A parliamentary inquiry has called for Australia to adopt its first ever federal Human Rights Act, with MPs arguing it could provide safeguards against public policy disasters like the robodebt scheme.
On Thursday the chair of the human rights committee, the Labor MP Josh Burns, tabled a report calling for new laws, including making it “unlawful” for a public authority to ignore human rights.
The opposition immediately rejected the call, arguing the proposed act would put “excessive restrictions” on the freedoms of religion and expression, while putting too much weight on the right to non-discrimination.
The human rights inquiry is another flashpoint between Labor and the Coalition after negotiations broke down over the religious discrimination bill, and the opposition leader, Peter Dutton, labelled proposed hate speech laws a “trap” and “wedge” on Tuesday.
Burns told Guardian Australia the Human Rights Act proposal was “bold, realistic and achievable” but it was now up to the government to decide whether to legislate.
He said the inquiry had asked for rights like: privacy; the right to a healthy environment; social and economic rights like adequate housing; the right to education; and the right to hold and express one’s religion.
Burns said an act would ensure parliament “can continue to make the laws [it] deems necessary” but “make rights real in everyday decision-making”.
“Parliament would need to expressly consider human rights when making laws, and commonwealth public authorities would need to consider rights when making decisions and act compatibly with rights (unless parliament specifically directs them otherwise),” he said.
“The robodebt royal commission showed us what happens when officials, both elected and unelected, fail to properly consider the effect of government action on the rights of vulnerable people.”
Asked how a Human Rights Act might prevent a public policy failure like robodebt, Burns said it was a “gross violation” and that it was possible a government could still ignore the act in the same way it had “ignored legal advice”.
The act would “give citizens more legal recourse to challenge whether or not their rights have been violated” but also ensure public servants and ministers are “more aware of the rights of citizens”, he said.
Independent MP Kylea Tink said that many public policy “disasters” including robodebt and neglect in the aged care sector “may not even have happened if we had a Human Rights Act providing protections for Australians”.
“The rights in our constitution are quite minimal. The Human Rights Act will go far further, implementing a number of treaties Australia is a party to that are not translated into domestic law.
“The power of the act is that every piece of legislation has to pass through the eye of that needle.”
The act would have thrown up “a whole heap of barriers” to robodebt, including rights to privacy and economic rights, she said.
The deputy chair of the committee, the Liberal MP Henry Pike, told the lower house the opposition had rejected “this flawed proposal” as “unnecessary and dangerous”.
Pike said the act would compromise the ability to “keep our citizens safe and borders secure”, citing cases in the UK where human rights law provided a roadblock to deportation of non-citizens.
Pike warned the act would put “excessive restrictions” on the freedoms of religion and expression.
Both Burns and Tink said the committee had responded to religious organisations’ concerns about the Australian Human Rights Commission’s model.
Tink accused the Coalition of “political posturing” and argued the whole point of the exercise is “removing politics from human rights” questions.
