Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Senate will now consider the proposal, under standing order 75, from Senator Thorpe, which is also shown at item 13 of today's Order of Business:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Government to progress a Human Rights Act to ensure basic human rights are being upheld in this country, in adherence to our international human rights obligations.

Is consideration of the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

With the concurrence of the Senate, the clerks will set the clock in line with the informal arrangements made by the whips.

Lidia Thorpe (Victoria, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The need for the Government to progress a Human Rights Act to ensure basic human rights are being upheld in this country, in adherence to our international human rights obligations.

So-called Australia is signed up to all kinds of international human rights treaties, conventions and proclamations. It must have made the PMs and ministers of their time feel good and noble about themselves. But when it comes to protecting the human rights enshrined in all these conventions, this country is not doing quite as well.

In the latest Universal Periodic Review, where countries are assessed on their human rights record, this country received 332 recommendations. Less than two months ago, the Labor government announced that they would accept just 128. They decided that they don't need to worry about recommendations from over 20 countries to raise the age of criminal responsibility and stop locking up children as young as 10. They decided not to worry about reducing the racist overrepresentation of First Peoples in prisons, which has led to higher and higher numbers of Aboriginal deaths in custody. They decided to reject all recommendations on improving LGBTIQA+ rights. They decided not to worry about asylum seekers either. The government has signed up to all those human rights conventions on paper only. It means nothing. It is shameful that the colonial Constitution of this country does not protect people's human rights. In its absence, to actually ensure compliance with our international obligations, human rights instruments need to be enshrined in domestic law—something that all federal governments have shied away from.

The Albanese Labor government is too scared to say it doesn't want a human rights act; that wouldn't look too good. Meanwhile, it actively violates human rights every day. We see women shackled to their beds while they give birth. We see children as young as 10 strip searched. There have been 83 deaths in custody this year alone, and the number is only rising. We see the most horrific police brutality again and again. We see children ripped from their family's arms into abuse and neglect in state care. Governments across the country, Labor and coalition governments alike, are causing more and more harm, emboldened by one another in the race to the bottom with more punitive youth justice laws, the removal of the Aboriginal child placement principle in the Northern Territory and a complete lack of responsibility on public housing, among other things.

A national human rights act was first attempted in 1985. It was this chamber that ultimately abandoned it. Yet it has been recommended time and time again by report after report, inquiry after inquiry, not least of which were the National Human Rights Consultation in 2009 and the inquiry into Australia's human rights framework in 2024.

In the past 12 months, the National Children's Commissioner's report on youth justice Help way earlier! recommended that the government introduce a federal human rights act. I've been travelling across the country to attend hearings for this current inquiry into racism, hate and violence directed at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Witness after witness has talked about the systemic racism they have experienced, with the most chilling stories you could imagine—stories of assaults, harassment and ultimately death, and stories of state institutions turning their back on First Peoples and refusing to provide protection of our rights and most basic needs.

This is why, today, I call on the government and everyone here in this chamber to make clear where they stand. If you care at all about protecting people's fundamental human rights in this country, you will support this motion and make clear it is time for a federal human rights act.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Shadow Treasurer) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Senator Thorpe's urgency motion that reads:

The need for the Government to progress a Human Rights Act to ensure basic human rights are being upheld in this country, in adherence to our international human rights obligations.

It can't be denied that Australia is regarded the world over for the strength of its legal system that protects the human rights and liberties of Australians. Ours is a strong legal system coupled with an enduring respect for the human rights and liberties of every Australian. Unlike other countries, the strength of Australia's system of legal protections lies in its multiple sources of legal heads of power and custom and not in a single legal source of power, as would be the case if a human rights act were to be legislated. The outcome and effect of our system is a protective one of human rights and liberties that ensures the balancing and, ultimately, optimisation of rights and responsibilities of Australian citizens. Those rights and responsibilities that fall on our citizens, fall our governments and fall on our community organisations ensure the strongest and most robust protection for human rights and liberties.

As the Rule of Law Institute has expressed, the problem with rights granted by law is that they can just be easily taken away by law. The human rights and liberties of Australians are protected by a well-established, tried and trusted system of protections. Let me just run through what that ecosystem of protections is. Contrary to Senator Thorpe's assertion that ours is a colonial constitution, ours is a constitution that has served this country remarkably well. This year marks the 125th anniversary of our national parliament, a parliament that was born of the adoption in 1901 of the Australian Constitution. That Constitution protects liberties through a separation of powers, a federal system of distributed and devolved powers. It is a constitution that contains both explicit and implicit rights. Human rights in our country are protected by the common law. They are protected by statute. They are protected in international. They are protected by the principles of legality, and, importantly, they are protected by things like an open media. They are protected by things like a vibrant community and not-for-profit and charities sector.

