George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

After careful consideration, the opposition has decided to oppose this bill. We do so mindful of the considerations recited by the coalition members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. We see it as an entirely unnecessary expansion of the existing very healthy human rights bureaucracy—unnecessary because there is no function that the proposed Children's Commissioner would discharge which is not already dealt with by like offices in the states and territories.

The Australian Human Rights Commission currently consists of a president and six commissioners dealing with specific areas—namely, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner; the Age Discrimination Commissioner; the Disability Discrimination Commissioner; the Race Discrimination Commissioner; and the Sex Discrimination Commissioner—as well as the human rights responsibilities that vest in the president. The coalition has supported the expansion of the remit of the Australian Human Rights Commission to deal with particular sectoral areas. In particular, most recently the coalition supported the amendment to the Human Rights Act to include as an additional commissioner an age discrimination commissioner, so it cannot truthfully be said that the opposition is not disposed to supporting expansion of the human rights apparatus of the Commonwealth in appropriate cases. But each of the cases where the government seeks to expand the human rights apparatus must be an appropriate case. It annoys me, I must say, that when in a simple-minded fashion some politicians say, 'This is a human rights issue' there is a presumption for that reason alone, merely because it is given a rhetorical label, that there is an obligation to support it rather than to ask the intelligent questions which careful legislators ought to ask—that is, whether this genuinely is a human rights issue, whether there is an unmet human rights need identified and whether that unmet human rights need will be suitably or properly addressed by the legislative measure being propounded.

In this case the answer, on a careful consideration of the bill, is no, there is no unmet human rights need which this bill addresses. There are of course human rights needs of children—there is no question about that—and the opposition supports the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child. In fact one of the prime movers for the creation a quarter of a century ago of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child was an Australian Liberal, a friend of mine, the late Robert Nestdale, who was at the time the chief executive officer of UNICEF Australia. So on our side of the aisle we not only support appropriate measures to protect the rights of children within the human rights framework; but it was to a significant degree because of a member of the Liberal Party of Australia operating through international agencies, in particular UNICEF, that we have the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child. We oppose this bill because it is unnecessary. It does involve an additional expenditure of Commonwealth money—$3.5 million over four years. That is not in the scheme of things an enormous amount of money; however, at a time of budgetary constraint due to four years of profligacy and awesome waste any new expenditure measure should begin with a presumption against it. But we oppose this bill because this commissioner will have no work to do that is not already being done in the Australian public sector. Every state and territory has an equivalent office. The protection of children in this country is exclusively a function of the state and territory governments, and in each state and territory there is an officer and a department of children's services responsible for the guardianship of children, the protection of their interests, their removal from circumstances in which they may be in physical, emotional or moral danger, and such other protective measures as are dictated by the acts of the various state parliaments.

I know from my own experience as a legal practitioner in Queensland that those state departments of children's services, however described in the various states and territories, are very busy. They have a great deal of work to do. They have a large caseload and their resources are stretched. This commissioner, the Children's Commissioner, will have no caseload at all—none. The relatively modest amount of money, $3.5 million over four years, which the government proposes to spend on this commissioner could, in the opposition's view, be better spent were it contributed to the financial support of those state and territory agencies which actually do protect children. Let me say that again: they have a large and busy caseload. They are underresourced. The child protection function with which they are charged by state and territory acts of parliament could be better fulfilled if they were better resourced. If you were seriously interested in the protection of children, you would properly resource the agencies which have an actual caseload rather than spend the money on an advocacy role—because that is, in effect, all this legislation provides for: an advocacy role.

I said a moment ago that this legislation duplicates what the states and territories do. Not only do the state and territory children's services departments or equivalent officers have a caseload, not only do they look after children in distressed and necessitous circumstances; they also have an advocacy role which, within the limitations of their resources, they discharge fully. So, again, it is not as if the importance of advocating for the human rights of children is an unmet need in this country; it is a need that is being fulfilled at the state and territory level.

