Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

On the same report, I associate myself entirely with the remarks just made by Senator Green. I want to place on the record that, given Australia remains the only liberal democracy in the world that has no form of either constitutionally enshrined or legislated charter for a bill of rights, the work of this committee is absolutely critical in informing not only members of this parliament but in fact people who live in this country about the human rights implications of legislation that is being considered by us here in this place.

It's very interesting that this annual report makes it clear that this is a technical scrutiny committee and that in fact the committee ought not to consider the broader policy merits of legislation that it is examining. But not only is the committee, under the chair, considering the broader policy merits; it is also considering the broader political implications of legislation that the committee is examining. That is a matter of extreme regret to me as someone who has sat on this committee for about five years. This committee has been politicised by the chair, with the support of every single other government member of this committee. I thank Senator Green and her colleagues from the Labor Party, including the deputy chair of this committee, Mr Perrett, for their view that in fact this committee should operate as a technical scrutiny committee.

I've made some public comments recently and I've made comments in this place on more than one occasion about the fact that this committee has been politicised by the chair. And, in response, the chair has accused me of suggesting that the committee should rubber stamp the legal advice. Nothing could be further from the truth. I agree the committee ought not rubber stamp legal advice, but I want to place it firmly on the record that, if the committee or any member of it wants to depart from the legal advice, then, when departing from that advice, there should be given cogent, rational and coherent reasons why the committee is not acquiescing to and supporting that legal advice. That is not what we are seeing.

The most recent majority report of this committee has significant departures from the independent legal advice that the committee relies on with no rational, cogent or coherent reasons given as to why that advice should be departed from. So I want everyone in this place to know: you cannot necessarily rely on the majority reports of this committee if you want to know what the best advice is to the committee. With regard to whether any particular piece of legislation is in accordance with Australia's international human rights obligations, I refer members to the dissenting reports that have already been issued and I have no doubt will need to continue to be issued by Labor and Greens members.

It is extremely disappointing that the chair for political purposes has chosen to rampantly politicise this committee, and I say again: do not trust or rely upon the majority report of this committee for an unbiased and technical assessment of whether legislation complies with Australia's international human rights obligations. I truly hope that the chair changes tack here and either relies on the legal advice or at least tries to mount a rational and coherent argument as to why that advice should be departed from in the future. I won't be holding my breath, because I don't think it's going to happen. However, it would be a good day for human rights in this country and a good day for people's capacity to understand human rights in this country if that was to occur.

Question agreed to.