Ultimately, what Australia benefits from has best been characterised as a culture of trust and legal compliance by our citizens—a culture of trust and legal compliance that, in 125 years, has not let them down. If there is a virtue in Senator Thorpe's motion this afternoon, it's this: classical liberal and conservative senators should be very alive to the fact that there is a renewed push in this parliament, in the country, to enshrine a human rights act or charter or bill of rights in Australia.

It's worth noting a couple of recent developments. The first, as Senator Thorpe was correct to identify, is that the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has just conducted an inquiry into whether or not the federal government should introduce a human rights act. Of course, it will not come as a surprise that a government controlled committee like the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights suggested that a federal human rights act should be implemented. But this is not—

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

It was unanimous.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Shadow Treasurer) | Link to this | Hansard source

Well, I can't speak for the wisdom on these sorts of matters of House of Representatives members, Senator Shoebridge, but those House of Representatives members from the coalition who endorsed that report got it wrong.

But the history of this issue is quite revealing. It's worth reminding ourselves that the Whitlam government tried to introduce the Human Rights Bill 1973, a bill that was happily discarded following the double dissolution election of 1974. In 1944, a referendum was held in this country. It was called the postwar reconstruction and democratic rights referendum. It contained 14 questions. It was a Curtin government initiative, and it was resoundingly defeated by Australians at the referendum, with no less than a 54 per cent vote against it. If that wasn't strong enough, in 1988—

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator—

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Shadow Treasurer) | Link to this | Hansard source

and 1988 is the more remarkable experience—69 per cent of Australians rejected a bill of rights. Thank you, Senator Scarr.

Tammy Tyrrell (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

You can't stop him when he starts! I want to thank Senator Thorpe for her motion and for her continued fight for human rights in this country. We must all continue to push for change and ensure human rights are protected for all, equally and fairly, at all levels of government in this country. The Albanese government is committed to protecting and promoting human rights to ensure that all Australians are able to participate fully in our democracy, economy and society. Australia has a significant longstanding commitment to human rights and a long history of positive and constructive engagement with the international human rights system and civil society. Human rights in Australia are recognised and protected through a range of laws at the federal, state and territory levels, the Australian Constitution and the common law. Any improvement to human rights protections in Australia should be done in a way that unites rather than divides the community.

This government has continued to prioritise meaningful reform to strengthen rights and to progress massive human rights reforms. The Albanese government appreciates the work in the previous parliament of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired by the member for Macnamara, to produce a report on Australia's human rights framework. The government is now actively considering that report. Whilst that status update is really exciting, you might be disappointed to know that the government does not support this motion. Instead, we're taking the time to carefully consider the joint committee's report, because we know how important human rights are to Australians and to our democracy.

In the meantime, we have a really strong set of domestic frameworks. All jurisdictions have comprehensive antidiscrimination legislation that implements rights to nondiscrimination and equality. All jurisdictions also have a board or commission that oversees human rights and antidiscrimination. These have functions that include the determination or conciliation of complaints of discrimination brought under legislation operating in the jurisdiction. They also do human rights education and awareness raising. At the federal level, this includes federal antidiscrimination laws which make it unlawful to discriminate based on protected attributes, including sex, intersex status, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, disability, race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin in certain areas of public life, and the Australian Human Rights Commission, Australia's independent A-status national human rights institution.

The Australian government has continued to prioritise meaningful reform to strengthen rights and to progress significant human rights reforms. This includes, for example, actioning all recommendations from the Respect@Work report; inserting a cost protection provision into the Australian Human Rights Commission Act to promote better access to justice for those pursuing proceedings for unlawful discrimination; committing $6.9 million towards a review and modernisation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 as part of its response to the disability royal commission; legislating a merit based and transparent appointment process for the Australian Human Rights Commission, consistent with the international Paris principles; and passing legislation to ban life insurers from using adverse genetic testing to inform life insurance cover. As a government, we will continue to prioritise actions such as these that have meaningful, positive impact on the lives of Australians.

Human rights protections are also maintained at the federal level through the parliamentary legislative scrutiny process under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011. All government and non-government bills and disallowable legislative instruments must be accompanied by a statement of compatibility which assesses the compatibility of legislation with Australia's obligations under the seven core international human rights treaties to which Australia is a party.