So we come to the question that we must always ask whenever a government proposes to create a new statutory office or to expand an existing bureaucracy: what is this person meant to do? Well, not very much. What this person is meant to do is to engage in advocacy and, in particular, it appears, advocacy of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child. Advocacy unaccompanied by casework that actually deals with the needs of children in distressed circumstances amounts to very little other than pieties. I am sure we will hear some pieties from the government and perhaps from the Greens about how important this role is. Resource the states to deal with children who are in distress, if you want to protect human rights. Too much of the human rights dialogue in this country is based entirely on pieties which do not translate into practical action on the ground to look after the interests of those in whose name the need for the new bureaucracy is invoked.

The opposition, as I say, oppose this measure. We support an appropriate apparatus of human rights protections in those areas where the Commonwealth can do something useful. We support the state and territory agencies which handle the caseloads of children who actually need the intervention of government to protect them. It is actually quite an old function of government, intervening to protect children who need that protection. We regret the fact that the state and territory agencies are insufficiently resourced. But, for as long as the human rights debate in this country is conducted only at the level of pieties and without sufficient emphasis on the importance of results, care for those in need and the application of actual resources to specific individuals—in this case, to specific individual children who need the help of government to be protected from circumstances beyond their own control—we will have a degraded human rights discussion. So many of the human rights discussions we have in this chamber have that degraded, abstract quality: they are not about people; they are about airy sentiments which somehow never translate into helping the people in need in real communities. It is because we are concerned that the debate about the rights of children seems to be taking that turn that we are unpersuaded by the need for this bill.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak in strong favour of the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (National Children's Commissioner) Bill 2012. It is high time that this legislation passed through this place. We know, just looking back through history, that Australia signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990—that was under Hawke government—thus enshrining our commitment to children's rights, not just here in Australia but also around the world.

One of our obligations when we signed that convention was to establish a national position such as this—a Commonwealth commissioner who could advocate for, look after, represent and speak for the best interests of children and young people in Australia. That was over 20 years ago and we are still here debating this issue. In 2012, it is well and truly time for this position to be established. It was only in March this year that I stood in this chamber to debate my own bill to establish a children's commissioner. I am thankful to see the government adopt this position and now to see legislation passing through the parliament. I listened to Senator Brandis's speech and, while I note what he said, I am extremely disappointed that the opposition will not be supporting this legislation. But, regardless of that, with the Greens supporting this legislation, it will pass the parliament today.

It is absolutely important that we give our youngest citizens an ability to have somebody to speak for their rights and speak in their best interests. We know that this position will be housed under the Australian Human Rights Commission. That body already has a number of commissioners who speak for those who are vulnerable in our community, those with special needs, whether it is the Disability Discrimination Commissioner, the Race Discrimination Commissioner, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner or the Age Discrimination Commissioner. All of those positions speak and advocate for the best interests, and shine a spotlight, on what as decision makers we could do better to look after those in our communities who are vulnerable simply because of—through no fault of their own—who they are. Children and young people in this country deserve a similar person to speak up for them. We are here as elected representatives, voted for by our communities. Young people in this country do not get an opportunity to vote until they turn 18. They have no-one who is officially there in any capacity to stand up for their rights and in their best interests.

Human rights organisations, children's support and welfare organisations around this country have been pushing long and hard for this position to be established. It is down to their hard work that this position will become a reality, that we will now have a National Children's Commissioner. When you look at the statistics, there would be no good reason not to have somebody advocating and shining a spotlight on what it is that governments--whether federal or state—and other elected representatives and decision makers in this place and in the other place just over the corridor, should be doing to strengthen the opportunities and the protections for children and young people.

We know that the highest number of people who are homeless--day in, day out—are young people. Those under the age of 18 make up the highest number of people living homeless on our streets in the cities and in our country towns. It is paramount that we start to do something to offer support and actual change to the realities that these young people live by. We know that the statistics of young Indigenous people are horrific when you compare those with the statistics of non-Indigenous children. Their health and education rates far outstrip the vulnerabilities of other children in this country. Of course, that is something that this role can specifically focus on.

Children with disabilities are in a particularly vulnerable category. While we have a commissioner for disabilities being able to advocate for people to become more able in their communities and looked after, represented and treated with dignity, it would be wonderful to see a children's commissioner work side by side with their fellow human rights commissioners to lift the standard of care and protection for children with disabilities. Young people who have come here as noncitizens—recently arrived migrants, those on refugee visas, those seeking asylum or simply new arrivals—are at a particular risk as well. This position could and should advocate specifically for their needs.

