BUSINESS

Senator THORPE (Victoria—Independent VIC Whip) (15:42): I move: (1) That— (a) where the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights has not reported on a bill's compatibility with human rights, immediately prior to the consideration of the bill the minister must provide an explanation of why the bill should be considered by the Senate before the bill's human rights implications have been evaluated; and (b) any senator take note of the explanation, and may move, without notice, a motion relating to the consideration of the bill.

(2) That this order is of continuing effect. Today I'm proposing to change the way this place operates to some extent to be more accountable on how we protect the human rights of everyone in this country. There is a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I've been a member of since 2020.

That committee does good and important work. It is meant to scrutinise every piece of legislation that is proposed in this place on its compatibility with the international human rights obligations that this country has signed up to. When it has concerns, it raises them with the responsible minister so that changes can be made to the bill or so that it at least receives an explanation of why certain provisions are as they are—why they are breaching human rights and why this government thinks it's okay, basically.

It then prepares a report which gets tabled in the Senate and is publicly available. That report can influence proposed amendments to the bill. All of these steps are there to provide transparency and accountability and they can increase adherence to human rights obligations.

However, as the process currently stands, the government might list a bill for debate and voting before the human rights committee has had the chance to scrutinise the human rights implications of the bill and provide advice. I have literally sat in the committee meeting discussing a bill when that very bill was being passed in the Senate. We're upstairs about to scrutinise what human rights implications it has while the bill is being passed.

In the worst cases, the government might introduce and pass a bill in the same week, without any chance for scrutiny by the human rights committee, or anyone else for that matter. These are often the dodgiest, most violent bills that violate human rights. They don't come to the human rights scrutiny committee, because they're violent and they violate people's human rights in this country.

How convenient for the government that they could not be scrutinised in time! That is not good enough. It's dangerous and has real-life implications for people's rights to be violated—even the most basic human rights.

And we know who this hits first and hardest: those already doing it tough. Yes, First Peoples. Yes, migrants.

Yes, people with disability. Women and children. We sit in this meeting and we have a human rights lawyer that the government employs to assist the committee with scrutinising these bills, pointing out, 'Oh, yes, this actually violates the rights of people with disability.' 'Oh, yes, and this one violates children's rights and women's rights.' We sit in this committee and we ponder how we're going to talk to the government on what they should do about it.

But what does this government do? They pass the legislation without it coming to us. We have a clear mandate as politicians, and that is to work in the best interests of the people we represent.

Human rights are in the best interests of everyone in this country. That should always be our first consideration. Current arrangements mean they can be put last.

So today I am proposing that, when the government tries to ram through a bill, the minister must appear before the Senate and justify why this should happen without human rights scrutiny. It would also allow senators to rise and speak in reply. While this does not ensure the bill in question will be changed, it provides more transparency and accountability, which is necessary in this democracy—so I thought.

It also sends a message to the government that it cannot just quietly get away with violating human rights or falling short. Hopefully, from time to time, it will mean that improvements to the bills will be made and that our rights will be better upheld. Senators, if you believe that we as humans have inherent rights that should not be violated and are committed to our international obligations on human rights—because we ticked the box and we signed up to this—then you will vote in favour of this motion today.

Question negatived.