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

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights I present the committee's 24th report of the 44th Parliament, entitled Human rights scrutiny report.

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

by leave—This report provides the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' view on the compatibility of the human rights bills introduced into the parliament from 15 to 18 June 2015, legislative instruments received from 15 to 28 May 2015 and legislation previously deferred by the committee. The report also includes the committee's consideration of responses arising from previous reports.

In line with the committee's statutory function, this report outlines the committee's examination of the compatibility of these bills and instruments with our human rights obligations. Of the five bills and one instrument considered in this report, two were assessed as not raising human rights concerns and four raised matters requiring further correspondence. The committee has continued to defer consideration of a number of instruments and conclude its examination of three bills.

In this report, the committee examined the Foreign Death Penalty Offences (Preventing Information Disclosure) Bill 2015, which was recently introduced by the honourable member for Fairfax, Mr Clive Palmer MP. This bill raises a number of complex human rights which have been explored by the committee. The bill makes it an offence to disclose information which may assist in the investigation of a prosecution or the punishment of a person in another country where the death penalty may be applied. This is clearly intended to promote the right to life under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under which every human being has the inherent right to life, which should be protected by law. However, the bill contains an exception to allow information to be shared if disclosure is said to be necessary to prevent or assist in the investigation or prosecution of a person suspected of engaging in terrorism or an act of violence causing death or endangering life.

I might say that this raises complex questions over the nature of Australia's international obligations in relation to providing cooperation with foreign authorities. This is particularly so in circumstances where the provision of information may necessarily thwart an attempted terrorist attack and therefore protect the lives of many innocent people. I assert, and I think that the committee agrees, that we must remember that the right to life includes an obligation on the state to protect people from being killed by others. Yet, as Australia long ago abolished the death penalty we are also under an obligation not only not to subject people to the death penalty ourselves but also where we may expose a person to real risk of the death penalty in another country.

This is an area that has generated considerable debate within the committee, particularly as many members acknowledge the difficult operational questions that arise for police if they are to be prohibited from providing international cooperation or assistance where the death penalty might apply. If you saw something like the tragedy on Bali that may have been thwarted if we had been able to provide information, one would be very hesitant about saying that we should not try to save the lives of Australians on a beach offshore because those who were guilty of plotting a terrorist attack might be subjected to a death penalty if they were caught.

I note that under the committee's mandate under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act that it is to examine all legislation that comes before the parliament for compatibility with human rights and to report to the parliament on this issue. In this case, the statement of compatibility, the bill did not address the human rights concerns outlined above and, as such, the committee has determined that it requires further information to complete its human rights assessment.

As I have said before, the committee seeks to engage in dialogue with proponents of legislation—both to help the committee better understand the intent of legislation and to help relevant legislation proponents to identify and explore questions of human rights compatibility. This report also includes an examination of three bills on which the committee has now received responses from relevant ministers. Of these, two bills, the Australian Citizenship and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 and the Migration Amendment (Maintaining the Good Order of Immigration Detention Facilities) Bill 2015, raise complex issues.

I would like to thank my colleagues for the constructive discussion we have had in relation to this matter in seeking to resolve a number of difficult questions. As will be apparent from the report, the committee did find different views amongst its membership as to whether a number of members had been justified. Obviously, I encourage fellow members and others to examine the committee's report to better inform their understanding of the committee's deliberations.

The ultimate purpose of the committee is to inform debates of the parliament on the merits of legislation which we are asked to consider, and in that spirit, and with these comments, I commend the 24th report of the 44th Parliament to the House.