Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, I present that 12th report of the 44th Parliament of the committee on the examination of legislation in accordance with the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I seek leave to incorporate the tabling statement in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The statement read as follows—

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

The committee considered 12 bills, all of which were introduced with a statement of compatibility. Of these 12 bills, nine do not require further scrutiny as they do not appear to give rise to human rights concerns. The committee has decided to defer its consideration of one bill.

The committee has identified two bills that it considers require further examination and for which it will seek further information.

Of the bills considered, those which are scheduled for debate during the sitting week commencing 22 September 2014 include:

Customs Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014

Customs Tariff Amendment (Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Bill 2014

Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Cost Benefit Analysis and Other Measures Bill 2014

Migration Amendment (Protection and Other Measures) Bill 2014

2 Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2014 Measures No. 5) Bill 2014

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

I would like to draw Senators' attention to one bill in this report which is of particular interest and relevance to the committee's task of assessing legislation for compatibility with human rights.

The Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 2) Bill 2014 seeks to amend various Acts relating to social security, family assistance, veterans' entitlements and farm household support to make a number of changes to certain Australian Government payments. These include measures to:

pause indexation for three years of the income free areas and assets value limits for student payments;

pause indexation for three years of the income and assets test free areas for all pensioners (other than parenting payment single recipients) and the deeming thresholds for all income support payments;

provide that all pensions are indexed to the Consumer Price Index only by removing both benchmarking to Male Total

3 Average Weekly Earnings and indexation to the Pensioner and Beneficiary Living Cost Index.

The committee previously sought the advice of the minister as to whether the measures are compatible with these rights, noting that the statement of compatibility did not adequately identify and assess how potential limitations on the right to social security, the right to an adequate standard of living and the rights to quality and non­discrimination would be reasonable, necessary and proportionate in each case.

The further information provided by the minister in this case is an excellent model for the kind of detailed information and analysis required to assist the committee in its assessment of the human rights compatibility of legislation. This further information has allowed the committee to conclude that the measures are largely compatible with the right to social security and the right to an adequate standard of living, with identified limitations of rights being generally assessed as reasonable, necessary and proportionate in pursuit of a legitimate objective. Significantly, out of the twelve matters raised by the committee in relation to measures in the bill, the committee has concluded that ten of these are compatible with human rights.

I would urge ministers and officers of departments and agencies with responsibility for the preparation of statements of compatibility to look at the committee's examination of this bill as a guide to

4 understanding the processes and analytical framework within which the committee works.

With these comments, I commend the committee's Twelfth Report of the 44th Parliament to the Senate.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make some comments on this report. I have not had time to look at it in depth, because it has obviously only just been tabled, but I do want to take note of the committee's comments on the Social Services and Other Legislation Amendment (2014 Budget Measures No. 1) Bill 2014. People in this place will not be surprised that I am taking a deep interest in this matter.

In a previous committee report to the parliament, I raised a number of issues about that particular bill, and this report is looking at the minister's response. I am particularly interested in the committee's view on compatibility, the right to equality and non-discrimination, and the potential indirect discrimination against women. The committee requested that the Minister for Social Services provides advice on the compatibility of each of the schedules on the rights to equality and non-discrimination and, in particular, whether the measures are aimed at achieving a legitimate objective; there is a rational connection between the measures and the objective; and the measures are proportionate to that objective. The minister responded:

The proposed changes affect all recipients, regardless of their gender and are aimed at ensuring that social security is targeted, sustainable and consistent over the long term.

The measures will help ensure ongoing assistance is targeted to those who need it most, and the impacts are sufficiently small as to be proportionate to the objective of preserving access to payments system over the long term.

Furthermore a per child single parent supplement will become available for single parent families …

And that is articulated in the bill. The committee thanked the minister for his response but noted:

… that non-discrimination and equality are fundamental components of international human rights law and essential to the exercise and enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. In particular, article 2(2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) requires each State party:

…to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

They went on to quote the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which notes:

Non-discrimination is an immediate and cross-cutting obligation in the Covenant. Article 2(2) requires States parties to guarantee nondiscrimination in the exercise of each of the economic, social and cultural rights enshrined in the Covenant and can only be applied in conjunction with these rights. It is to be noted that discrimination constitutes any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference or other differential treatment that is directly or indirectly based on the prohibited grounds of discrimination and which has the intention or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of Covenant rights.

The committee went on to say:

1.186 Discrimination may be either direct or indirect. Indirect discrimination may occur when a requirement or condition is neutral on its face but has—

and this is really critical—

a disproportionate or unintended negative impact on particular groups.

1.187 The committee notes the minister's advice that the measures affect all recipients, regardless of their gender. While the measures therefore appear neutral on their face, the committee remains concerned that they may have a greater impact on women than men, as women are more likely to be recipients of social security and, particularly payments provided to the primary caregiver of children.

1.188 Accordingly, the committee seeks the further advice of the minister as to whether the measures in the bill are compatible with the rights to equality and non-discrimination on the basis of gender and family responsibilities.

When you bear in mind that overwhelming single parents are women that will be affected by the measures in this bill, in particular the family tax benefit changes and the fact that it cuts off when a child is six, of course women are going to be disproportionately affected by the legislation that the committee has been considering and that we have spoken about on many occasions.

I hope the Senate takes note of the findings of this report. I look forward to the minister's further response, because, quite frankly, I fail to see how the minister cannot see that this can be indirect discrimination against women in this particular matter. Of course, there are other measures contained in the budget that will also disproportionately impact on women. The accumulation of these impacts will significantly impact on women.

As I said, I look forward to seeing the committee's next report to see what the minister's responsible is and, quite frankly, how the minister can justify in any way at all the impacts that these proposals will have on women, and particularly on single parents when you also consider that they have also had foisted on them the cuts that were made by both the Howard government and the Gillard government by dumping them onto Newstart as single parents. As I have repeatedly said in this place, they are predominantly single mothers that have been adversely affected. This is yet another cut that they will have to bear, and that of course then impacts directly on their children. I look forward to seeing the next report.

Question agreed to.