Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page

Executive Summary

This report provides the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights' view on the compatibility with human rights as defined in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 of bills introduced into the Parliament during the period 18 to 21 March 2013 and select legislative instruments registered with the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (FRLI) during the period 16 February to 19 April 2013. The committee has also considered a number of responses from Ministers and private Members and Senators.

Bills introduced 18 to 21 March 2013

The committee considered 34 bills, all of which were introduced with a statement of compatibility. Sixteen of the bills considered do not require further scrutiny as they do not appear to give rise to human rights concerns.

The committee has identified 18 bills that it considers require further examination and for which it will seek further information.

The committee also considered the Native Title Amendment Bill 2012 which had been deferred from the committee's First Report of 2013.

Select instruments registered between 16 February and 19 April 2013

The committee considered 492 legislative instruments that were registered with the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments (FRLI) between 16 February and 19 April 2013. The committee also considered an instrument previously examined in its First Report of 2013 and subsequently deferred in its Third Report of 2013.[1] The full list of instruments scrutinised by the committee can be found in Appendix 1 to this report.

403 of the instruments considered do not appear to raise any human rights concerns and are accompanied by statements of compatibility that are adequate. 74 instruments do not appear to raise human rights concerns but are accompanied by statements of compatibility that do not fully meet the committee's expectations. As the instruments in question do not appear to raise human rights compatibility concerns, the committee has written to the relevant Ministers in a purely advisory capacity providing guidance on the preparation of statements of compatibility. The committee hopes that this approach will assist in the preparation of future statements of compatibility that conform more closely to its expectations.

The committee has identified 14 legislative instruments for which it will seek further information before forming a view about their compatibility. The committee has decided to consider two instruments as part of its examination of the Stronger Futures package of legislation.

Ministerial responses

The committee considered 29 responses to comments made in various previous reports and has concluded its examination of 25 of these.

Legislative instruments and enabling legislation

A number of legislative instruments introduced during the period under examination in this report have the effect of expanding the operation of the primary enabling legislation. The committee has previously expressed its expectation that where a bill or legislative instrument expands the operation of existing legislation, or confers existing powers on new entities, the relevant statement of compatibility will include an examination of the compatibility of the existing legislation with human rights.[2]

The committee considers that an analysis of the legal effect and practical impact of legislative instruments requires consideration of the statutory framework of which they form part. The committee notes that this approach contributes to the committee's performance of its mandate under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 to examine Acts for compatibility with human rights.

Four instruments considered in this report seek to expand or extend the operation of the Extradition Act 1988 and the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987.[3] The committee has therefore taken the opportunity to ask the Attorney-General to provide the committee with an analysis of the compatibility of those Acts with human rights. The committee notes that it may be desirable for the committee to undertake a full examination of these Acts for compatibility with human rights in
the future.

In the case of one other legislative instrument, the committee has underscored the significance of its concerns in relation to a range of human rights issues by noting that where the committee is not satisfied that human rights concerns have been adequately addressed within a legislative instrument, it may give consideration to a notice of motion to disallow as a precautionary measure.

The committee has determined that I should draw attention to these issues in my tabling statement.

Mr Harry Jenkins MP
Chair

Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page