Senator ALLISON (12:27 PM) —I am pleased to join my colleagues in condemning the Administrative Decisions (Effect of International Instruments) Bill 1999. It is astounding that we are again facing debate on this issue. It has come up again and again in this place, and I can only conclude that the reason it is back on the agenda is that the ALP may be considering supporting it, which will be a sad day for this country. Fundamentally, the bill forces us to face the question of what status we are going to allow international obligations to have in this country.

Time and time again the government has clearly expressed a preference for international obligations that have no bearing on the manner in which it treats people. Whether we are talking about deportation—as in the case of Teoh—the disabled, indigenous people, refugees or juvenile offenders, this government apparently does not accept that it should have to make good on its promises to the international community. This bill is about our commitment to international conventions and how fair dinkum we might seem to the international community and about the decisions of the High Court. We are looking at whether, as administrators, the government should have regard to international instruments which give rise to legitimate expectations of consideration of a person's rights.

An example of such an instrument is the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons, and I will touch on this subject as the Democrat spokesperson for disability services. This declaration states that disabled persons shall enjoy the respect of human dignity; civil and political rights; medical, psychological and functional treatment; and the right to economic and social security, to name just a few. In the case of Teoh, a court decision held that, even where the terms of the treaty had not been incorporated into Australian law, a legitimate expectation arises that agencies of government will not act contrary to the terms of the treaty. By passing the bill before us, we are paving the way for our legislated laws to not have regard to those rights. By passing this bill, we are withdrawing from a commitment to the rights of disabled people.

This bill sees Australia running scared from its commitment to treaties. It is clear that Teoh did give treaties an impact in Australian law that they did not have previously, but it did not run roughshod over Australian law; indeed, it makes the distinction between a substantive rule of law and the doctrine of legitimate expectation to a procedural right only. Teoh's case is the authority for the proposition that a legitimate expectation arises whenever Australia signs an international agreement, protocol or convention, such that the government of Australia will act in accordance with the provisions of that agreement. Legitimate expectations are an administrative right which attaches to an administrative process.

The government would have us believe that, during an administrative process in Australia, a person's rights are preserved so that they may with confidence deal with the Australian government in the knowledge that the process will be applied probatively, uniformly and with disinterest in the outcome. They would also have us believe that the doctrine of procedural fairness adopted in Australian administrative law already incorporates the concept of legitimate expectations. This doctrine is fundamental to the good operation of the rule of law. This doctrine is founded on the positive law of natural justice and constitutes one of the very cornerstones of our Westminster democratic system.

The reality is that the fundamental value of procedural fairness is not a cornerstone of this government and, perhaps, this opposition. It was only a few weeks ago that the government introduced the Administrative Appeals Tribunal bill, which sought to reduce the rights of administrative review to Australians. It sought to take away from ordinary, disadvantaged Australians the automatic right to legal representation; it sought to deny them the automatic right to interpreter services. It was targeted specifically at disadvantaged Australians, who could not reasonably or fairly be expected to navigate the myriad legal complexities which make up social security legislation, and sought to deny them procedural fairness. The Democrats strongly opposed the Administrative Appeals Tribunal bill because it denied natural justice in administrative procedures to Australians. What is around the corner? Procedural fairness is clearly not high on this government's agenda, and we should be wary of legislation such as is before us.

To deny procedural fairness, including the rule of law and legitimate expectations, is tantamount to the capricious, arbitrary and tyrannical approach to decision making that is witnessed in so may other countries around the world—countries that we criticise and that have no cultural understanding of the rule of law. Legitimate expectations, therefore, are a right that flows from some process. The government will argue that the abundant use of the relevant international instruments with impunity will result in an apparent disregard for the existing statutory and common law position of that jurisdiction. In the field of signing international instruments, the ongoing future signing of treaties, conventions and protocols requires the flexibility to accommodate Australia's obligations. To do so does not compromise our sovereignty or make Australia a slave to international community expectations; it makes us have regard to them. We want to let the world know that adopting a convention, far from undermining our status as an independent nation, actually assures the rest of the world that we are a fully mature participant in the affairs of the world.

