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 report entitled Human rights scrutiny report—Twenty-fifth Report of the 44th Parliament, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

As this is its Twenty-fifth Report of the 44th Parliament, it is a very productive committee. I rise to speak on the tabling of the Twenty-fifth Report. The committee's reports examine the compatibility of bills and legislative instruments with Australia's human rights obligations, and this report considers bills introduced into the parliament from 22 to 25 June 2015 and legislative instruments received from 29 May to 11 June 2015. The report also includes the committee's consideration of responses to matters raised in previous reports. Of the 22 bills and two instruments examined in this report, 18 are assessed as not raising human rights concerns. Six raise matters in relation to which the committee will seek a response from the legislative proponents. The committee has concluded its examination of six bills and deferred consideration of one. The number of bills examined are scheduled for debate during the sitting week commencing 10 August—that is this week—including the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Biometrics Integrity) Bill 2015 and the Social Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2015.

In this report, the committee also examined the Australian Citizenship Amendment (Allegiance to Australia) Bill 2015. This is an important and complex bill that raises a number of human rights questions. In keeping with its usual approach, the committee has determined to ask the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection for further information to help the committee assess the human rights compatibility of the bill—in particular, the committee wishes to understand whether there is reasoning or evidence that establishes that the stated objective of the bill would address a pressing and substantial concern. I might say that, in this matter, it is quite likely that it does, since it goes to the issue of citizenship deprivation in the context of the security issues that are before us at this time. It also asks whether there are rational connections between any limitation on rights and that objective and, finally, whether any limitations on rights are reasonable and proportionate in achieving that objective. I am sure the members of the committee will be very much aided with the full, complete and, I hope, helpful advice from the minister on this matter. These questions reflect the analytical framework that the committee has applied since its inception, which allows the committee to assess whether any limitations on human rights are justifiable.

In relation to the committee's consideration of responses to matters raised in previous reports, I would like to highlight what is an excellent example of the scrutiny dialogue between the committee and the executive working as is intended. In its initial examination of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Amendment (Improving the Comcare Scheme) Bill 2015, the committee raised a number of concerns about the human rights compatibility of a substantial number of measures in the bill. In response, the minister provided an extensive and, I might say, detailed human rights assessment of the measures, which directly addressed the matters raised by the committee. I thank the minister for that approach, because it was very helpful in ensuring that the committee could—obviously, using its analytic framework and expectations—understand the legitimate objectives of the measures. The minister also set out safeguards and processes that were in place to protect human rights and provided clear and compelling analysis that underpinned this. On the basis of this response, the committee was able to assess that almost all of the limitations on rights were reasonable and proportionate, and therefore compatible with human rights.

Regrettably, this has to be contrasted to the response received in relation to the Seafarers Rehabilitation Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, which was considered in this report. The response to the committee's inquiry to this bill was very brief. Regrettably, it did not address the specific questions asked by the committee and it did not reflect the application of the committee's analytical framework. Although the response contained an assurance that amendments to the bill during the passage adequately addressed the committee's concerns, there was no attempt to explain how these complex amendments in fact addressed the human rights issues identified by the committee.

Looking at the substance of those issues, it appears quite possible that a more helpful and informative response could have enabled the committee to conclude its examination of the bill and assess that it was likely to be compatible with human rights. I might say that, given the task I have, it would be helpful if ministers were conscious of that. It makes it easier for me to bring about support for government measures, assuming they are compatible with our obligations or proportionately address issues that are before us. However, in the absence of the information sought in this case, the committee was unable to assess the extent of the limitation on the right to social security and was therefore unable to conclude that the bill was compatible with that right.

The key element of the committee's work is the scrutiny dialogue it maintains with executive departments and agencies regarding human rights in the development of policies and legislation. This is a tale of two responses, and it demonstrates that the committee's ability to appropriately perform its scrutiny function in assessing bills and instruments for compatibility is greatly aided by the quality of the dialogue undertaken with the legislative proponents. As always, I encourage fellow members and others to examine the committee's report to inform their understanding of our deliberations. They are not easy, Mr Deputy Speaker. I commend the committee's 25th report of the 44th Parliament to the House.