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 sixth report of the 44th Parliament, entitled Examination of legislation in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011: billsintroduced 24-27 March 2014; legislative instruments received 8 March-25 April 2014, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report.

Leave granted.

I rise to speak to the tabling of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' sixth report to the 44th Parliament.

It covers 18 bills introduced in the period 24 to 27 March, three of which have been deferred for further consideration, and 175 legislative instruments received during the period 8 March to 25 April. The report also includes the committee's consideration of 10 responses to matters raised in previous committee reports.

Of those considered in this report, I note that the following bills are scheduled for debate this week:

The report outlines the committee's assessment of the compatibility of these bills with human rights, and I encourage my fellow members to look to the committee's report to inform your deliberations on the merits of this proposed legislation.

I would like to draw members' attention to one bill which raises an issue of particular interest and relevance to the committee's task of assessing legislation for compatibility with human rights.

The G20 (Safety and Security) Complementary Bill 2014 is intended to clarify the interaction between provisions of the G20 (Safety and Security) Act 2013 (Queensland) and existing Commonwealth legislation at the Brisbane Airport during the G20 summit, which is to be held in November this year. In simple terms, the bill will allow the provisions of the Queensland act to apply in certain areas of Brisbane Airport in the lead-up to and during the G20 summit. Commonwealth laws that would otherwise apply at Brisbane Airport, which is a Commonwealth place, will effectively be 'rolled back'.

As noted in the report, the application of the provisions of the Queensland law to areas of Brisbane Airport amounts to the enactment of Commonwealth law in those places. Given this, to the extent that those laws may engage and limit human rights, the report notes that any such laws should be subject to a human rights assessment in accordance with the committee's usual expectations for new legislation. As the statement of compatibility for the G20 bill did not provide an assessment of the provisions of the Queensland act that will be applied in the Commonwealth areas of Brisbane Airport, the committee has requested further information from the minister on this matter.

More generally, the committee notes that the G20 bill is a specific instance of the application of state laws to Commonwealth places as provided for by the Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970. This raises the wider question of how state laws applied to Commonwealth places can be systematically assessed for compatibility with human rights. The committee will, therefore, undertake a human rights assessment of the Commonwealth Places Act, and has requested that the Minister for Justice prepare a statement of compatibility to facilitate the committee's consideration of the act.

I encourage members to consult the full discussion of the G20 bill in the report, which provides a more detailed account of the issues raised and the interesting background to the practice of applying state laws to Commonwealth places.

Finally, in relation to responses to matters previously raised by the committee, the report contains consideration of 10 such responses, and the committee's concluding remarks on these matters.

With these comments, I commend the committee's sixth report of the 44th Parliament to the House.