prevail over traditional freedoms or traditional rights. Essentially the rights business is a zero-sum game. If you grant rights to an individual, they generally take from someone else's, because one has to prevail over the other. I regretted that that was the case when I made my maiden speech, but I notice it has become increasingly evident in the 13 or 14 years since then. It's a regret that we have to spell out and codify what we regard as our innate and unalienable freedoms in this country.

This bill has chosen a number of rights or freedoms that I believe the parliament should consider in the passage of every piece of legislation or regulation in this country. When I look at the speakers list, I know that the sympathy of many in this place will be with me, but a number of the speakers, I suspect, will be a bit pernickety and try and pick holes in the bill—about whether they should be called 'Australian freedoms' or 'unalienable freedoms' or we should find some other means of justifying opposition. But, in its essence, this bill merely asks the parliamentary resources to assess every piece of legislation through the prism of how it will impact what I consider to be unalienable rights in this country. They should really pass without too much demur.

Freedom of opinion is something that I would hope everyone in this chamber would support. Freedom of speech is a right that has hitherto always been taken for granted but has now been made subject to limitations by the weaponisation of well-meaning legislation such as the Racial Discrimination Act and section 18C. The right to life is probably the most contentious of these rights. We may all have differences of opinion about where life actually begins, but, ultimately, the right to life in this country is a support against the state taking the lives of its citizens. There is the right to protection of the family. The family is the great cradle from which our civilisation extends, so we're right to protect the family. Freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are particularly pertinent today, as we are discussing and the government has proposed legislation in regard to protecting religious freedoms. That is not without inherent problems, because when you codify particular freedoms you also limit them. This bill will provide an elegant solution. When legislation comes forward it will be examined through the lens of how it will impact peoples' freedom of religion in this country. Will that legislation limit their ability to have peaceful observance of their thought or their conscience or their religious belief?

The right to protection from torture is something one might think is hardly necessary in this country, but that's because we take it for granted. What we've learned in the last decade or so is that what we have previously taken for granted has been under assault. That is true of nothing more than freedom of speech, as I mentioned before, and of freedom of opinion, which is subject to the thought police, as we like to call them. The prohibition of retrospective criminal law is another freedom, a freedom which I always took for granted in this place, and yet I've seen increasing amounts of legislation in which retrospectivity takes place. That includes cases where a government makes an announcement and says, 'From this date, such and such will be taking place,' before legislation has even passed the parliament or where it tries to backdate legislative penalties to cover up some omission that was overlooked, or some loophole that was missed, during the legislative process.

The only thing I'm seeking to do is make this parliament, the media and the public aware of the consequences, the potential infringements and the legislative process of the bills that are proposed by any government and of how they will impact upon their inalienable freedoms. Those freedoms—freedom of opinion; freedom of speech; the right to life; the right to protection of the family; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; the prohibition of torture; and the prohibition of retrospective criminal laws—shouldn't be the cause of massive debate. There may be some freedom lovers in this chamber who are looking for a fig leaf to oppose this and will say it's going to increase bureaucracy or maybe add an additional cost to the legislative process. I would counter those arguments by saying that what we're proposing is a part of the legislative process which is already undertaken in respect of ensuring our legislation and our processes here comply with our international obligations under human rights law. We go through exactly the same scenario, where a group of individuals are tasked with informing the parliament about how a piece of legislation complies with our human rights obligations. So why can't we do that with the sorts of things that we have previously taken for granted, but I believe are under assault in this country: our unalienable freedoms? It's a reminder to lawmakers. It is an in-built discipline to say: 'Before we pass this, this is how it is going to impact upon your freedom of opinion, your freedom of speech, your right to life or your freedom from torture or retrospective criminal actions and so forth.' It is just a consideration. It will not cost a great deal of money. It won't make any substantive difference to a piece of legislation, unless it piques the conscience of the members of this place to say, 'Hang on a second, why would we pass this in its current form when it's going to impact someone's unalienable freedoms? Is the cost of doing this worth it, or can we improve it in some way to make sure that these freedoms are protected?'

I truly wish that a bill such as this was not necessary, but I believe it is more necessary now than ever before in our history. We are seeing this continuing battle about competing rights. There is an industry of rights: it is my right to do this, but that right should trump or transgress someone else's right not to. That is the realm in which we are thrust today. Rights have been weaponised. They have been used, misused and abused.

Let us look at what rights all Australians should share. I've tried to encapsulate them. Some of you may indeed say there should be additional rights attached to this. That's your business; I'm happy to accept your amendments. There may be some of you who say, 'These are not Australian freedoms; these are international freedoms, and we should embrace them.' I will take that amendment too, if that's what you want to do. But we have to take more seriously our responsibilities about protecting our way of life, about protecting the freedoms of individuals. The best way we can do that is to inform ourselves about how well-meaning legislation—or perhaps even not well-meaning legislation but any legislation—will impact upon the very principles and the fabric of our society that I've encapsulated in this bill.

I look forward to the contributions from other senators. I hope that this bill will meet with broad consensus and an agreement, and that the opposition to what I've proposed will not be too pernickety and merely an opportunity to dismantle what is well intentioned for the sake of political expediency. It is important that we recognise and we understand exactly how the passage, or the decisions, in this place are affecting individuals right across Australia and will continue to do so for many generations to come. I commend this bill to the Senate.