MATTERS OF URGENCY
Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia) (16:35): 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— Senator Shoebridge: It was unanimous. Senator DEAN SMITH: 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— The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Scarr ): Thank you, Senator— Senator DEAN SMITH: and 1988 is the more remarkable experience—69 per cent of Australians rejected a bill of rights.
Thank you, Senator Scarr.