Membership of the committee

[1]        The human rights committee secretariat is staffed by parliamentary officers drawn from the Department of the Senate Legislative Scrutiny Unit (LSU), which usually includes two principal research officers with specialised expertise in international human rights law. LSU officers regularly work across multiple scrutiny committee secretariats.

[2]        These are the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD); the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

Chapter 1 - New and continuing matters

[1]        See Appendix 1 for a list of legislation in respect of which the committee has deferred its consideration. The committee generally takes an exceptions based approach to its substantive examination of legislation.

[2]        The committee examines legislative instruments registered in the relevant period, as listed on the Federal Register of Legislation. See, https://www.legislation.gov.au/.

[3]        Currently, there are a number of preconditions to the Australian Defence Force (ADF) being called out in response to 'domestic violence' including that the 'State or Territory is not, or is unlikely to be, able to protect Commonwealth interests against the domestic violence': Defence Act section 51A.

[4]        Section 31 of the bill defines 'domestic violence' as having the same meaning as in section 119 of the Constitution. Section 119 of the Constitution provides that 'the Commonwealth shall protect every State against invasion and, on the application of the Executive Government of the State, against domestic violence'. 'Domestic violence' is not defined. 

[5]        Offshore area is defined in section 31 of the bill as Australian waters; or the exclusive economic zone adjacent to the coast of Australia; or the sea over the continental shelf of Australia; and includes the airspace over these areas.

[6]        Proposed section 33.

[7]        Proposed section 35.

[8]        Proposed subsections 33(2) 35(2).

[9]        Proposed sections 34 and 36.

[10]        Proposed sections 34 and 36.

[11]        Division 3 of the bill confers powers on the ADF when authorised by an authorising minister or in sudden emergencies. Division 4 of the bill confers powers on the ADF within a 'specified area.' Section 51 of the bill provides that the authorising ministers may, in writing, declare an area to be a specified area in relation to a call out order.

[12]      Proposed section 31 defines 'person who may be detained' as a person: '(a) who is likely to pose a threat to any person’s life, health or safety, or to public health or public safety; or (b) both: (i) who has committed an offence, against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, that is related to the domestic violence or threat specified in the call out order; and  (ii) whom it is necessary, as a matter of urgency, to detain'.

[13]      Division 3 and division 4 of the bill.

[14]      Proposed section 51R of the bill.

[15]      The authorising ministers may, in writing, declare that particular infrastructure, or a part of particular infrastructure, is declared infrastructure: section 51H of the bill.

[16]      Division 5, subdivision C of the bill.

[17]      Proposed subsection 51N(2) provides that the ADF member must not use force against persons or things in exercising a power to direct a person to answer a question or produce a document.

[18]      Statement of compatibility (SOC) p.8.

[19]      SOC, p. 8.

[20]      See, for example, proposed section 51H.

[21]      Section 51 of the Defence Act provides that 'infrastructure includes physical facilities, supply chains, information technologies and communication networks or systems.'

[22]      McCann v United Kingdom, ECHR (1995) No. 18984/91 [147] – [149].

[23]      Section 31 of the bill defines 'domestic violence' as having the same meaning as in section 119 of the Constitution. Section 119 of the Constitution does not define this concept. 

[24]      SOC, p. 6.

[25]      SOC, p. 9.

[26]      See, proposed subsection 51H(2)(b).

[27]      SOC, p. 9.

[28]      SOC, p. 9.

[29]      SOC, p. 9; section 46(3).

[30]      SOC, p. 9.

[31]      For example, the German Constitutional court considered that section 14 of the German Air Safety Act (Luftsicherheitsgesetz), which provided for direct action by the military against a hijacked civilian aircraft, was incompatible with the right to life in the German Constitution in a number of circumstances:  Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG] [Federal Constitutional Court] (30 June 2005) 2 BvR 1772/02; BVerfG (15 February 2006) 1 BvR 357/05.

[32]      'Person who may be detained' is defined in proposed section 31 as a person

[33]      SOC p. 11.

[34]      SOC p. 11.

[35]      SOC p. 11.

[36]      SOC, p. 12.

[37]      Article 17, ICCPR.

[38]      SOC, p. 13.

[39]      SOC, p. 13.

[40]      See, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) pp. 25-28.

[41]      ICCPR articles 19, 21, 22; ICESCR article 8.

