Harry Jenkins (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights, I present the following reports: Examination of legislation in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011; Bills introduced on 12-14 March 2013 and select legislative instruments registered with the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments on 17-20 December 2012, fourth report of 2013; and Examination of legislation in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Fair Incentives to Work) Act 2012, fifth report of 2013. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with these reports—and I wish Luch a happy birthday.

Leave granted.

In accordance with standing order 39(f) the reports were made Parliamentary Papers.

The fourth report of 2013 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights sets out the committee's consideration of 24 bills introduced during the last parliamentary week and four legislative instruments that the committee had previously deferred for further consideration.

The committee has identified 12 bills that do not appear to give rise to human rights concerns. The committee will seek further information in relation to the remaining 12 bills and the four legislative instruments. This fourth report of 2013 includes the committee's examination of the six bills that make up a package of legislation on media reform. The committee noted that these bills are the subject of inquiry by three other parliamentary committees. The committee therefore decided to expedite publication of its comments on these bills to assist the work of those committees.

The committee has set out its expectation that the timetable for the consideration of legislation should allow sufficient time for the parliament to examine draft legislation in some detail. The committee has noted that a fundamental premise of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 is that the examination of draft legislation for human rights compatibility is an important component of Australia's Human Rights Framework and that the role of the committee is not a purely formal one and is not intended to provide after-the-event commentary on legislation.

The committee's fifth report of 2013 is its final report on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Fair Incentives to Work) Act 2012. Since the committee's interim report on this legislation was tabled in September 2012, additional material has become available to the committee. This fifth report of 2013 takes account of that additional information, confirms the committee's interim views where relevant, and presents the committee's final views on this legislation. The completion of the examination of this legislation has been a long and formative journey for the committee. Members will appreciate that this matter came before the committee very early in its existence, before it had established work practices around the routine scrutiny of legislation.

I draw the attention of members to the analytical framework applied by the committee in its interpretation of the underlying human rights obligations and principles engaged by this legislation. The committee has taken the view that there is considerable overlap between limitations on rights and retrogressive measures, particularly where such measures interfere with an existing enjoyment of a right.

Throughout its consideration of the measures in this legislation, the committee has focused on three key questions: whether the measures are aimed at achieving a legitimate objective; whether there is a rational connection between the measures and that objective; and whether the measures are proportionate to that objective. The committee will continue to apply this approach consistently to its assessment of limitations of rights.

In closing, members will note that I avoid paraphrasing the committee's reports in my tabling statements, because it is not possible to do so and still capture the import of the committee's conclusions. Therefore, I encourage members to read the committee's comments on legislation in their entirety. To not do so diminishes the work of the committee.

I am not so naive as to not expect that there are some who will seek to cherry pick the committee's comments on particular bills for political purposes. To act in such a manner detracts from the concerted efforts of members of this committee to set aside partisan positions when considering questions of human rights compatibility.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my committee colleagues for their principled approach to the consideration of these complex and contentious issues. On behalf of the committee I again emphasise our gratitude to the committee's secretariat for their diligence and professionalism in carrying out their work, and their contribution to the collegiate actions of the committee. I commend the committee's fourth and fifth reports of 2013 to the House.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I commend the member for Scullin, one of our greatest parliamentarians—indeed a hereditary parliamentarian of great distinction—on his remarks and on this report.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He obviously never threw you out of the chamber!

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, he didn't throw me out! He was very discerning as to whom he threw out! I think he threw you out!

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Many times.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member for Scullin said in his remarks, this report deals with the media legislation that is currently before the parliament. This report offers very, very harsh criticisms, but measured and responsible criticisms. It makes the point that these laws are an affront to human rights, and it holds the government up for its reckless haste, its obscene haste, in bringing these laws in. The report notes that the new media laws would have the effect of licensing journalism in the sense that no journalist would have the benefit of the exemptions under the Privacy Act, without which they cannot do their work—that is common ground—unless they or their employer is a member of a press council type body that is in effect licensed by this new entity, the Public Interest Media Advocate, which has been the subject of so many discussions with the Independents overnight and this morning.

The report says in paragraph 1.78:

The effect of the bills are, as a practical matter, to require a news media source to become a member of a self-regulation body whose constitution, powers and operations satisfy a number of criteria. The PIMA is the arbiter of whether the self-regulation organisation satisfies those standards …

It then goes on to note in paragraph 1.80 that:

Removing the exemption of news media organisations from the Privacy Act 1988 appears to effectively limit the right to freedom of speech of the journalists who may no longer have the benefit of the exemption and limits the rights of readers and viewers to receive information unfettered by these confidentiality requirements.

It adds that this:

… limit the rights of these organisations to freedom of speech, and the rights of people to receive information from such news organisations. In order to justify an important change of this sort, the Minister must be able to point to a legitimate objective for such regulation, show that the proposed scheme bears a rational connection to this objective, and demonstrate that it is a necessary and proportionate measure for achieving that objective.

Needless to say, the minister has not done that. The government has not done that. There is no regulatory impact statement. We have begged the Prime Minister to tell us what the problem is, what the issue is, what the mischiefs are that the legislation is designed to address, and she cannot or will not nominate them.

In paragraph 1.89 and 1.90, in the blackest of bold type that they could find in their collection of fonts, the committee concludes in this way:

The committee considers that the material presented to the Parliament in support of the bill does not provide sufficient information about supposed inadequacies or ineffectiveness of current systems for the regulation of media to allow an informed assessment of the need for, and proportionality of, the proposed scheme of regulation.

The committee intends to write to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy—

that is Senator Conroy—

to request further information as to why changes to the regulation of the news media is considered necessary and will ask whether other less intrusive alternatives to the proposed scheme were considered and, if so, why this scheme was chosen over any less intrusive measures.

This was not written by the Liberal Party. This was not written by the opposition or by me or by the member for Warringah, the Leader of the Opposition. This was written by a committee of this parliament in which the government has a majority, a committee chaired by the former Speaker, one of the most distinguished and revered parliamentarians in this building. And he is holding up this government—a government of his own party—to account for their reckless disregard of due process and of human rights. This is saying: 'Shame, Julia Gillard, shame, Stephen Conroy. You know what you're doing is wrong. These bills are wrong. You have to do better.' I commend this report and it conclusions to all honourable members.

Debate adjourned.