Matt O'Sullivan (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report on its inquiry into Australia's Human Rights Framework. By way of background, on 15 March 2023, the Attorney-General, the Hon. Mark Dreyfus KC, referred Australia's Human Rights Framework to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights for inquiry and report.

I thank all my fellow committee members for their work on this inquiry, which spanned 12 months and which conducted six public hearings. The inquiry was conducted in a cordial and cooperative matter. I and other coalition members of the committee—Senator Rennick and the member for Bowman, who was the deputy chair—do not support the enactment of a federal human rights act as proposed by the Human Rights Commission and have provided a dissenting report to the chair's report that was tabled today.

The Australian Human Rights Commission's proposal, frankly, is a bizarre reimagining of human rights, with key rights deleted or distorted. Absolute rights are not recognised as such—a deliberate devaluation of internationally recognised protections for the freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief. No justification can be found for extinguishing or reducing the fundamental rights in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the ICCPR, in the way which has been proposed via this human rights act. Proponents of the AHRC proposal have failed to demonstrate that our current systems are not providing adequate protection of human rights or that their reform model would achieve preferable outcomes where current protection is lacking. An Australian human rights act would be unnecessary, divisive and dangerous and should not be adopted by this government.

Coalition members are concerned that the inquiry sought to produce an example bill of what a human rights act would look like. It is an extremely unusual step for a committee to provide its own draft of a bill, I think. The example bill appended to the inquiry report has not been in any way subject to any public consultation or indeed expert review. Coalition members consider this legislative model a concerning departure from international human rights.

Contrary to the principle of human rights being universal, the example bill's preamble outlines that some human rights have a particular significance for Indigenous peoples, implying a lesser significance for other Australians. Coalition members reject this assertion entirely. The proposed human rights act deviates dangerously and unjustifiably from these international standards, selectively diluting protections for our fundamental freedom while introducing ambiguous and uncertain provisions, allowing an unsupportable scope for limiting rights.

The proposals threaten to undermine the robustness of Australia's parliamentary democracy by empowering the judiciary to be the arbiters of contentious political issues, with excessive power to interpret such uncertain provisions. This would result in an American-style conflict between branches of government.

Enacting a human rights act does not provide a guarantee that rights will be sufficiently safeguarded, particularly in extraordinary times. You only need to look to Victoria, who have a human rights act. We saw during the COVID pandemic that it spectacularly failed the people that it purports to protect. When it comes to what is most needed, it was found wanting. If it cannot protect its citizens from draconian government overreach during a crisis, then how can it during ordinary times?

Similarly, when it comes to freedom of religion, how can we possibly trust that a human rights act will protect citizens of faith? According to the Rule of Law Institute of Australia:

… the commission's model would enable the legislature to avoid taking responsibility for difficult public policy issues such as setting the limits on the manifestation of religious freedom.

During the inquiry, widespread concern was expressed by faith groups about implementing a human rights act and its implications for freedom of religion. The Australian Christian Lobby said in their submission, in reflection on the Human Rights Commission model, that it is incompatible with Australia's treaty obligations. The Human Rights Law Alliance were also critical of the AHRC's lack of prioritisation of religious freedom. In a blunt assessment, the Human Rights Law Alliance said:

The AHRC model should be scrapped altogether. It cannot be described as upholding human rights when it undermines so significantly key rights which are intended for Australians under international law.

Rather than fixing the lack of religious protections or inserting new safeguards, the commission's model actually creates more imbalances. Its model elevates some rights above others, increasing the imbalance.

The coalition members reject this report. We reject what the majority on the committee have recommended. We reject the proposal to have a human rights act in Australia. Our position was supported by Christian Schools Australia, who said:

This is a significant retrograde step for the protection of religious freedom. It replicates and reinforces one of the fundamental weaknesses of existing domestic bill of rights type legislation.

Here we are again, seeing that the Labor government is proposing yet more division and elevating some rights above others. Have they learned nothing from the failed Voice referendum? Let us have faith in our democratic institutions and continue to trust in the principles that have served our country for so long. Promoting and enhancing human rights in Australia requires an approach that fosters unity and trust within the community rather than one that divides.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.