If we were to pass this legislation, we would put ourselves in the same category as a number of other countries who sign treaties to gain some world trade or other financial advantage and then systematically ignore their obligations to ratify those treaties in their domestic law or otherwise simply ignore them. This practice is particularly the case in countries which have poor human rights records. They sign and then they simply ignore, violate or otherwise detach themselves from any responsibilities. They do as they like when they like. They are immune to repeated international outcries. They hold international law in contempt either because they hold a culturally relativist perspective—that is, rules for some but not for others—or because, for religious or ideological reasons, they refuse to recognise public international law at all.

There are those who express the view that Teoh was a bizarre attempt by the judiciary, or one aspect of it, to legal creep. It could be described in that sense, but I disagree with that. Rather, it is simply a reasonable chain of logic in that a government signs a treaty—and there is a further obligation under the Vienna convention, which says that, once a party has signed a treaty, and even before ratification, it is obliged not to act in a way contrary to the objectives of that treaty—and, therefore, the agencies of government should act in a way that is not contrary to the terms of the treaty.

I can remember when Australia was moving to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Many would recall that there was a major outcry, along the lines that parents would no longer have control of their children. These fears have not been realised, gladly. Most of the arguments at that time distinguished between international law and Australian or domestic law, and focused on whether Australian laws fully complied with the obligations attached to the convention. Most of those in that debate had common agreement with the general objectives in the convention, which are directed against the exploitation of children and towards their adequate representation in legal proceedings.

The Teoh case has not caused major upheavals in administrative law either. A much greater upheaval in administrative laws, the administrative tribunal bill, reflects the government's recent attempts to diminish individual rights. As I said earlier, I am glad to join my Democrat colleagues in condemning this legislation and to indicate that I, too, will be voting against it. I want to today, while I have a few more minutes, draw upon some of the correspondence that I have received in my office—and no doubt other senators have as well. Just in case they have not read some of these letters, I thought I would put them on the record today.

Senator Stott Despoja —Read them into the record.

Senator ALLISON —I will read them into the record, thank you. One letter says:

That is a typical letter that has come into my office. I do not know what the government's objectives are with this legislation. I imagine it thinks that this is a populist move: that Australia can say, `The rest of the world won't tell us what to do. We'll make our own decisions.' These sorts of things have been expressed by ordinary people who have come into my offices—and no doubt messages on the email and the fax and through the post to other senators in this place say the same thing. Ordinary people are expressing real outrage and real concern about what this legislation has the capacity to do.

It seems to me that it would be quite easy to tap into such people who care about human rights and who want to see Australia as part of a world environment and not simply as an isolated country. There are so many of these letters, it is hard to know where to start. Another one says:

That one is from a constituent in East Kew. Another letter says:

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—

I think that is a very important point. It is not lost on the vast majority of people around this country who are interested in human rights and who want to see Australia able to hold up its head in the international arena and show that it is willing to take on board the treaties that it signs and that it is taking them seriously. It is critical that we give people such as these a voice in the parliament.

Quite a number of people have signed joint letters, and I have one here from Queensland, which Senator Woodley has passed to me. It says:

Again, there are many people who are interested in this issue who do want to see the Senate take action and who do not want to see this legislation come to pass. It would be not only very embarrassing but also very serious in terms of our ability to work within the international framework of treaties.

I will personally be doing what I can to make sure that we fulfil the wishes of all those people who have written to us and, no doubt, to others in the chamber. Again, I urge the government to change its mind over this legislation. I urge Labor to not assist with the passage of the bill. I hope that we will take a different view of international treaties. One of the treaties which is close to my interest is the Kyoto protocol. We are having rehearsed before us right now a great anxiety about our having signed that protocol. It is not ratified, of course, but we have signed it.

Debate interrupted.