[42]      See, also proposed subsection 51S(2).

[43]        Proposed section 4 provides that 'reporting entities' include: entities with a consolidated revenue of at least $100 million for the reporting period that are Australian entities or that carry on business in Australia; the Commonwealth; corporate Commonwealth entities and Commonwealth companies with a consolidated revenue of at least $100 million for the reporting period; and entities that have volunteered to comply with the modern slavery reporting requirements.

[44]        'Modern slavery' is defined in proposed section 4 as conduct which would constitute: an offence under Division 270 or 271 of the Criminal Code (those Divisions create offences relating to slavery and human trafficking); an offence under either of those Divisions if the conduct took place in Australia; trafficking in persons, as defined in Article 3 of the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children; and the worst forms of child labour, as defined in Article 3 of the ILO Convention.

[45]        Proposed section 16.

[46]        Proposed section 19(1).

[47]        Proposed section 19(2).

[48]        Proposed section 6.

[49]        Article 8 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

[50]        Article 7 of the ICCPR; Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

[51]        Articles 6 and 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

[52]      Article 6 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

[53]      Article 20 of the ICCPR; Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

[54]      Article 12 of the ICCPR.

[55]      Article 12 of ICESCR.

[56]      See, for example, UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 31: The Nature of the General Legal Obligations Imposed on State Parties to the Covenant (2004), [6]-[8]. See also United Nations, Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011).

[57]      See e.g. Rantsev v Cyprus and Russia, European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Application No. 25965/04, 7 January 2010, [284], in relation to article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is the substantive equivalent to article 8 of the ICCPR.

[58]      For example, Divisions 270 and 271 of the Criminal Code set out a number of offences relating to slavery, forced labour, servitude and human trafficking. These offences are punishable by custodial penalties of between 4 and 25 years' imprisonment.

[59]      For example, the Support for Trafficked People Program (Support Program)—administered by the Department of Social Services and delivered by the Red Cross. The Support Program provides case management support, counselling, accommodation, and financial assistance to victims of modern slavery.  See, https://www.dss.gov.au/women/programs-services/reducing-violence/anti-people-trafficking-strategy/support-for-trafficked-people-program.

[60]      Modern Slavery Act 2015 (UK) sections 8-9, 40, 45, 47.

[61]      SOC, p. 31.

[62]      SOC, p. 31.

[63]      SOC, p. 31.

[64]      SOC, p. 31.

[65]      SOC, p. 32.

[66]      Proposed section 16.

[67]        See, for example, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirty-sixth report of the 44th Parliament (16 March 2016) pp. 174-187; Report 4 of 2017 (9 May 2017) pp. 101-106.

[68]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirty-sixth report of the 44th Parliament (16 March 2016) p. 179.

[69]        See, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights; Thirty-sixth report of the 44th Parliament (16 March 2016) p. 179. See, also, Report 4 of 2017 (9 May 2017) pp. 99-106; Report 2 of 2017 (21 March 2017) pp. 10-17; Report 12 of 2017 (28 November 2017) pp. 89- 92.

[70]        Section 6 of the Instrument.

[71]        Section 6(2) of the Instrument.

[72]        Australia's obligations arise under article 33 of the Refugee Convention in respect of refugees, and also under articles 6(1) and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), article 3(1) of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) and the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty.

[73]        ICCPR, article 2(3). See Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Second Report of the 44th Parliament (11 February 2014) p. 45; Fourth Report of the 44th Parliament (18 March 2014) p. 51; Thirty-sixth report of the 44th Parliament (16 March 2016) pp. 174-187.

[74]        The Statement of compatibility (SOC) explains that at present, these persons are barred from making an application for protection visa as a result of section 46A(1) of the Migration Act.

[75]        SOC, p.2.

[76]      SOC, pp. 2-3.

[77]      SOC, p.3

[78]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirty-sixth report of the 44th Parliament (16 March 2016) p. 184; see Immigration Assessment Authority, What you need to know about the Immigration Assessment Authority (2018) http://www.iaa.gov.au/IAA/media/IAA/Files/Fact%20Sheets/What-you-need-to-know-about-the-IAA.pdf. 

[79]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirty-sixth report of the 44th Parliament (16 March 2016) p. 185; Report 12 of 2017 (28 November 2017) pp. 89- 92.