This bill in its current form did go to a brief Senate inquiry. We heard directly from organisations who wanted to see this position established that we needed to make sure that this role focused on the most vulnerable young people in our communities: those who are here as recent arrivals, Indigenous children and children with disabilities. They are the three key categories of children who are at risk. We know that those children who are in out-of-home care tend to fall into a number of those three categories. We know that the levels of mental illness amongst Australia's young people is skyrocketing out of control. We know that the issues and the struggles of young people battling mental illness are growing day by day. Statistics come out almost on a weekly basis about how dire and insufficient our community services are at dealing with the rising level of mental illness amongst Australia's young people and children. It is important that this particular role pinpoints what it is that government and decision makers should be doing to increase how we care for our most vulnerable young people and children.

I spent a good length of time talking to advocates in relation to the role of the Children's Commissioner when I first introduced my bill into this place. I distinctly remember having a discussion with young people who said: 'We don't feel like we have a voice. We want to know there is somewhere that we can go and someone we can talk to about the things that concern us the most, and engage with us about the things that we want to see dealt with in our communities.' These are amazing young people. They got together as a group and got themselves to Canberra, to Parliament House, and said on behalf of other young people: 'We want to see a special advocate for our rights and our needs, and for the needs of our peers who are in a more vulnerable position.' These young people knocked on the doors of parliamentarians in this place for many years, and that is why this position is being established. Organisations like UNICEF Australia, in particular, put a lot of time into the creation of this position. We know that various different youth services—for example, SNAKE, the organisation that advocates for Indigenous young people—put a lot of time into this bill, and they all support this bill going forward, which I think is absolutely fantastic.

It has taken us 20 years to get to this point. I would have liked to have seen this legislation passed a long time ago. But, finally, today, it seems as though it is going to happen. It is significant that last year when the United Nations Human Rights Commissioner, Navi Pillay, was in Australia she called directly on political leaders here to establish this position. She urged the government directly that it was time Australia stopped dragging its feet on establishing a children's commissioner and simply got on and delivered. It is something that we had not done and there was no explanation for it as far as she could see. It is fantastic that we are now in the position where we will be able to report back to the United Nations and say: 'We have done this now. We've taken our obligations seriously. Yes, it took us 20 years, but we have now established this position.'

A number of comments were made by the Human Rights Commission in relation to this bill when it was first introduced into the House of Representatives. They spoke of making sure that the legislation for this position was underscored by the various international human rights instruments, to give it strength, understanding and direction. The Human Rights Commissioner, Catherine Branson, noted in her submission on the bill the key areas where this commissioner should focus its time—that is, of course, in relation to the various protocols and optional protocols under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

We also know that the only way to make this position really work and to give it the ability to deliver fruitful outcomes is to ensure that it is properly funded. While there is some money in this year's budget for the Children's Commissioner, I directly urge the government to make sure that they give it what is needed to allow this position to do its very, very important work. Do not fall foul of the criticisms of those opposite, who have made it very clear that they do not want this position to go ahead. Make sure you fund it properly so it can do the work, deliver the outcomes, contribute positively to human rights and provide for the best interests of children and young people right throughout the nation, particularly those from the most vulnerable groups.

