Josh Burns (Macnamara, 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 report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Human rights scrutiny report: report 6 of 2022.

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

by leave—I'm pleased to present the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights Human rights scrutiny report: report 6 of 2022, which was tabled in the Senate on Friday 25 November. In this report, the committee has considered 23 new bills, one previously deferred bill and 188 new legislative instruments. The committee has commented on eight of these bills and one legislative instrument. The committee has also commented on a response it received from the Attorney-General in relation to the National Anti-Corruption Commission bills.

In its last scrutiny report, the committee made a series of recommendations to improve the human rights capability of this bill, and I'm very pleased to advise that the majority of these recommendations have been agreed to by the Attorney-General. In particular, the Attorney-General agreed to the committee's recommendation to modify the proposed non-disclosure notation power, to ensure that a person needing additional professional support to comply with a notice to produce or a summons can obtain this. This helps better protect the rights of persons with a disability. The Attorney-General also agreed to further strengthen journalistic safeguards in the case of search warrants (which better protects the right to free speech), and to remove a contempt provision for creating a disturbance near a commission hearing (which better protects the right to protest). I thank the Attorney-General for his careful consideration of the committee's advice. This is a clear example of how the human rights committee's analysis of legislation can ensure better protection of fundamental human rights in Commonwealth legislation.

In this report the committee also considered the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. The majority of the committee considered this bill would promote human rights, including the rights to work, just and favourable conditions of work, and equality and nondiscrimination. However, in relation to the prohibition on industrial action relating to cooperative workplace agreements and mandatory conciliation or mediation before industrial action is protected, the committee has drawn to the parliament's attention the restrictions on the right to strike, and recommends that the statement of compatibility be updated.

In addition, the committee provides its advice to the parliament as to the human rights compatibility of the Crimes Amendment (Penalty Unit) Bill 2022. This bill seeks to increase by 24 per cent the maximum available penalty for every Commonwealth criminal and civil penalty provision expressed in terms of penalty units across the Commonwealth statute book. In relation to civil penalties, the committee considers that this increase may mean some of these penalties engage criminal process rights, because civil penalties may be considered criminal in nature under international human rights law in certain circumstances, including based on how severe the penalty is.

Finally, the committee has considered the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (Information Disclosure, National Interest and Other Measures) Bill 2022. This bill would permit the disclosure of personal information to facilitate assistance provided by the telecommunications industry to law enforcement agencies and emergency services organisations. While the bill seeks to achieve the legitimate objective of protecting life and health, it also limits the right to privacy and further information is required to determine precisely how these measures would operate in practice. The committee is therefore seeking further information in relation to this.

With these comments, I commend the committee's scrutiny report No. 6 of 2022 to the House. I wish all staff and the secretariat a very merry Christmas and offer them a very big thank you. They have done an extremely good job this year with the huge amount of work advising the committee. They are some of the very best public servants we have. I also thank committee members for the collaborative way in which they have gone about the important work of the human rights committee this year.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I rise to speak on report No. 6 of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and specifically on the dissenting report that relates to the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Secure Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 2022. The majority report takes at face value the government's assertions about the impact of the bill, particularly its impact on human rights. This in a sense highlights some of the limitations of the human rights law analysis process, because it is inherently subjective. The analysis of this particular bill is highly subjective. There are three points I want to make about that.

First, as advised to the committee back in 2015, under human rights law there is a right to an adequate standard of living. Nations are not meant to unjustifiably take any backward steps that might affect living standards. As you can see, what might have a negative effect on living standards is quite subjective. The government says obviously that this bill will have a positive effect on living standards; we say it will have a negative effect on living standards. It's not something that a human rights committee can definitively determine one way or the other, because it's inherently subjective.

In our view the bill will result in declining living standards, due to the impact of multi-employer bargaining. The likely increase in industrial action as a consequence of this bill will lead to loss of productivity in the economy and reduced investments by business, which in turn will put downward pressure on employment and wages growth, directly having a negative impact on the standard of living.

Similarly, the committee was advised in 2015 that, under human rights law, nations shouldn't take steps which will unjustifiably take any backward steps that might affect the right to work. Our view is that this bill will have just that effect because it's plain that the legislation will lead to increased industrial action that will flow into reduced economic activity and, consequently, employment, meaning that there will be less employment as a consequence of this bill.

Finally, under human rights law, legislation is not meant to discriminate on the basis of geography. This law contains a particular provision where businesses can be brought into the operation of this law based on their location under the common interest test. That means that two small businesses in different parts of Australia will be treated quite differently depending purely on where they're located, which is inconsistent with international human rights law. There are at least three aspects of this bill which are, in fact, negative from a human rights law perspective. That is different to the majority opinion report, and that is why we provide this dissenting report.