[80]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirty-sixth report of the 44th Parliament (16 March 2016) pp. 182-183; Report 12 of 2017 (28 November 2017) pp. 89- 92.

[81]      See Agiza v Sweden, Communication No.233/2003, Committee against Torture (2005) [13.7]; Josu Arkauz Arana v France, Communication No.63/1997, Committee against Torture (2000); Alzery v Sweden, Communication No.1416/2005, Human Rights Committee (2006) [11.8].  For an analysis of this jurisprudence, see Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirty-sixth report of the 44th Parliament (16 March 2016) pp. 182-183.

[82]      Alzery v Sweden, Communication No.1416/2005, Human Rights Committee (2006) [11.8]. 

[83]      See section 75(v) of the Constitution and section 39B of the Judiciary Act.

[84]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirty-sixth report of the 44th Parliament (16 March 2016) pp. 174-187.

[85]      SOC, p.4.

[86]      SOC, p.5.

[87]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirty-sixth report of the 44^th Parliament (16 March 2016) pp. 174-187; Report 12 of 2017 (28 November 2017) pp. 89- 92.

[88]        Social Security (Declared Program Participant) Determination 2018 [F2018L00777] (Declared Program Participant Determination); Social Security (Administration) (Reasonable Excuse – Participation Payments) Determination 2018 [F2018L00779] (Reasonable Excuse Determination); Social Security (Administration) Legislation Amendment and Repeal (Reasonable Excuse – Participation Payments) Determination 2018 [F2018L00783] Legislation Amendment and Repeal (Reasonable Excuse) Determination; Social Security (Administration) (Non-Compliance) Determination 2018 (No. 1) [F2018L00795] (Non-Compliance Determination).

[89]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 8 of 2017 (15 August 2017) pp. 46-77; Report 11 of 2017 (17 October 2011) pp. 138-203.

[90]        A mutual obligation failure is a failure to comply with obligations relating to participation payments, such as attending appointments, undertaking activities, or taking action to gain employment: see section 42AA of the Social Security (Administration) Act.

[91]        A 'participation payment' refers to Newstart Allowance, and, in some cases, Youth Allowance, Parenting Payment or special benefit: Social Security (Administration) Act, section 42AA.

[92]        Sections 42AF, 42AG, 42AL of the Social Security (Administration) Act. A person may be eligible for back pay once the person's suspension period ends: section 42AL(4).

[93]        See further below 'Penalties for persistent mutual obligation failures'.

[94]        Sections 42AI and 42AJ the Social Security (Administration) Act.

[95]        Section 42AF of the Social Security (Administration) Act.

[96]        See sections 42AI, 42AF and 42AR of the Social Security (Administration) Act. There is a separate compliance framework for persons who are 'declared program participants', who are persons who participate in employment services programs specified in a determination made under section 28C of the Social Security Act: see Division 3A of Part 3 of the Act. The Declared Program Participant Determination specifies that a participant in the Community Development Program is a 'declared program participant'.

[97]      Legislation and Amendment Repeal (Reasonable Excuse) Determination amends the Social Security (Reasonable Excuse – Participation Obligations (DEEWR) Determination 2009 (No. 1) and repeals the Social Security (Reasonable Excuse – Participation Payment Obligation (FaHCSIA) Determination 2009 (No. 1), 'to ensure that the Reasonable Excuse Determination is the sole instrument governing reasonable excuse matters relevant to participation payments': Legislation and Amendment Repeal Determination, explanatory statement, p. 3.

[98]      Other matters include whether the person had access to safe, secure and adequate housing,  or was using emergency accommodation or a refuge at the time of the failure (section 5(2)(a)); the literacy and language skills of the person (section 5(2)(b)); whether the person had an illness, injury, impairment or disability (section 5(2)(c)); a cognitive, neurological, psychiatric or psychological impairment or mental illness of the person (section 5(2)(d)); whether the person had unforeseen family or caring responsibilities (section 5(2)(f)); whether the person was subjected to criminal violence (including domestic violence and sexual assault) (section 5(2)(g)); whether the person was adversely affected by the death of an immediate family member or close relative (section 5(2)(h)) and whether the person was working or attending a job interview at the time of the failure (sections 5(2)(i), (j)).

[99]      Reasonable Excuse Determination, section 6(4)(a)-(b). Section 6(4) does not apply to 'declared program participants'.

