Mark Dreyfus has been appointed Australia’s special envoy on human rights. Is the government prepared to match international advocacy with concrete action at home – by finally legislating a Human Rights Act?

So, Mark Dreyfus – in the words of our Prime Minister, “one of the most accomplished and widely respected parliamentarians of recent decades” – is to be our “champion”, our “special envoy” on human rights.

A “supremo”, perhaps – but one, we hope, not in the style of Yes, Minister’s Jim Hacker, who, it might be recalled was appointed “transport supremo” in an episode entitled The Bed of Nails.

This was after the Transport Secretary had turned the job down, and the civil service was entirely dead to the idea. So, the Cabinet Secretary proposed a candidate who could create “lots of activity, but no actual achievement”.

In announcing Dreyfus’s appointment, Anthony Albanese and Foreign Minister Penny Wong said. “In particular, Mr Dreyfus will take a special advocacy role for the abolition of the death penalty, as well as for the rights and protections of children, older persons, people living with a disability and LGBTIQ+ individuals – all issues on which Australia has a long record of international leadership.”

That’s all fine and good and no doubt will involve “lots of activity”, but how about our “champion” takes the fight up for the “actual achievement” of a Human Rights Act for Australia?

Albanese and Wong noted, “His high standing as a parliamentarian means he can work effectively with other parliamentary representatives in our region leading their countries’ human rights agendas.”

Why not use that high standing with other parliamentary representatives right here on Capital Hill and become the steward of lasting change, a real legacy for the former Attorney-General?

He will certainly start with a considerable bank of goodwill.

Civil Liberties Australia noted that Dreyfus will remain in parliament, as the Member for Isaacs, “meaning for the first time Australia federally has a champion for human rights in the Labor Caucus”.

CLA President Dr Kristine Klugman said, “Civil Liberties Australia believes Mr Dreyfus can now champion legislation for a Human Rights Act, internally, for Australia.

“How can you champion human rights internationally, which is Mr Dreyfus’s new mission, if you can’t promote and achieve legislated human rights in your own nation?

“Australia alone among ‘Five Eyes’ nations does not have a national human-rights law protecting its citizens.”

Foreign Minister Wong noted that Australia was an original signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.

But, CLA points out that for 80 years it has never done what it has urged other nations to do, make a national public commitment to rights for citizens - in law.

Australian citizens “do not have access to federal remedies for breaches of their human rights, as exist in other nations.”

CLA’s statement on the appointment noted plainly, “Of major interest will be how Mr Dreyfus, a prominent Jewish Member of Parliament, deals with human-rights issues internationally around the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.”

This is part of the considerable goodwill being shown to our new envoy.

What CLA didn’t spell out was that Dreyfus was Attorney-General in November 2024, when the International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for war crimes against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

The AG’s website records, “As a state party to the Rome Statute, Australia has a general obligation to cooperate fully with the court’s investigations and prosecutions.”

Dreyfus visited Israel in January 2025, meeting Netanyahu ministers.

There was no report at the time other than that his visit had been to give comfort and succour to the Netanyahu regime in the wake of the Israeli PM’s scathing criticism of Australia’s position on Palestine at the UN.

Despite a parliamentary committee report on “Australia’s Human Rights Framework” having been tabled in May 2024, Dr Klugman and CLA held back from campaigning for an Act during this year’s May election. The thought was that they didn’t want to raise something that might, in the wrong hands, be turned against the Albanese administration and hurt Labor’s chances at the polls.

With Albanese’s unmatched mandate at those polls, Dr Klugman wrote to the PM in September: “In your acceptance speech, you spoke of your heartfelt commitment to fairness, aspiration and opportunity for all. And kindness.

“I was a close personal friend of Tom Uren. I vividly remember his emphasis on fairness and kindness to everyone. As your mentor, you said: ‘His beliefs inspired me to strive to make this country fairer, better, more ambitious. Those values still drive me today’.”

Dr Klugman reminded the PM of government failures, like Robodebt, and pointed out how a Human Rights Act could give redress to all Australians, particularly the disadvantaged.

“Fairness and trust are essential for the government and the public service to maintain legitimacy …” she wrote. “Trust in governments is declining …

“A Human Rights Act empowers people to have redress when they are treated unfairly or unkindly.

“Complaints of infringements can be addressed by independent arbitrators and resolved. And help restore trust …

“The consultation and groundwork for a federal HRA are done. The time and circumstances have never been more opportune. You can achieve what no other Australian Prime Minister has been able to …

“Can you please tell me if you will legislate before the end of 2026?”

A good straight question deserves a good straight answer.

What Dr Klugman got back was Jim Hacker at his worst. In my view, it was not only evasive but patronising.

Some samples: “I could sense the passion in your words … I very much appreciated the thoughtfulness and effort … my government is carefully and thoroughly considering the committee’s recommendations.”

Let’s hope our newly appointed parliamentary champion, freed from the restrictions of Cabinet, can do better than this tosh.

A Human Rights Act is a practical measure to give concrete redress for government and other wrongs. Such acts work in Victoria, Queensland and the ACT.

How can it be so hard for a government with a commitment to fairness, and with an unparalleled majority, to move decisively now, so far from the next election?