Laurie Ferguson (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's seventh report of the 44th Parliament entitled Examination of legislation in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011: Bills introduced 13 to 29 May 2014, Legislative Instruments received 8 March to 30 May 2014—Report, June 2014.

Report made a parliamentary paper in accordance with standing order 39(e).

by leave—The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' seventh report of the 44th Parliament covers 42 bills introduced in the period 13 to 29 May, seven of which have been deferred for further consideration, and 218 legislative instruments received during the period 8 March to 30 May. The report also includes the committee's consideration of 15 responses to matters raised in previous committee reports with ministers.

Of the bills considered in this report, I note the following bills are scheduled for debate in the parliament this week:

The report outlines the committee's assessment of the compatibility of these bills with human rights, and I encourage my fellow members to look to the committee's report to inform their deliberations on the merits of this proposed legislation.

I would like to draw members' attention to one bill in this report which is of particular interest and relevance to the committee's task of assessing legislation for compatibility with human rights.

The Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No.1) 2014 consists of six schedules of amendments to the Migration Act and the Australian Citizenship Act. Key changes include:

As noted in the report, the committee has raised concerns about each of these amendments. In most cases, the committee has sought more information from the minister, noting that the statement of compatibility for the bill did not provide an adequate assessment of how the limitation on rights in each case was reasonable, necessary and proportionate.

In particular, the committee noted that extending the statutory bar on repeat protection visa applications to children and persons with a mental impairment engages a number of human rights. These include the best interests of the child and the right of persons with a mental impairment to legal capacity. The schedule also engages Australia's nonrefoulement obligations—the obligation not to return people to harm. In this regard, the committee notes that merits review of decisions to remove people from Australia is an important aspect of our nonrefoulement obligations. I encourage members to consult the full discussion of the bill in the report, which provides a more detailed account of the issues raised. Finally, in relation to responses to matters previously raised by the committee, the report contains consideration of 15 such responses, and the committee's concluding remarks on these matters.

With these comments, I commend the committee's seventh report of the 44th Parliament to the chamber.

See this speech in context