MATTERS OF URGENCY

Senator DAVID POCOCK (Australian Capital Territory—Independent ACT Whip) (16:56): 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.