Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I present the committee's 23rd report of the 44th Parliament, entitled Human rights scrutiny report.

In accordance with standing order 39(e) the report was made a Parliamentary Paper.

by leave—I am told that it is very necessary to continue to use the time and so I take this opportunity simply to say that the joint committee seems to be very busy when I report that this is the 23rd report of this parliament.

The report provides the joint committee's view on the compatibility with human rights of bills introduced into the parliament, and it does so in relation to those introduced from 11 May to 4 June 2015. But we also have the responsibility to examine legislative instruments, and the committee has had the opportunity to examine instruments received between 10 April and 14 May 2015. The committee also has legislation previously deferred which remains before it and this report also includes the committee's consideration of responses arising from some previous reports.

The report that I have just presented outlines the committee's examination of the compatibility of these bills and instruments with a number of our human rights obligations. I am sure that members know that these are identified international instruments—treaties to which we are a party which deal with human rights questions, such as the treaty on civil and political rights. The numbers do not include all treaties, but where it is felt that the parliament would benefit from advice this committee is asked to engage in a dialogue with ministers to ensure that, where possible, the intent of the human rights instruments that we are party to are the subject of consideration. The dialogue with ministers is to help the committee understand the intent of legislation, but it is also intended to be a two-way street, if I can put it that way. It is to ensure that ministers and officials identify and explore questions of human rights compatibility.

Sometimes this is not an easy task. Sometimes there are competing interests. I often cite the fact that we are asked at times to consider the place of the right to life. If you are dealing with terrorism issues you might also think that that is important, and you have to weigh that up against people's right to privacy. Now, I do not know what right to privacy terrorists have in relation to planning terrorist acts, but—

See this speech in context