On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present the committee's report entitled Human rights scrutiny report 11 of 2026.

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

by leave—I am pleased to table Human rights scrutiny report 11 of 2026.

In this report, the committee considers 19 new bills and 164 new legislative instruments. It has commented on two bills and five legislative instruments and has concluded its examination of three bills and one instrument.

In particular, the committee concluded its consideration of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill 2026. This bill seeks to extend the operation of several counterterrorism and police powers by three years. These powers engage and limit numerous human rights. The committee considers that extending some of the powers may be necessary. However, the committee notes that some of the powers have been specifically identified by international human rights bodies as raising serious human rights concerns. The committee therefore retains significant concerns about the proportionality and extension of certain powers.

This bill also seeks to extend the maximum duration of control orders that may be posed on children from three months to 12 months. This limits the rights of the child. The committee notes that no control orders have ever been requested or made against children and that the court currently has the powers to impose rehabilitative conditions on children across successive control orders. As such, the committee considers that it has not been demonstrated that the measure is necessary or rationally connected to the stated objective. The committee further notes that the measures depart from best practice in international human rights law. The measure, therefore, does not appear to be compatible with the rights of the child.

The bill would also permit certain criminal history information to be disclosed and taken into account for the purposes of control orders and post sentence orders. This limits the right to privacy. The committee considers that while some of the information sharing measures appear to represent a proportionate limitation on the right to privacy, the measure authorising state or territory authorities to disclose information to the Australian Federal Police may not be proportionate in all circumstances.

The committee also concluded its consideration on Online Safety Amendment (Strengthening Enforcement for Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026. This bill, which has now passed both houses of parliament, expands the eSafety Commissioner's power to obtain information related to assessing compliance with the online safety scheme. Insofar as this involves the collection of personal information, this engages and limits the right to privacy.

While the measure pursues a legitimate objective, the committee notes that the varying accuracy of different age assurance technologies that may be used raises questions as to the effectiveness of the measure to achieve the stated objective. The committee considers that while there are some safeguards, it is unclear whether these would be sufficient in practice. There is also a risk that this measure may not constitute a proportionate limit on the right to privacy. It also remains unclear whether the measure is compatible with the rights of the child or the right to equality and non-discrimination, noting the lack of specific safeguards to protect vulnerable groups.

Additionally, I note the committee received the minister's response to its request for information over four weeks late and following the passage of the bill. The committee's scrutiny work becomes challenging when legislation passes before the committee has completed its scrutiny. The responsiveness of ministers to the committee's requests for information is critical to the effectiveness of the scrutiny policy. I encourage all members to consider the committee's report closely. With these comments, I commend the Human rights scrutiny report: Report 11 of 2026 to the House.