Scrutiny update
On 4 March 2026, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights tabled its Report 2 of 2026, which provides an analysis of the human rights compatibility of recently introduced bills and legislative instruments.
This update provides a summary of the legislation commented on in this report. Where the committee is seeking further information, this indicates it has not yet formed a concluded view, as further information is required to assess the relevant human rights implications. This summary is not intended to be a substitute for the views of the committee as set out in the committee's scrutiny reports.
- The committee reiterates its long-held view that proposed government expenditure that gives effect to particular policies may engage and limit, or promote, a range of human rights and that the statements of compatibility accompanying these bills should provide an adequate human rights assessment.
- The committee sought further information to assess the necessity of extending and making permanent the compulsory questioning powers in relation to children. The committee retains concerns that the available safeguards may not be sufficient such that the compulsory questioning powers framework as it applies to children constitutes a proportionate limitation on the rights of the child. The committee reiterates its previous recommendation to amend the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 to improve its human rights compatibility with respect to children.
- Regarding the new and expanded hate offences, the committee acknowledges the important and legitimate objectives pursued by the measure. The committee notes that several aspects of the new offences do not appear to adhere to best practice principles under international human rights law, and it is not evident that the safeguards would be sufficient in all circumstances. However, having regard to the broader context in which the offences were introduced, the committee considers that the bill is justified.
- Regarding the new ground for visa refusal or cancellation for spreading hate and extremism, the committee considers that these measures pursue legitimate objectives but do not appear to be accompanied by sufficient safeguards.
- Regarding expanding the application of the special return criteria, which operates to permanently exclude certain visa applicants from Australia, the committee considers that while the measures pursue legitimate objectives, there may be less rights restrictive alternatives to achieve the stated objective, noting that natural justice is excluded in such cases and permanent exclusion represents a significant interference with the right to protection of the family.
- Regarding restricting disclosure of information relevant to proceedings, the committee considers that the limitation on the right to a fair hearing may not be proportionate, noting that there may be less rights restrictive alternatives available to achieve the stated objectives.
- Regarding expanding permissible disclosures of spent convictions, the committee considers that the measures seek to achieve an important and legitimate objective, but notes that it is not able to fully assess the proportionality of the measures as the statement of compatibility did not provide a compatibility assessment with the right to privacy.
- Regarding information sharing for the purpose of criminal intelligence assessments, the committee considers that the measures are unlikely to be a proportionate limit on the rights to privacy due to the absence of adequate safeguards and the breadth of information that may be used and disclosed.
- As this bill may expand the authorisation relating to the use and disclosure of information in the public interest, the committee reiterates its previous comments and recommendations in Report 6 of 2025 with respect to the right to privacy.
- The committee is seeking further information from the minister to assess the compatibility of provisions that would authorise the collection, use and disclosure of personal information with the right to privacy, right to equality and non-discrimination and the rights of the child.
- The committee considers that expanding the definition of vaccine would promote the right to health insofar as it would facilitate the administration of more vaccinations to the general population, but it would also limit the right to privacy as vaccination providers would be required to report more information to the Australian Immunisation Register. The committee reiterates the human rights concerned previously raised in regard to the mandatory reporting of vaccine information and has made recommendations to amend the relevant Act to assist with proportionality.
- The committee is seeking further information from the minister to assess the compatibility of amending the start date of child support assessment periods and child support formulas for parents or carers with less than 35 per cent care of a child with the rights of the child.
- The committee is also seeking further information to assess the compatibility of amending the operation of employment income attribution rules with the right to social security.
- The instrument provides for new criteria to impose financial sanctions or travel bans specific to Afghanistan. The committee reiterates its long-held view that there is a risk that the autonomous sanctions regime may be incompatible with the multiple rights, and reiterates its previous recommendations to amend the autonomous sanctions legislation.
- The committee considers that it has not been demonstrated that expanding the AFP Minister’s power to request and disclose information in relation to Part 5.3A offences for post-sentence orders and expanding the availability of certain telecommunication warrants in relation to Part 5.3A offences constitutes a proportionate limit on the right to privacy.
- The committee considers that it has not been demonstrated that inserting a new visa condition requiring the visa holder not to communicate or associate with a state sponsor of terrorism constitutes a proportionate limit on the rights to freedom of association, expression and equality and non‑discrimination.
- This instrument specifies the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp as a state sponsor of terrorism for the purposes of the offences relating to state sponsors of terrorism in the Criminal Code Act 1995. The committee reiterates its previous human rights concerns with respect to these offences as well as related counter-terrorism and law enforcement powers.
- The committee considers that authorising personal information retrieved from Uncrewed Systems to be used and disclosed, including to foreign government and international bodies, limits the right to privacy and may have implications for the right to life and the prohibition against torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment if the provision of such information exposed a person to the death penalty.
- The committee considers that prohibiting certain things in immigration detention facilities (such as mobile phones, SIM cards, internet-capable devices) limits multiple rights and reiterates its previous human rights concerns in relation to this measure (set out in Report 11 of 2024).
- The committee considers that publishing identifying information about prohibited employers on a public register may not be sufficiently circumscribed or accompanying by adequate safeguards to sufficiently protect against an arbitrary interference with the right to privacy.
- The committee considers that empowering the minister and the Department to collect, use and disclose sensitive information to any person for the purposes of informing a decision by the minister to issue a certificate to a person certifying the non-citizen is indigenous to Australia for migration purposes may not be a proportionate limit on the rights to privacy, equality and non-discrimination and culture.
- This instrument provides that the minister may impose certain community protection conditions on certain visa holders if satisfied of particular criteria. The committee has consistently raised significant human rights concerns with the community safety condition framework and retains these concerns in the context of this instrument.
- The committee has previously raised concerns regarding the compatibility of the My Health Record scheme and the default upload of health information to My Health Record with the right to privacy and reiterates these concerns with respect to the measure in this instrument that requires pathology labs and diagnostic imaging premises to upload specified health information to My Health Record.
- The committee considers that allowing employees of Corrective Services NSW to access telecommunications data is not compatible with the right to privacy. As this instrument is substantially the same as previous declarations, the committee reiterates its previous recommendations (set out in Report 8 of 2023).