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

I seek leave to move a motion relating to the UN's Universal Periodic Review as circulated.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice standing in the name of Senator Waters, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to give precedence to a motion relating to the Universal Periodic Review.

It is quite extraordinary that the Albanese Labor government's response to the UN periodic review about Australia's human rights record, which recommended some 332 changes to Australia's human rights laws, was to reject 204 recommendations. And we only found out about this because the response was published on a fairly hard-to-identify part of the UN's website.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, I remind you that you've moved a suspension motion, so that's what you need to address—why the matter is so urgent that the parliament needs to suspend.

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

This is urgent because it has only just been found out today; we only found out today that the Albanese Labor government have said to the world that they do not support raising the age for criminal prosecutions. We only found out today that the Albanese Labor government have said to the world that they want to keep putting ten-year-old kids into jail, kids who still have their milk teeth. We only found that out today. We only found out today that there are more than 200 recommendations to fix Australia's human rights record that the Albanese Labor government have said no to. Do you know what one of them is? One of them is to introduce a human rights act—a human rights act that would protect the human rights of all Australians. It may not be to the flavour of Gina Rinehart. It may not be to the flavour of Labor's corporate donors to a human rights act in place, but it sure as heck—

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, I remind you again you need to address why the matter is urgent that you need to suspend standing orders.

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

It is urgent because currently Australia is one of the only longstanding liberal democracies on the planet not to have a human rights act. Every day we don't have a human rights act is because of a deliberate choice of the Albanese Labor government. A recommendation to adopt a human rights act was adopted by this parliament's Human Rights Joint Committee. Every single member of that committee, from all political parties, including the Greens, including Labor and including the coalition, recommended a human rights act. Every day we don't have a human rights act is laid at the feet of the Albanese Labor government. There is a guaranteed pathway through this parliament, with the Greens in the Senate, to ensure that we have a human rights act.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge!

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

And it's urgent, President—

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you.

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

It is urgent because, unlike Labor and those who control Labor and pay for and donate to Labor, millions of Australians actually think they should have human rights and those rights should be protected in legislation. Do you know another reason why it's urgent? In the Northern Territory right now, pretty much every kid in jail aged 10 years and up is a First Nations kid. The UN periodic review said that that is a stain on this nation's human rights record. Labor may not think that's urgent to address, but I can bloody well tell you this: the Greens think it's urgent that we address it.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, withdraw.

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

I withdraw it. The Greens think it's urgent we get a human rights act. But instead there is complete cowardice from Labor to actually stand up and do something principled. You'd have to stand up to a bunch of hardcore right-wing racists to say that First Nations kids shouldn't be in jail, but we're willing to do it. Why isn't Labor willing to do it? We're willing to stand up to those hardcore right-wing racists and say that First Nations kids should have rights.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Shoebridge, I remind you once again this is a suspension motion. You need to say why you think it's so important that the parliament suspend its standing orders.

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

Do you know why I think it's important, President? I think it's urgent to stand up to hardcore right-wing racists—and our party thinks that, and we can't believe the Labor Party doesn't. If those watching this debate or ruling on this debate don't see it's important and urgent to stand up to hardcore right-wing racists who think it's okay to put 10-year-old First Nations kids in jail, then there's a problem in this chamber and there's a problem in politics. And do you know what? There is—and I'll name the problem: the Australian Labor Party, the place where progressive thoughts, hopes and principles go to die. That is why the Labor Party responded to the UN's periodic review by rejecting 200 recommendations to reform our human rights record. It is urgent we have a human rights act. But do you know what's probably even more urgent? It's urgent we have a government with principle and ticker that's willing to take on these issues, and unfortunately we don't. We've got this mob. We've got Labor.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party, Minister for the Public Service) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the suspension motion, as moved by Senator Shoebridge, be agreed to.