Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In late January this year, as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I was privileged to participate in the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference on the Rule of Law and Human Rights, which was held in Westminster. Mr Graham Perrett, the member for Moreton and the deputy chair of the committee, also attended. The three-day conference focused on the role of parliamentarians and the implementation of human rights. The conference also discussed human rights and the universality of human rights and how, as politicians, we can engage effectively in that. The conference was an initiative of the Commonwealth and was strongly supported by the House of Commons, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. Forty-nine participants from 19 Commonwealth and other non-Commonwealth countries engaged in wideranging dialogue and workshops. Conference outcomes are contained in the conference communique, called the Westminster declaration.

Personally, I found the conference very timely and relevant and it has greatly assisted me in my understanding of my role and responsibilities, both as a senator and also as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. Topics of discussion ranged from the recognition of human rights to modern antislavery legislation, and to the ways that parliaments should, and could, interact with human rights commissions. During the conference, participants were briefed on contemporary international human rights issues, and we were provided with the opportunity to engage with panellists and participants on all of those issues. We also had the opportunity to observe a UK Joint Committee on Human Rights hearing—an inquiry into human rights and business. We also conducted a mock hearing ourselves, and an inquiry on modern slavery.

A key re-occurring theme throughout the conference was the universality of human rights, but what came out was not just the universality of human rights but the universality of commitment on all sides of politics to human rights. One of the striking things that came out of this, for me, was the challenge that all of us in this place have in balancing democratic freedoms with human rights. Neither of these issues—democratic freedoms or human rights—are left or right issues; they are human issues.

So I left with the thought that the real challenge for all of us in this place lies in determining where contemporary societal norms lie in balancing human rights with our democratic freedoms. Topics of particular relevance to the Australian participants, myself and Mr Perrett, were: the best practices and benchmarks for parliamentary human rights committees, the challenges and opportunities for parliamentary human rights committees, and how parliamentarians can work productively with their national human rights institutions, which in Australia is the Australian Human Rights Commission. We also explored ways human rights committees can engage more widely with a civil society and non-government organisations on human rights. I think that is a particularly timely issue for us here in Australia.

One of the most illuminating topics of discussion were the challenges, but also the opportunities, for human rights committees to work cooperatively with executive governments to ensure that our domestic human rights are protected, not just the human rights of those we engage with overseas. One of the most profound observations that I came back with was that a strong reminder that all members and senators are custodians of democratic freedoms in Australia. In particular, the first article of our Westminster declaration reminded us of this responsibility as parliamentarians. And I would like to read it out: 'We recognise parliament as a key institution safeguarding and upholding the rights of citizens, and its corresponding role in the promotion and protection of human rights and the rule of law, as well as respecting and embracing diversity and pluralism.' While it is something that I am sure everybody in this place would agree with, the challenge for all of us is how we actually balance that and make sure that it reflects contemporary societal norms.

This article and these discussions also reminded me—and, I think, all of us in this place—that our Australian founders of our Constitution and our nation did not create a bill of rights. They did it very deliberately, because they believed that in our Westminster style of representative government, which is now enshrined in our Constitution, it was the responsibility of citizens to ensure that democratic freedoms and other rights, like human rights, were implemented through their elected representatives, which of course is all of us in this place. This does require a very difficult balancing act between competing freedoms and rights, such as human rights. One or the other has to be restricted, because no democratic freedom today in any country is truly free.

This is a very challenging task. I think all members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights are finding this in their inquiry into freedom of speech currently. I think this particular inquiry also reminds us of the importance of these public discussions, as painful and as difficult as they may be for some participants. They are quite challenging discussions for many in the community. I think the importance of this inquiry, and I hope many others like it is, is that it reminds us that, through this ability to facilitate and engage in these robust and, importantly, respectful debates, we are able to discharge one of the most important and fundamental responsibilities of all of us in this place.

In a perverse way, at the conference it was quite a relief to me to realise that these challenges that we confront every day in this place are in fact universal and are experienced by parliamentarians in all other parliaments, regardless of their systems of government. It was also very clear to me that freedoms are never protected through restrictions on freedom of speech, no matter how difficult the conversations actually are. No minority has ever been protected through restrictions of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is actually the best protection for any minority group in any country, as difficult as it is to manage sometimes. So I came away very clear that we need to find a way in this country to encourage more of these discussions and debates that have happened through this freedom of speech inquiry.

We also had very lively and informative conversations between delegates about the challenges and opportunities for parliamentary human rights committees and/or parliamentarians to work productively with their national human rights institutions, which of course in Australia is our Human Rights Commission. I think that Belgrade principles, which relate to the relationship between national human rights institutions and parliaments, provide a very robust and sound framework which this parliament could use to assess the operation of the Human Rights Commission. This is an issue I am now addressing through the Joint Standing Committee on Human Rights.

Further, we spent a whole day at the conference on modern slavery and what modern slavery offences constitute today. It was revealing and shocking to learn the scope of modern slavery within the UK today and the support that UK citizens and companies inadvertently provide to it overseas. The UK's 2015 Modern Slavery Act is designed not only to consolidate the previous offences but also to address and mitigate modern offences of trafficking and slavery. So I returned home with an even deeper conviction that this is an important issue for Australia to now address. I believe that the proposed inquiry into this matter by the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade is timely. It could be a very effective means of inquiring into modern slavery—how we can legislate from it and learn from the experience over the last two years of the UK implementing this legislation.

Finally, some in this place know that I have been actively championing for the past 12 months against a form of what I believe is a form of modern slavery, and that is orphanage tourism. This is now a huge, multibillion dollar international industry and what I believe to be organised crime. This is where well-meaning tourists from Australia and many other countries—they are cashed-up and have good intentions ripe for exploitation and scams—go to orphanages or institutions. But, instead of being genuine orphans, over 90 per cent of these children have been taken—generally by deception—from their families. They have been trafficked on false papers; they are subject to servitude, slavery and sexual exploitation. Most Australians would be horrified to know that they were supporting this trade inadvertently; they are thinking they are helping children. This is one issue I have been raising in Australia, and internationally with the Commonwealth. I am hopeful that any inquiry into modern slavery will have a look at this form of criminal activity, at a minimum to make sure Australians become responsible and smart volunteers overseas.

I thank the parliament—both presiding officers—for the opportunity that this conference afforded me. Thank you.