[100]      Reasonable Excuse Determination, section 6(4)(c)-(d).  Section 6(4) does not apply to 'declared program participants'.

[101]      Reasonable Excuse Determination, section 6(4)(e), (g). Section 6(4) does not apply to 'declared program participants'.

[102]      Reasonable Excuse Determination, section 6(4)(f). Section 6(4) does not apply to 'declared program participants'.

[103]      Reasonable Excuse Determination, section 6(4)(h). Section 6(4) does not apply to 'declared program participants'.

[104]      The previous human rights analysis of the Welfare Reform Act concluded that the measure also engaged the right to equality and non-discrimination; however, it considered that the measure appeared to include adequate safeguards to protect the rights of people with disabilities related to alcohol or drugs (Report 11 of 2017 (17 October 2011) p. 176). The Reasonable Excuse Determination is consistent with the proposed safeguards described by the legislative proponent in this respect.

[105]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2017 (17 October 2011) p. 174.

[106]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2017 (17 October 2011) p. 179.

[107]      Social Security (Administration) Act, section 43AF.

[108]      Section 5(1)-(4) of the Non-Compliance Determination set out the circumstances in which a person has persistently committed mutual obligation failures. Sections 5(5) and (6) set out the circumstances in which a person has not persistently committed mutual obligation failures.

[109]      Non-Compliance Determination, section 6.

[110]      Inserted by the Welfare Reform Act, schedule 14, item 7; schedule 15, item 1.

[111]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2017, p. 190.

[112]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2017, p. 193

[113]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2017, p. 193.

[114]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2017, p. 194.

[115]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2017, p. 194.

Chapter 2 - Concluded matters

[1]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 6 of 2018 (26 June 2018) pp. 30-43.

[2]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 1 of 2018 (6 February 2018) pp. 123-137.

[3]        See, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 6 of 2018 (26 June 2018) p. 40.

[4]        See Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Eleventh Report of 2013: Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012 and related legislation (27 June 2013) and 2016 Review of Stronger Futures measures (16 March 2016).

[5]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Twenty-seventh report of the 44^th Parliament (8 September 2015) pp. 20-29 and Thirty-first report of the 44th Parliament (24 November 2015) pp. 21-36. Also see, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Social Security (Administration) (Trial - Declinable Transactions) Amendment Determination (No. 2) 2016 [F2016L01248], Report 7 of 2016 (11 October 2016) pp. 58-61.

[6]        See, further, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2016 Review of Stronger Futures measures (16 March 2016) p. 39.

[7]        Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area - Ceduna and Surrounding Region) Amendment Determination (No. 2) 2016 [F2016L01424] and Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area – East Kimberley) Amendment Determination 2016 [F2016L01599]. See Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 8 of 2016 (9 November 2016) p. 53.

[8]        See Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 5 of 2017 (14 June 2017) 31-33 and Report 8 of 2017 (15 August 2017) pp. 122-125.

[9]        Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area) Amendment Determination (No. 2) 2017 [F2017L01170]; see Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Repot 9 of 2017 ( 5 September 2017) pp. 34-40; Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2017 (17 October 2017) pp. 126-137.

[10]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2017 (5 September 2017) pp. 34-40; Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2017 (17 October 2017) pp. 126-137.

[11]      Item 1, Section 124PD(1) of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Act 2018. Each of these areas were defined in section 124PD(1).

[12]      Proposed section 124PF(1)(b) of the bill.

[13]      Proposed section 124PF(3) of the bill.

[14]      Proposed section 124PGA(1)(a)-(c) of the bill.

[15]      Proposed section 124PGA(1)(d)-(f) of the bill. The relevant types of income management are income management under section 123UC (child protection income management), 123UCB (disengaged youth income management), 123UCC (long-term welfare payment recipient income management), or 123UF (Queensland Family Responsibilities Commission income management).

[16]      Proposed section 124PGA(1)(g); 124PGA(3) of the bill.

[17]      Proposed sections 124PJ(4B); 124PJ(4C).

[18]      See Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirty-first report of the 44th Parliament (24 November 2015) pp. 21-36; 2016 Review of Stronger Futures measures (16 March 2016) p. 61; and Report 7 of 2016 (11 October 2016) pp. 58-61; Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2017 (5 September 2017) pp. 34-40; Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2017 (17 October 2017) pp. 126-137.