I commend the bill to the Senate. It is high time this legislation was passed. It is high time Australia took the rights of children seriously. This is the future of our country. These young people will become the workers of tomorrow. They will ensure that our economy ticks over when the rest of us are getting older and are not able to contribute as perhaps we once did. This is a crucial role in being able speak up for the most vulnerable children in our community. When there are, as Senator Brandis pointed out, various different roles in relation to guardians and commissioners across the different states, let us have somebody at a national level who is able to bring together the best practices from around the country to make sure that, regardless of which state or territory the young person lives in, their rights are important and that the care that the government of the day has for them is clearly understood by all decision makers. Our younger citizens, the future leaders of our country, must have the ability to contribute and be the best they can possibly be, and that will be strengthened and underpinned by decision makers acting in their best interests. That will come from having somebody shine the spotlight on where we can do things better, what the best practice is and what we should adopt, which will ensure that in the eyes of the rest of the world Australia is putting the rights of our younger citizens first and foremost. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (National Children's Commissioner) Bill 2012, the culmination of a long-held Gillard Labor policy designed to strengthen human rights and to improve the lives and treatment of children and young people right across Australia. Promoting the rights, wellbeing and development of all Australians is a fundamental priority for the Gillard Labor government. Since Labor came to government, it has undertaken a number of substantial policy and cultural shifts that emphasise the importance of human rights. The evidence is in the nationwide conversation that Labor began on how to strengthen human rights, which led to each bill that comes before parliament being scrutinised for compatibility with our human rights obligations. The evidence is in the much-needed investigations into the culture and sexual misconduct and bullying in the defence forces now being carried out by the Department of Defence, with the assistance of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick. The evidence is also in the Labor government's preparedness to strengthen the investigative infrastructure we have in this country to protect against abuse and ill treatment in detention through the optional protocol to the convention against torture.

This bill provides a much-needed focus on the rights, safety and needs of children and young people, who are amongst the most vulnerable in our community to neglect and ill-treatment. They are a group of people who are amongst those most at risk of falling through the cracks without strong institutional support and oversight. We know that our nation's future depends on their reaching their full potential, and their reaching their full potential means fully enjoying the rights to live and participate in our society so that they can one day become our future leaders.

Labor came to government with a longstanding policy for supporting and protecting families and children. Across all areas of government, including family law, education and early childhood, youth health policies and programs of child protection and welfare, we are working to improve the wellbeing, rights and safety of Australia's children. In 2009, Labor delivered the first ever National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children. The national framework outlines an ambitious, long-term national approach to ensuring the safety and wellbeing of Australia's children. It aims to deliver a substantial and sustained reduction in levels of child abuse and neglect. In February 2011, Labor delivered Australia's first National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. The national plan focuses on preventing violence by raising awareness and building respectful relationships between young people to foster attitudes and behaviours that reject violence against women.

We have made unprecedented investments to close the gap and address the unacceptable levels of disadvantage faced by too many Indigenous children. The Labor government is committed to working in partnership with Indigenous families to deliver better opportunities for Indigenous children. But children and young people also need a voice at the national level that speaks out for their interests and their rights. Labor has sought to do this in a number of ways. We have given young people new ways to speak out for themselves, by providing forums for young people to organise, to lobby and to advocate, like the Australian Youth Forum, and by funding the Australian Youth Affairs Coalition. These reforms allow young people to represent themselves and speak about the things they truly value that are affecting their lives and about which they are most concerned. But the truth is there are many young people who do not have the capacity to speak out for themselves. They need an independent voice, one who is able to monitor and oversee the treatment and the system that affect young people.

The National Children's Commissioner is designed to be that advocate. It will be a strong and forceful voice for Australia's children and young people and will play a proactive and positive role in their wellbeing and development. The bill places that advocate within the Australian Human Rights Commission, the right place for this role to be and the right place to complement the other commissioners and responsibilities of the Australian Human Rights Commission. The National Children's Commissioner will raise public awareness of nationally significant issues affecting children and young people, through discussion, research and educational programs. The commissioner will examine relevant existing and proposed Commonwealth legislation to determine if it is adequately recognising and protecting the rights of children in Australia and will report on its findings to government. The commissioner will consult directly with children and their representative organisations, which will ensure they can influence the development of policies and programs that affect them at the Commonwealth level. This will signal to children and young people that we as adults think that they matter, that we value their childhood and that we listen to their needs, hopes and aspirations.

Importantly, the National Children's Commissioner will have a clear focus on vulnerable or at-risk children, such as children with disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, homeless children or those who are witnessing or subjected to violence. The commissioner will give a voice to those groups of vulnerable children that have not had one in the past. A National Children's Commissioner will also provide an annual report to government on key issues affecting the human rights of our children, their wellbeing and their development, and that will be tabled through the parliament. The position will also contribute to meeting Australia's obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child and reinforce our commitment to our international obligations and relationships with the United Nations. It is another example of how Australia is turning commitments made during its Universal Periodic Review at the UN into a reality.

