Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page

Bills unlikely to raise human rights incompatibility

Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2012-2013

Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2012-2013

Introduced into the House of Representatives on 7 February 2013
Portfolio: Finance and Deregulation

1.1        These bills appropriate additional money out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the ordinary annual services of the government.

Compatibility with human rights

1.2        Both bills are accompanied by self-contained statements of compatibility which state:

1 The Bill seeks to appropriate money for the ordinary annual services of the Government.

2 The Bill does not engage any of the applicable rights or freedoms outlined in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

3 The Bill is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 as it does not raise any human rights issues.

1.3        The committee notes that general appropriations bills present particular challenges for the preparation of statements of compatibility, since they appropriate money for expenditure across a range of departments and for a variety of programs, many of which are broadly defined.

1.4        The committee has noted that both the promotion of the enjoyment of human rights and the possibility of encroachments on them may come about through the adoption of legislative frameworks and the allocation of funds necessary to give effect to that policy.[1] From that perspective appropriation bills may have an impact on the implementation of human rights obligations and potential violations. Accordingly, the appropriation of funds to permit the implementation of legislation that gives rise to human rights compatibility issues may also be viewed as giving rise to human rights concerns, as this facilitates the taking of actions which may involve the failure by Australia to fulfil its obligations under the treaties listed in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

1.5        In some cases, both within general appropriation Acts and with specific appropriation Acts, it is possible to identify the particular legislative framework or program which is being funded. For example, with the Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2012-2013, one proposed appropriation of funds for the Resources, Energy and Tourism Portfolio is to support the work of the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority,^[2] at least part of which will support the enforcement of powers and functions considered by the committee in its consideration of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Compliance Measures) Bill 2012. In most cases of this sort, where the legislation postdates the commencement of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, the committee will have commented on the substantive legislation, the implementation of which the funds are being appropriated.

1.6        Furthermore, in the case of specific appropriation bills, in which identified sums of money are allocated to implementing legislation that gives rise to human rights concerns, the committee may consider it appropriate to draw attention to that fact.[3]

1.7                 The committee notes that it does not anticipate it will generally be necessary for it to make substantive comments on appropriation bills, especially in cases in which it has considered the substantive legislation for the implementation of which funds are being appropriated. Nonetheless, the committee considers that there may be cases in which the committee considers it appropriate to comment on such bills. These might include specific appropriation bills or specific appropriations where there is an evident and substantial link to the carrying out of policy or programs under legislation that gives rise to human rights concerns and where the issues have not been adequately addressed in its examination of the substantive legislation or there has not been an opportunity for such examination.

1.8                 The committee, however, notes that appropriation bills are highly technical in nature and it is likely to be difficult for the committee to identify particular human rights concerns in the time available. The committee would therefore find it helpful if the statements of compatibility accompanying these bills identified any proposed cuts in expenditure which may amount to retrogression or limitations on human rights, in particular economic, social and cultural rights.

1.9                 The committee intends to write to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation to seek clarification as to the basis for the assertion in the statement of compatibility that the appropriation bills do not engage any human rights and whether the underlying budgetary processes leading to these appropriations incorporated any explicit human rights assessment.

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page