[19]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2016 Review of Stronger Futures measures (16 March 2016) 43-63.  It is noted that the statement of compatibility states that in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area, it is estimated that 14% of participants will be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.  The statement of compatibility also states that the proportion of Indigenous participants across the four trial sites will be approximately 33%: SOC, p. 9.

[20]      Statement of compatibility (SOC) p. 1.

[21]      SOC, p. 2.

[22]      SOC, p. 2. The SOC also provides some statistics as to the prevalence of these issues in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area on page 2 of the SOC.

[23]      See, for example, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2017 (17 October 2017) pp. 126-137.

[24]      See, for example, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2017 (17 October 2017) pp. 126-137.

[25]      SOC, pp. 2-3. See ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017).

[26]      See, most recently, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2017 (17 October 2017) pp. 36-37.

[27]      SOC, p. 3.

[28]      SOC, p. 3; ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 4.

[29]      SOC, p. 3; ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 4.

[30]      SOC, p. 3; ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 4.

[31]      SOC, p. 3; ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 4.  The report caveats, however, that self-reports of illegal drug use in a survey context are subject to a high risk of social desirability bias and should be interpreted with caution.

[32]      SOC, p. 3.

[33]      ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) pp. 4-5.

[34]      ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 4.          

[35]      ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 6.

[36]      ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 7.

[37]      Defined as 'making unreasonable financial demands on family members or other local community members'. See ORIMA Research, Wave 1 Interim Evaluation Report of the Cashless Debit Card Trial (February 2017) p. 6.

[38]      ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 76.

[39]      ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 64.

[40]      It is noted that the ORIMA report findings and methodology have also been criticised in a review by the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR) at the Australian National University: see J Hunt, The Cashless Debit Card Evaluation: Does it really prove success? (CAEPR Topical Issue No.2/2017).

[41]      SOC, p. 2.

[42]      SOC, p. 2.

[43]      SOC, p. 3; ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 6.

[44]      Proposed section 124PGA(1)(a).

[45]      See Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Queensland Commission Income Management Regime) Bill 2017, Report 5 of 2017 (14 June 2017) pp. 45-48.

[46]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 5 of 2017 (14 June 2017) 47.

[47]      SOC, pp. 5-6.

[48]      Proposed section 124PGA(5) of the bill.

[49]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2016 Review of Stronger Futures measures (16 March 2016) p. 52.

[50]      Another key issue cited is families who require assistance in meeting the needs of their children. See, SOC, p. 2.

[51]      ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 73.

[52]      SOC, p. 5.

[53]      SOC, p. 4.

[54]      See, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2017 (17 October 2017)
p. 135.

[55]      See proposed section 124PE(2).

[56]      Proposed section 124PGA(1)(a).

[57]      Previously, the trial areas of East Kimberley and Ceduna were primarily governed by legislative instruments, but the trials are now included in the primary legislation: section 124PD of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

[58]      See Part 2 of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial of Cashless Welfare Arrangements) Determination 2018.

[59]      The determination repeals and remakes the following legislative instruments: Social Security (Administration) (Trial-Community Body- Ceduna Region Community Panel) Authorisation 2016, Social Security (Administration)(Trial-Community Body- East Kimberley Regional Community Panels) Authorisation 2015, Social Security (Administration)(Trial – Excluded Voluntary Participants) Determination 2016, Social Security (Administration)(Trial  - Variation of Percentage Amounts) Determination 2016.

[60]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 7 of 2016 (11 October 2016) p. 61.

[61]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 8 of 2017 (15 August 2017) pp. 124-125.

[62]      See Explanatory Statement, p. 1.

[63]      SOC to the Social Security (Administration) (Trial of Cashless Welfare Arrangements) Determination 2018 [F2018L00245], 5-6; SOC to the Social Security (Administration) (Trial – Declinable Transactions and Welfare Restricted Bank Account) Determination 2018 [F2018L00251], 4-5.

[64]      See section 8 of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial of Cashless Welfare Arrangements) Determination 2018.

Appendix 2

[1]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Guide to Human Rights (June 2015).

[2]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Guidance Note 1 (December 2014).

[3]        The prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Under 'other status' the following have been held to qualify as prohibited grounds: age, nationality, marital status, disability, place of residence within a country and sexual orientation. The prohibited grounds of discrimination are often described as 'personal attributes'.

[4]         Althammer v Austria HRC 998/01, [10.2]. See above, for a list of 'personal attributes'.