Scrutiny update
On 2 October 2025 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights tabled out of session its Report 5 of 2025, 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.
Bills (Report 5 of 2025)
- The committee considers that the allocation of funds via appropriation bills is susceptible to a human rights assessment, and recommends that statements of compatibility for future appropriation bills should contain an assessment of human rights compatibility which meets the standards outlined in the committee’s Guidance Note 1.
- The committee is seeking further information from the minister to assess the compatibility of various measures involving the collection, use and disclosure of personal information with the rights to privacy and an effective remedy.
- The committee received a response from the minister in relation to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2025. The committee considers that further information is required to assess the compatibility of the measures to extend and ultimately make permanent ASIO’s compulsory questioning powers framework and expand the definition of ‘adult questioning matter’ with multiple human rights. The committee awaits the further response from the minister in relation to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025.
- The committee considers that as a representative of an individual with impaired decision-making ability may be permitted to consent to an order on behalf of that individual, there is a risk that this measure may facilitate a form of substitute decision-making in certain circumstances, which is contrary to the international human rights law requirement to replace substitute decision-making regimes with supported decision-making regimes. The committee has recommended an amendment to the bill and draws its human rights concerns to the attention of the minister and the Parliament.
- The committee considers that restricting people who have reached more than 100 years of age from accessing review of a decision to refuse to recommend a person for a length of service award may not be compatible with the right to equality and non-discrimination. The committee draws this concern to the attention of the minister and the Parliament, and notes that it may further comment on additional human rights.
- The committee considers that disapplying the rules of natural justice in relation to the exercise of certain powers that facilitate the removal of non-citizens from Australia does not appear to be compatible with the right not to be expelled from a country without due process. The committee further considers that this measure engages Australia’s non-refoulement obligations and the right to an effective remedy; and exacerbates the underlying human rights concerns in relation to these powers.
- The committee further considers that as the bill directly affects the outcome of a case currently pending before the High Court of Australia, there is a risk that this could constitute an impermissible interference with the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, an element of the right to a fair hearing.
- The committee notes that this bill passed within a short timeframe, meaning the committee did not have adequate time to scrutinise the legislation and seek further information. This is of particular concern given the significant human rights implications of this bill. As the bill has passed, the committee makes no further comment.
Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Technical Changes No. 2) Bill 2025
- The committee is seeking further information from the minister to assess the compatibility of retrospectively validating income apportionment as a method for assessing employment income during a specified time period for the purposes of certain social security entitlements with the rights to social security and an effective remedy.
Telecommunications and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025
- The committee is seeking further information from the minister to assess the compatibility of: expanding the power of an agency to access stored communications under authorisations for developing and testing interception capabilities; broadening the scope of private telecommunications data that can be intercepted through an International Production Order; and broadening immunity from liability in controlled operations, with the right to privacy, right to an effective remedy, right to life and rights of the child.
Legislative Instruments (Report 5 of 2025)
- The committee notes that to the extent that an appointed litigation guardian may act on behalf of a person with disability in court proceedings, the measure may facilitate a form of substitute decision-making, which is contrary to the requirement under article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The committee further notes that to the extent that litigation guardians are appointed for children, the rights of the child are engaged. The rights of people with disability and children were not identified in the statement of compatibility. The committee has authorised its secretariat to notify departments where statements of compatibility appear to be inadequate.
- The committee notes that exporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage (including artwork) engages and may limit cultural rights, which includes an obligation on states to respect the principle of free, prior and informed consent of indigenous peoples in all matters covered by their specific rights. The committee considers that to the extent that consultation with relevant Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities constitutes free, prior and informed consent, any limit on cultural rights would likely be proportionate. However, much will depend on how consultation is undertaken in practice and the quality of such consultation.
- The committee notes that the statement of compatibility did not clearly specify any safeguards to ensure that free, prior and informed consent would be obtained. The committee has authorised its secretariat to notify departments where statements of compatibility appear to be inadequate.