Senator HAINES(3.10) -by leave-I move:

That the Bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows-

The objective of this Bill is to give legislative recognition to basic human rights and freedoms and to provide remedies for their enforcement.

In November 1973, then-Senator Murphy introduced a virtually identical Bill into this chamber. Unfortunately, the Bill was not proceeded with in the Senate and when Parliament was prorogued in February 1974, it lapsed. It was not re- introduced before the double dissolution was called in 1975.

Like Senator Murphy's Bill, this Bill is based upon the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations on 10 December 1948, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966.

There has been a great deal of debate in legal and political circles about the extent of Commonwealth power to implement such international covenants. Earlier this year in the Racial Discrimination Act case, the High Court of Australia provided the basis for optimism that the Commonwealth Government has the constitutional authority to legislate with regard to matters of genuine international concern. The existence of a bona fide international covenant, such as the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is an important element in determining the extent of that ''genuine international concern''.

It is because of the Racial Discrimination Act case and because neither the Government nor the Australian Labor Party has shown any inclination to act, that the Australian Democrats have decided to proceed with a Human Rights Bill at this time. The Government's 1981 Human Rights Commission Act is a toothless tiger. The Commission has no coersive powers-it can only report and recommend on human rights problems. It cannot take even the most flagrant breaches of human rights to court and it has no jurisdiction at all in relation to the States, where some of the worst abuses of human rights occur.

Similarly, the Labor Party has shown no interest in effective human rights legisation since its 1973 Bill. It seems content to wait wistfully for the day when it returns to power, leaving the human rights issue to languish on the shelf.

If ever there was a case for a matter of principle to override the considerations of party politics, it is the case for human rights. It is a national disgrace that our Constitution has no provisions to protect the fundamental rights and liberties of our citizens; that no serious attempt has been made to rectify that omission legislatively; and that Australia's ratification of the international covenant, which finally came in August 1980, was subject to so many reservations that the international legality of our ratification is unclear.

The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights covers such rights as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of movement, the rights of a person charged with a criminal offence, the protection of individual privacy, the right to vote and hold public office, and so on. These rights and freedoms are set out in this Bill, which would be binding on each State and Territory as well as the Commonwealth.

Equally importantly, the Bill would provide the machinery to enforce those rights and protect those freedoms. Aggrieved persons would have access to the courts and the Australian Human Rights Commissioner will have the power to investigate breaches of human rights, either on his or her own initiative or on receipt of a complaint. Furthermore, unlike the impotent Human Rights Commission we have today, the Commissioner under this Bill will have the power to take legal proceedings on behalf of an aggrieved person.

In some respects, this Bill modifies the 1973 Bill to take account of developments which have occurred in the intervening ten years. Many of these changes are simply drafting alterations to accord with current usage. More important, however, are the new versions of sections on the rights of the family , religious freedom and sexual preference.

The 1973 Bill provoked substantial opposition from lobbying groups which felt that there was inadequate protection for the family. This Bill recognises the family as the 'natural and fundamental unit of society', entitled to the protection of society and of the law. This provision is consistent with Article 23 of the international covenant.

The 1973 Bill was opposed by some religious groups objecting to section 10 (4) of that Bill which would have permitted the Government to limit religious freedom with 'reasonable regulations as to time, place and manner'. The corresponding section in section 9 (4) of this Bill does not contain the controversial phrase. The revised section is an attempt to permit necessary limitations on dangerous activities which parade under the cover of 'religious beliefs', and yet to prohibit government interference with genuine religious practices.

Section 18 of the Bill deals with the freedom to manifest one's sexual preference without unlawful interference or discrimination. Although no corresponding section is in the international covenant, it is my view that such a provision is consistent with the spirit of the Covenant and would be constitutional. Freedom of sexual preference would be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law, and are reasonably necessary to protect public safety or public health or to preserve the rights of others.

Part V of the Bill establishes an Australian Human Rights Council, which would assume the educational functions which are now carried out by the existing Human Rights Commission. As I have already indicated, the enforcement powers under the Act, which would be considerably greater than existing methods of enforcement of human rights violations, would rest with the Commissioner. These new enforcement powers are contained in Parts III and IV of the Bill.

Mr President, I believe that Australians have waited too long for the Commonwealth Government's protection of their basic human rights. They have suffered too long under the haphazard protection which is provided by the common law and those random legislative and constitutional provisions which may happen to touch on an area of human rights.

The Australian Democrats would prefer, of course, that a Bill of Rights were written into the Australian Constitution. But, the road to constitutional amendment is difficult, long and uncertain. In the absence of a constitutionally -entrenched Bill of Rights, this legislation-which will be binding on Federal, State and local officials-represents the best available means of giving effect to the International Covenant and providing protection for the fundamental rights of all Australians. We hope that this statutory Bill of Rights will pave the way for a constitutional amendment in due course.

A great deal of effort has gone into the area of human rights, by the Labor Party in its 1973 Bill, by the Liberal Party in its Human Rights Commission Bills of 1977, 1979 and 1981 and by the Australian Democrats with the Bill in its current form. I therefore respectfully urge my Senate colleagues of all political persuasions to lend their support to the passage of this Bill so that the rights of all Australians will have a firmer basis in law.

Debate (on motion by Senator Sir John Carrick) adjourned.

(Quorum formed).