Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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—

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

None!

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

Well, some would argue that this issue has to be examined, weighed and taken into account. This is what this committee is endeavouring to do for you and for other members, to ensure that we are better informed. We try to look at the jurisprudence—the way in which these matters have been looked at by courts, sometimes in jurisdictions well away from ourselves—and we find that there is no end of experts who want to assist us with suggestions as to how they think these human rights instruments should be applied.

Interestingly—

Peter Hendy (Eden-Monaro, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You need one minute.

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

One minute left. Thank you for that, because I was trying to fill in all the time! Let me just go on, because I need to make sure that all the relevant points are raised.

Of the 44 bills considered in this report, 42 have been assessed as not raising human rights concerns. I must say that I think that is a suggestion that perhaps we are getting somewhere in having an understanding of these matters. Two raise matters requiring further correspondence, so we are writing to ministers and inviting them to address further the matters that we think might be relevant.

I should inform you more adequately by saying that the committee has deferred its consideration of three bills and a number of instruments, including some which had previously been deferred. The committee is dealing with some of these complex issues. When you have a meeting of minds there can be different views that have to be entertained and I will speak about that in a moment. The committee has concluded its examination of seven bills and three legislative instruments. This report includes consideration of the response to the committee's initial inquiries in relation to the Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014. This is one area where—and this may not surprise members—among the committee there were different views expressed on the compatibility of this legislation with human rights.

Assessments of the compatibility of legislation by the committee involve an analytical framework first. We try to identify if a measure engages a human right—that is, whether in the broadest sense the measure may interact with such a right; secondly, we identify whether a measure limits any right that is engaged; and thirdly, we assess whether any limitation is justified in the law—that is, pursues a legitimate objective, is rationally connected to that objective and is proportionate. I think it is the proportionality issues that often pose very significant challenges to committee members and we have been working these matters through.

The committee has a particular approach to apply the above analytical framework in undertaking its examination of legislation and the committee is looking at whether that approach should be further addressed in its own consideration. It is important to recognise that these are areas to which committee members may come with legitimately different views on matters of compatibility and where our human rights obligations might take us. In that context, the discussions the committee is having are proving somewhat challenging because the committee is a cross-party committee with members not only from the government and the opposition but we also have an Independent member and a represent of the Greens. So a perspective can at times be brought to some of these issues which can, at times, be quite different..

The committee's consideration of the response to the aforementioned Fair Work Amendment (Bargaining Processes) Bill 2014 is one such example where legitimate differences of view are expressed by committee members on the question of the proportionality of the measures.

The ultimate purpose of the committee is to inform debates of the parliament on the merits of the legislation which we are asked to consider, and it is in that spirit that I invite members and others to examine the committee's report, as I am sure it may help them in their consideration of proposed legislation.

As I indicated during the course of this report, the way in which we deal with these issues is very demanding. We are given a relatively small amount of time and I would hope that the government might, in its programming of legislation, try to include time for more adequate and timely examination of human rights issues when legislation is coming before us. There are a number of delicate issues that are still before the committee, particularly in relation to migration legislation where sometimes these issues are very sensitive. I simply apologise to members if they are interested in this particular field that it is taking time to give the parliament a full and adequate briefing and to explore some of these areas of contestability. The committee is very conscientious about the approach it is taking. The meetings can be quite arduous and I complement my colleagues for the amount of time and the interest they take in preparing these reports because I am sure debates will be better informed by the work which has been done.

With these comments, I commend to the House the committee's 23rd report of the 44th parliament.