I want to recognise the contribution of the previous speaker, Senator Sarah Hanson-Young, and her interest in this issue, including her private member's bill on this topic. This bill differs from that of the Greens in that it does not seek to duplicate the roles of state and territory children's commissioners, but the National Children's Commissioner will seek to work with them to identify issues of national importance. The commissioner will not have a guardianship role or a complaint-handling role or a role in dealing with individual children, including individual children's cases in the context of child protection or family law, as that is already carried out at the state level. However, the Children's Commissioner will have a limited role to seek leave to intervene in court proceedings which raise significant children's rights issues, but this will not extend to representing individual children. Instead, it is very much a system-wide policy role, one that is vitally needed as more and more institutions become, I think rightly, more focused on human rights in Australia. As that conversation on the role of human rights in this country continues to gain momentum and exposure, many institutions will be looking for guidance on how to best protect the rights of the patrons—their stakeholders, the people—that their activities and policies affect. I do believe that the National Children's Commissioner will be able to fill that role.

The Gillard Labor government is implementing important policy reform that complements this role and redoubles the recognition of human rights in our legislative and policy framework. One of the other examples, which is also likely to result in greater responsibility for the Australian Human Rights Commission in monitoring and investigating situations of potential human rights abuse, is the Australian government's ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, or OPCAT. Australia has been party to the optional protocol to the convention against torture since 1989, along with most other nations.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I rise on a point of order related to relevance. We are debating an amendment to the Human Rights Act to create a Children's Commissioner—we are not debating the optional protocol to the convention against torture or other human rights instruments. I accept that it is proper for a senator to provide context but providing context does not extend to dealing in detail with measures that are unrelated to the measure before the chamber.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A wide interpretation of relevance has always been a feature of this chamber. There is no point of order.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If Senator Brandis continues to listen to my contribution, he will see how OPCAT is very much relevant to the bill before us. The convention against torture, which we have been a party to since 1989, creates an obligation for states to prevent torture within their jurisdiction. But the optional protocol goes a step further. It requires states to establish national preventative mechanisms to monitor the places—particularly places of detention—in which there is a high risk of torture. It also establishes an independent international Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture with the responsibility of visiting nations and inspecting and monitoring those same places.

Under the Howard government, the coalition rejected OPCAT, as it rejected the concept of multilateralism and of learning from our partners across the globe. I am pleased that the Labor government has reversed this short-sighted policy, signed OPCAT and announced its intention to ratify the protocol. The experience of the many nations who have ratified OPCAT and implemented an NPM—which can be a new institution or an existing body—is that OPCAT has helped them deliver better human rights protections and administrative and judicial detention systems that are less liable to litigation and risk. In jurisdictions similar to Australia, like the United Kingdom and New Zealand, ratification has helped to create useful standards or identify system-wide and recurrent issues in detention facilities. This experience provides a firm, evidence based argument for countries like Australia, and I hope allies such as the United States, to accede to the protocol.

In these cases, OPCAT has served to emphasise the notion that torture and cruel and degrading treatment is neither acceptable nor helpful. There can be no excuse or justification for practices that hurt or humiliate people in order to intimidate, punish or coerce them. No matter what the suspicion, conviction or circumstance, people are entitled to have their human dignity respected.

There was considerable discussion within the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, of which I am a member, about the OPCAT recommendations, and I want to thank all members for their engagement with the issue. The committee's recommendations reflect very much what has gone on in other jurisdictions. For example, I know that in my home state of Tasmania Breaking the cycle: strategic plan for Tasmanian corrections explored options for the establishment of an independent prisons inspectorate.

I have no doubt that Australian authorities and agencies will be able to use the new functions that will flow from OPCAT to learn how to deliver police, judicial and correctional practices that are more aware of human rights and the risk of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment. A more human-rights-aware community, especially in those areas where the risk of human rights breaches is elevated, can only be a good thing. OPCAT will have implications for children who remain in detention in Australia, and the valuable information sharing that will go on with the new commissioner is important in relation to OPCAT and those other human rights instruments that fall under the jurisdiction of our Australian Human Rights Commission.

