David Shoebridge (NSW, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the amendment moved by my colleague Senator McKim to refer the Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022 to committee for inquiry over the short recess between the end of this sitting week and when we return. It looks very much like a stitch-up has happened between the opposition and the Labor government to prevent stakeholders having the ability to engage with an inquiry over the next fortnight to improve the government's bill. Let's be clear: the government's bill does little more than suggest there needs to be a newspaper advertisement when there's a new appointment proposed for the Australian Human Rights Commission. You don't need legislation, last time I checked, to put an ad in the paper, but it is useful. We don't oppose the bill; indeed, we support the bill. It's useful to have an ad in the paper, at least! We know that the previous government did; they just appointed their mates quietly without any due process. So, yes, we support legislation that requires an ad to go into the paper.

But this government has said in moving this legislation that it's implementing the Paris principles. That is so far from the truth that it is close to embarrassing. Australia's human rights commission is at risk of being downgraded from class A to class B, going below the human rights framework of Iraq. That is because of the action of the previous government but also because of the structural inadequacies in our human rights framework. The Greens are proposing to respond to that criticism.

The criticism that came from the subcommittee included—I will read the list. The Australian Human Rights Commission does not have explicit requirements to:

a) Publicize vacancies broadly;

b) Maximize the number of potential candidates from a wide range of societal groups;

c) Promote broad consultation and/or participation in the application, screening, selection and appointment process;

d) Assess applicants on the basis of pre-determined, objective and publicly available criteria; and

e) Select members to serve in their own individual capacity rather than on behalf of the organization they represent.

There are multiple criticisms the UN has made about the way in which appointments happen and the nature of appointments to the Australian Human Rights Commission. And all this government does in response is say, 'We're going to have a newspaper ad, going forward.' We've heard from a series of stakeholders that they want this legislation to go further. They want to implement the Paris principles.

One of the key lacks in our human rights framework is the absence of a commissioner representing the LGBTIQA+ community. We can't understand why the government is resisting the amendment we circulated to lift the protections for the LGBTIQA+ community and give them what they deserve: someone in their corner, a commissioner who can respond to what have been some quite hateful attacks—some of them driven by the previous government. Those hateful attacks won't necessarily end. The Greens, on behalf of that community, want to see a human rights commissioner who's in their corner, who can hear their concerns, who can respond to their concerns and who can give this government and this parliament direction in how to improve the law and ensure their status is fully protected in our society.

It looks like one of the first actions the Labor government, with the coalition, will take on human rights is to do a stitch-up and prevent an inquiry from even asking the question and from hearing from stakeholders about the need for that commissioner. That's a pretty poor act from the government in one of its first actions on human rights. We'd ask the government to reconsider voting with the opposition on this and opposing an inquiry, opposing letting stakeholders have their views heard about the establishment of an LGBTIQA+ commissioner, and reconsider, as one of the first actions they'll take in this parliament on human rights, voting with the coalition, given their appalling track record. That's likely what's going to happen here. That's a tragedy for the community, but it's also a really poor indicator for where this government is intending to go over the next three years. I'd urge the Labor government to look closely at Senator McKim's amendment. Don't vote with that mob and shut down the discussion as your first step on human rights.