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

In relation to Human rights scrutiny report 8 of 2024, I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

Deputy President, you and the chamber will recall that earlier this week, on behalf of the Greens, I moved a disallowance motion to regulations made under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 that removed the obligation on Australian Border Force personnel to take reasonable care of the safety or welfare of individuals they came into contact with in the course of Operation Sovereign Borders. You will recall the debate where, on behalf of the Greens, I made it clear that we as a political movement, having worked and continuing to work with multicultural Australia and refugee organisations, are appalled at the Labor government removing the obligation for people who intercept individuals seeking asylum to the north of this country to take reasonable care of the safety of those individuals—some of the most vulnerable people on the planet—in situations of genuine peril on the high seas. We could not believe that that was happening.

The response we got from the Labor minister was derisory, as though Labor had never considered the human rights implications of removing those protections. We now have the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' report on this matter; it's just been tabled. The committee noted that disapplying certain provisions of the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 in relation to specified activities by Operation Sovereign Borders engages and may limit the rights to just and favourable conditions of work, life and security of the person. These are the concerns that the Greens raised and that were not even discussed or engaged with by Labor in their so-called defence of these appalling regulations.

In the course of writing its report the human rights committee sought some justification from the Minister for Home Affairs, who had issued these regulations. To say that the response was underwhelming and nonresponsive is a generous characterisation of the minister's response to the committee. The committee speaks clearest itself:

The committee notes the minister's advice that this legislative instrument is intended to ensure that personnel can combat people smuggling and irregular migration while protecting their own and others' safety in a uniquely dangerous environment. The committee considers that the continued application of the Commonwealth's overarching duty of care, and the additional legal and regulatory frameworks which apply to workplace safety, may assist with the compatibility of this measure with the rights to life and security of the person, and the right to just and favourable conditions of work. However, the committee considers that if those alternative mechanisms can continue to be applied, to ensure the safety of people engaged in or affected by boat push-backs at sea, without affecting Australia's national security, it is unclear why the particular work health and safety duties addressed by this measure therefore need to be disapplied.

The committee considers that it remains unclear how disapplying specific parts of the Act is effective to achieve the stated objective of the measure, as no information was adduced to demonstrate that the disapplication of these duties to these boat interception activities has changed the behaviour of workers over 10 years, impacted the frequency of safety incidents, or otherwise influenced the overall outcomes of the activities.

The committee goes on and says:

… The committee considers that it is therefore unclear that this measure is rationally connected to (that is, effective to achieve) the stated objective.

… The committee considers that the existence of other legal and regulatory mechanisms, and the requirement to notify Comcare of safety incidents, may serve as important safeguards that assist with the proportionality of disapplying these specific duties under the Act. However, the committee considers that it is not clear precisely what safeguard value they have in practice.

… The committee therefore considers that there is a risk that this legislative instrument does not constitute a permissible limit on the rights to life, security of the person, and to just and favourable conditions of work in practice.

It is, in polite committee speak, a shellacking of the government's alleged basis for these regulations. What the committee says, if you read the whole report, is that there was never a justification for these regulations and that they actually make it incredibly dangerous for people seeking asylum by impacting their right to life. A more fundamental right is hard to conceive of.

It shows just how absolutely barren of value and principle the Labor Party are in the way they engaged in the debate on the disallowance of this regulation. They sought to minimise or ignore the human rights that they were trampling on when they issued this regulation. They sought to other people who were seeking asylum, and they did it for an ugly, narrow political purpose, which was evidenced by the discussion in the chamber. It was a shameful contribution from Labor. These are shameful regulations from Labor. It is to this chamber's discredit that they didn't disallow those regulations.

Question agreed to.