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

on behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's 17th report of the 44th Parliament entitled Examination of legislation in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011:bills introduced 24-27 November 2014, legislative instruments received 24-30 October 2014and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

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

by leave—I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' 17th report of the 44th Parliament, the committee's last report for 2014.

This report provides the committee's view on the compatibility with human rights as defined in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 of bills introduced during the period 24 to 27 November 2014 and legislative instruments received during the period 24 to 30 October 2014. The committee has also considered responses to the committee's comments in previous reports.

Of the 17 bills introduced in the period covered by the report, eight are assessed as not raising significant human rights concerns. The committee has deferred its consideration of the remaining bills.

A number of the bills considered have been scheduled for debate during this sitting week, including: the Acts and Instruments (Framework Reform) Bill 2014; the ACT Government Loan Bill 2014; and the Parliamentary Service Amendment Bill 2014.

As always, the report outlines the committee's examination of the compatibility of these bills with our human rights obligations. I encourage my fellow members and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their consideration of proposed legislation.

In this report, in addition to the usual analysis of bills and instruments, the committee has published two revised guidance notes. Having been in operation for over two years, it is timely for the committee to reflect on its practices and how it communicates its approach and expectations to legislation proponents.

The first, which replaces practice note No. 1, sets out the committee's general approach to its scrutiny task and its expectations regarding the information provided in statements of compatibility. Importantly, the committee confirms that its reports seek to largely focus on significant human rights issues and not on matters of marginal or academic interest alone.

The second guidance note, which replaces interim practice note No. 2, provides guidance to legislation proponents on the human rights assessment of offence provisions, and particularly the characterisation of offence provisions and civil penalty provisions for human rights purposes.

My expectation is that these guidance notes will provide useful instructions to departments and legislation proponents on the committee's approach to the interpretation and application of international human rights law. The committee has sought to harmonise its guidance with the approach and guidance of the Office of International Law in the Attorney-General's Department. The committee is grateful for the productive engagement of the officers who have assisted in these efforts.

As this is the committee's last report for the year, I provide the following brief snapshot of the committee's work in 2014. The committee has considered 250 bills and 1,717 instruments. Of those, 213 bills—out of 250 bills—and 1,707 instruments were found to be compatible with human rights. It is crucial to note that, while much of the attention on the committee's work focuses on legislation that is or may be incompatible with human rights, in the vast majority of cases proposed legislation is in fact compatible or, indeed, may even promote human rights.

Looking back at the committee's achievements this year, I would draw attention to the committee's examination of four national security bills, introduced with the aim of ensuring Australia is best placed to combat terrorism and that law enforcement and intelligence agencies are sufficiently equipped to keep the nation safe. National security legislation necessarily strongly engages with human rights and these bills have raised complex issues around balancing the protection of human rights with national security objectives. I believe that the committee has not, since its establishment, considered any legislation as challenging in this regard.

I particularly want to thank my fellow committee members for their work on these bills. More generally, I would also like to thank my committee colleagues, who have engaged with the committee's work and who have done so in keeping with the scrutiny tradition of undertaking technical and bipartisan inquiry into the merits of proposed legislation and, in the case of this committee's particular task, the compatibility of proposed legislation with the human rights conventions signed up to by previous Australian governments.

To put aside personal opinions on the policy merits of legislation is not always easy to accomplish and, for doing so in the interests of providing credible reports to inform the debates of the parliament, I recognise and commend committee members for their service to this institution and to the legislators within it.

I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Ivan Powell, the committee secretary; Professor Simon Rice, the committee's current legal adviser; Professor Andrew Byrnes, the former legal adviser; and all the staff in the secretariat for their professionalism and hard work over the past year, which is so crucial to the committee's operation. With these comments, I commend the committee's 17th report of the 44th Parliament to the House.