To sum it up: thank you, Senator Thorpe, for your urgency motion. Personally, I understand your push to legislate the human rights act, but we need to take the time to consider the work that has already been done and consider the report provided to the government. The Albanese government appreciates the work in the previous parliament through the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which produced a report on Australia's human rights framework. The government is actively considering this report and remains committed to protecting and promoting human rights to ensure that all Australians are able to participate fully in our democracy, economy and society.

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

If there's one phrase that should destroy any sense of hope that you have that something will happen, it's when the Albanese government says they're 'actively considering' something. Beware! If you actually want meaningful change in this country, if you want to actually produce some legislative outcome, protect a right or have something happen, the worst thing that can happen to you is to have the Albanese government actively consider it. They are specialists in active consideration, and they've been actively considering this unanimous recommendation for a human rights act for more than three years. No doubt they'll be actively considering it when summer comes, when winter comes and in the seasons that follow. They'll be actively considering it because that's what the Albanese government does: endless reviews and no action.

One of the reasons why the public isn't pushing down the doors on this is that, when you survey the Australian public, half of them think we already have a human rights act. They assume that a country that's had a parliamentary democracy for over a century at a federal level at some point in the century might have got its act together and produced something that protects human rights. But, to its utter shame, this parliament has not done that. We keep hearing excuses from the Labor Party and the coalition and we hear resistance from One Nation to the idea of actually giving citizens rights.

Do you know what I think people in this place are most scared of? They are scared that people will use those rights to protect themselves from crap laws passed by this place and use those rights to protect themselves from the reach of the surveillance state. They'll use those laws to protect their privacy from big tech coming in and sucking up their and their kids' data. That's what people in this place, outside of the Greens, are concerned about when they oppose a human rights act. They're concerned that they'll give citizens and people in this country the right to push back.

I can tell you now, as a Greens senator, I fundamentally believe that we need to fix this country by giving vastly more rights to citizens and people in this country to push back against governments when they want to throw in the surveillance state, when they want to stop you at a roadside stop and suck down the data off your phone. I'm in the Greens because we are committed to human rights, and we're far more committed to the rights of people going about their business in this country without being monstered by the police and surveilled by the state. We have far more interest in the rights of citizens than we are in the rights of the state to come in and monster you.

The reason why Labor and the coalition and their mates in One Nation oppose a human rights act is that they put the rights of the state to surveil you, to imprison you and to steal your data before the rights of the citizen. We put the rights of Australians—their right to not be monitored by the state—first. What's this about? Thankfully, we've now seen this coalition of some 170 human rights organisations come together and demand that this place live up to the commitments that Australia has made with international conventions and produce a human rights act. They don't want to see some bunch of bureaucrats actively considering it until we all shuffle off. Those 170 human rights organisations came out and said: 'Do something. Pass a human rights act'—which a unanimous committee in this parliament said should be made law.

If we get through this parliamentary term having had the Albanese government actively consider a human rights act without passing a human rights act, that will be peak Labor. That will be peak Prime Minister Albanese. That will be another three years of actively considering—twiddling their thumbs, moving things from one bureaucrat's desk to another, getting their senators to come here and give these endless 'turn the wheels, but please, please don't do anything' speeches. That will be peak Labor. I don't want peak Labor. We've seen peak Labor. Peak Labor is the valley in which rights die.

We want to see a human rights act. I'm in the Greens because we're a party committed to a human rights act, and, every time there's a vote on it, we're going to vote for the rights of Australians over the rights of this place to monitor you.

Penny Allman-Payne (Queensland, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the motion put forward by Senator Thorpe, and I wish to associate myself with the comments made by both Senator Thorpe and Senator Shoebridge. We are one of only a handful of democracies that does not have a human rights act. It should tell us something when the major parties in this place have indicated that they are going to vote down this motion. If a human rights act wasn't going to be effective at protecting people's rights, then they wouldn't care whether we had one or not.

Senator Smith said that we have a system of rights protections, but numerous inquiries and committees have found that it is a system that is inconsistent, and it contains a patchwork of protections that are not comprehensive enough to protect the rights of everyone. Senator Smith also talked about the relevance of not-for-profits and charities in holding up people's human rights. Yet, we know that when not-for-profits and charities want to advocate for people's rights—particularly when governments are forming policy—they're regularly asked to sign non-disclosure agreements, shutting down their ability to advocate for the rights of people and citizens.