I would like to thank the various non-government organisations such as UNICEF and a number of other youth organisations for their support along this journey to bring this bill to the parliament. As I said at the outset, the bill provides a much-needed focus on the rights, safety and needs of children and young people, who are amongst the most vulnerable in our community to neglect and ill-treatment, giving them advocacy and a voice. I also commend this bill to the Senate as it is the culmination of so many people's work for so long—people who have dedicated their lives to protecting children and young people in often incredibly difficult circumstances. Our focusing on the rights of people, especially vulnerable young people, in Australia as well as elsewhere in the world, is overdue. I am very pleased that human rights has received much more attention in the last four or five years than it did in the previous decade.

We know we are talking about a group of people who are amongst the most vulnerable, who can fall between the cracks. Without our strong institutional support, which is provided through the introduction of a National Children's Commissioner, which this bill provides for, they could continue to fall through the cracks. Providing for the best interests of children and young people in Australia through this advocacy of a National Children's Commissioner is something that we should commend and support, and we thank those who have worked for and supported the bill along its journey to the parliament.

Brett Mason (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Universities and Research) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Singh is right: the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (National Children’s Commissioner) Bill 2012 is an important bill. It is very important that members of the coalition talk about human rights. We—the Liberal Party and the National Party—are the trustees of the liberal democratic heritage. In the end, it was liberals and conservatives who invented human rights. Human rights might be a new infatuation of the bourgeois left, but in the 17th century it was liberals and conservatives that invented them. It is true that since World War II the bourgeois left has spoken a lot about economic and social rights. But it was liberals and conservatives who invented civil and political rights in the 17th century. They did so because we recognised—and this lot still do not—that the greatest threat to human rights is the state and government.

We continue to recognise, while the left never quite have, that the greatest threats in the world today to individuals in the end are the government, the military and the state. This lot have never quite realised that. I would have thought that after the bloodbath that was the 20th century we all would have recognised that one thing: that the greatest threat in the world today to human rights is the state. I never appreciate anyone from the bourgeois left trying to tell a conservative or a liberal about human rights. We invented them. We have some particular heritage when it comes to human rights.

I accept, however—and I suspect that the shadow Attorney-General agrees with me—that sometimes the Liberal Party, at least, has not spoken enough about human rights. At times we have run away from the field, and we should not have. We should have spoken more about what we invented and the importance of human rights because in the end, when it comes to criminal procedure and the rights against the state, we invented them. I agree with Senator Singh that perhaps in recent times the Liberal Party and indeed the coalition should have spoken more about them and we should have been far more aggressive in our advocacy of human rights in certain contexts. You can take this from me: the days when the Liberal Party were embarrassed—if they ever were—by human rights are well and truly over. We invented them and we intend to talk about them.

If human rights are important, they are particularly important for the most vulnerable people in our society, our children. As Senator Brandis outlined before, the Australian Human Rights Commission currently has six commissioners with particular responsibility for age discrimination, disability discrimination, race discrimination, sex discrimination, Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander affairs and social justice. This bill would establish another commissioner specifically to promote children's issues.

On the face of it, you might ask: 'What is wrong with that? What is wrong with another commissioner to address the rights of the most vulnerable in our community, our children?' On the face of it, you would think that is a pretty good idea. The coalition opposes the establishment of a children's commissioner because it does not believe that its establishment will assist in any material sense the protection or the promotion of the rights of children. We think that there are abundant protections elsewhere. That is the problem.

The issues addressed by a children's commissioner would be quite different to the issues addressed by other specialist commissioners, whether the issue be race or sex discrimination. Those issues are administered by Commonwealth legislation reflecting landmark United Nations treaties of the 1970s, the signing of which I remember very well. It is true that issues such as sex discrimination, race discrimination and discrimination against Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders quite rightly have come to dominate any federal human rights context. The question is whether the rights of the child are more appropriately protected through federal legislation or better protected and advocated for elsewhere. I have no doubt that legislation reflecting those landmark human rights treaties on sex and race discrimination should be reflected in Commonwealth legislation. The question for the Senate is whether the rights of children should be so reflected.

The rights of a child in this country, given that we are a federation, are addressed largely by state commissioners and state guardians. They have been since federation. I know that the Coalition members of the House of Representatives committee wrote a dissenting report in which they recommended opposition to the bill, concluding:

… the AHRC, in cooperation with the relevant state and territory commissioners and guardians, already adequately perform the functions envisaged for the new Commissioner.