The Human Rights Joint Committee that Senator Tyrrell referred to regularly raises issues with legislation that comes before this place, and it is regularly ignored. Sometimes legislation comes into this place before that committee has even considered it, so to assert that that is a protection that negates the need for a human rights act is false. The real value of a human rights act is that it requires governments and government departments to think about people's rights when they are designing policies and delivering services. That matters because government decisions are rarely experienced equally. People who rely the most on public systems—people on income support, people with a disability, older people, First Nations people, refugees, children and people in detention—are often the people with the least power and the least protection to challenge those decisions when they go wrong.

We've seen what happens when governments and departments build systems around efficiency, compliance, cost cutting and punishment without putting people's human rights and their dignity at the centre. Robodebt is the clearest example of this. If we had a human rights act, it's questionable whether the systems that were put in place could have even happened.

A human rights act would actually create a different culture inside our government departments because they'd have to ask, before they designed legislation: What rights are going to be affected by it? Are limitations justified? Is there a less harmful way of achieving the same objective? Have we properly considered the person who's actually going to have to live with the consequences of these decisions? As was alluded to by my colleague Senator Shoebridge, this is particularly important as governments increasingly rely on automated decision-making algorithms and large administrative systems.

For the Greens, there is also a fundamental issue of basic equality here. Basic rights shouldn't depend on how much money you have, whether you can afford a lawyer, how articulate you are or whether you've got enough political influence to make a minister or a department listen to you. Wealthy corporations can employ lobbyists and lawyers to defend their interests, but think about an individual Centrelink recipient, an aged-care resident, a person with a disability or a refugee who can't. Human rights protections are important precisely because they put limits on the enormous imbalance of power between individuals and the state. Rights should not belong most strongly to the people who are best equipped to enforce them. They should provide a minimum guarantee of dignity and fair treatment for everyone, and that is why the Greens will always support a human rights act for this country.

David Pocock (ACT, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of this urgency motion, and I thank Senator Thorpe for bringing it to the Senate. I want to recognise her continued work in this area to continually remind the Senate about our obligations and our failures as a nation when it comes to so many of the rights that are not currently enjoyed by Australians, principally First Nations communities.

It's been more than two years since the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended the creation of a national human rights act, a recommendation the parliament still hasn't acted on. As a middle power, Australia has long championed and been committed to human rights abroad. Australia played an important role in developing the international human rights system, including the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then, Australia has ratified seven core United Nations human rights treaties and voluntarily undertaken international obligations that respect and fulfil the rights recognised to them.

But there's a fundamental gap between the commitments Australia has made internationally—when we turn up on the world stage and say, 'Yes, we will do this thing'—and the protection of those rights received under Australian law. Many of them are simply in an agreement somewhere. Australia has no comprehensive federal human rights act. Our protections are spread across the constitution and the common law. The constitution protects only a limited number of rights. The common law recognises important rights and freedoms, but those protections remain vulnerable, as this parliament can override them through legislation, as we've seen happen on numerous occasions. The result is a fragmented system in which rights receive different levels of protection and are subject to different pathways for enforcement. We've accepted international human rights obligations and then not established clear, comprehensive domestic legal frameworks through which those rights are given effect to Australian citizens.

This is clearly a gap that a human rights act would fill. It would be an anchor in Australian domestic law for our international human rights obligations. It would establish a coherent framework for recognising and protecting human rights, providing the bedrock from which Australia's international commitments could be given real, practical effect.

This isn't just about what happens after a person's rights have been breached. A human rights act would require public authorities to act in a way that protects human rights and to properly consider those rights when making decisions. It would therefore move the consideration of human rights earlier in the decision-making process. As has been raised many times in the contributions today, yes, we have the committee on human rights, but how many times has a bill come here that has had only a very brief encounter with that committee or, in some cases, none at all? 'It's too urgent'—human rights be damned.

While this would obviously benefit minority or vulnerable groups, human rights protections are not only about those groups. It matters to anyone who interacts with the government, relies on public services or is affected by government decision-making. Canada, the UK and New Zealand have all recognised the need for domestic human rights instruments, and a human rights act would bring Australia into closer alignment with these countries.

We've made the commitment and we've accepted the obligations, but, as yet, we haven't put our money where our mouth is. As the parliament, we haven't stepped up and said: 'We've signed all these things. Most Australians assume that that is somewhere in legislation, but we have no overarching act that actually enshrines these things that Australians hold dear.' This is a real opportunity for this Albanese Labor government and for this parliament. So, again, I thank Senator Thorpe for bringing this forward to the Senate for debate.

Question agreed to.