In other words, the rights of children and their protection are already adequately guaranteed by state and territory guardians and commissioners. The Commonwealth's role, other than through the Family Law Act, is largely one of advocacy. As I understand it, the Commonwealth commissioner in this case will have no case load. Rather, its role will be one of research and some advocacy. And that is important; I am not saying it is irrelevant. But, of course, it is a matter of whether it is appropriate and whether it adds anything. There is plenty of other research by the federal government that is going on—in family law and other contexts—that that looks at children and children's rights.

In the end it comes to this: in human rights protection there is a lot of grandstanding. Often people make great landmark statements, and there is a lot of—how do I put this?—cheap symbolism. But I have learnt, as someone who worked for the United Nations, indeed in the human rights context, many years ago—about 20 years ago—that in the end the protection of human rights is far more about action on the ground, coordination and those simple things than about grand statements and cheap symbolism. Any insinuation that the coalition is somehow cheap or does not care about children's rights is, of course, rubbish. The question for the Senate really is: will it make any difference? My sense is that it will not, and that is why we are opposing it. The history of liberal democrats in the area of human rights in the last 500 years is unparalleled. This side says no to human rights protections only when we think it will not work, that it is symbolic and that it is not worth it—and for that reason we oppose this bill.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was involved in the inquiry conducted by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee into the Australian Human Rights Commission Amendment (National Children’s Commissioner) Bill 2012. One of the recommendations we have strongly made to the government is that, in the event that it intends to proceed with this legislation, it assures that the children's commissioner is known as the National Children's Commissioner. We need to make sure we have a very strong distinction between the roles that need to be conducted by state and territory children's commissioners and by a national children's commissioner. I think we can all appreciate that the dissenting contributions made to the inquiries conducted into this report were not based on any lack of concern for the rights of children; they were based on a caution about the need to ensure that a national children's commissioner position complements and supports the work of the state and territory children's commissioners, who currently vary—I think we could say—in terms of the funding they receive and the cut-through they get in state support and funding of their roles.

So I think we need to consider very carefully the role that will be undertaken here. I appreciate what the government has said in the legislation itself, but we are talking about the expenditure of $3½ million. We need to be monitoring very carefully (a) that the money is spent effectively and efficiently on a national children's commissioner and (b) that what often occurs when the states think they can shove something back at the federal government does not occur—that we do not end up with cost shifting whereby states and territories cut back their expenditure in the area of the children's commissioner, thinking that perhaps the federal government will pick up the tab for it. This, of course, would lead to some very serious concerns, because the national children's commissioner is not designed to undertake specific advocacy work.

I hope that if the government proceeds with this we will have a very effective, efficient system that can work in a federated way. But, given the long-term record of COAG and COAG-type agreements, there would be concerns about how efficiently this worked. I know that the best outcome we could get for our $3½ million would be if the state and territory children's commissioners were seamlessly feeding the information to a national children's commissioner so that we could end up with some nationally systemic advocacy in the area of children's rights. I certainly think there would be some fertile ground for a children's commissioner and a current disability rights commissioner to cooperate to ensure that some of the extraordinary cases of the children with disabilities not being met that currently exist—and therefore cases of the rights of their parents as ordinary citizens in Australia not being met—are examined more carefully and examined within a rights framework. If this starts to occur, once a rights framework is put around the needs of people with disabilities—children, carers and others—we could have a situation whereby we will get some national consistency, where there will be an impetus to get things right and to get real funding delivered into the areas where it is needed.

There are some shocking cases, as I said, of the rights of children being completely overridden, almost to the extent of their life being threatened by the lack of available benefits. I think this is a genuine human rights issue that genuinely needs to be taken into account. I hope that if this national children's commissioner legislation is to proceed that this is the area on which the government would be concentrating to ensure that policies are clearly set out and adopted for the marginalised children of Australia. I hope that it would be based on very good research and good advocacy that has come through the states and territories at the practical level and then used to develop good national policy and funded properly to ensure that this is an effective use of funds.

Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for consideration of this bill has expired. The question is that the bill be now read a second time.