Scrutiny update
On 19 March 2026, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights tabled out of session its Report 3 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.
- By facilitating the provision of intelligence information, including personal information, to a designated Royal Commission, and authorising the use and disclosure of such information to other agencies, the measures engage and limit the right to privacy. By compelling individuals to give information, produce documents and answer questions, the measures engage and may limit the privilege against self incrimination. The committee is seeking further information from the Attorney General to assess the compatibility of these measures with these rights.
- The committee notes that the statement of compatibility did not provide an assessment of the compatibility of enabling the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to communicate personal information to the Department of Defence and the Defence Force with the right to privacy, and it is therefore not possible for the committee to conclude that the measure represents a proportionate limitation on this right.
- The committee considers that restricting access to security information by a lawyer acting for a person in connection with proceedings for a remedy relating to either a questioning warrant or the treatment of the person under the warrant may not be a proportionate limit on the right to a fair hearing. If this measure restricted a person’s ability to secure legal representation, the committee considers there is a risk that it may restrict a person’s access to an effective remedy for violations of human rights resulting from compulsory questioning warrants.
- The committee considers there is a risk that offences for public nuisance and public gatherings in Commonwealth reserves are framed so broadly that they may criminalise conduct that would be protected under international human rights law and so may disproportionately limit the rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association, and potentially the rights to freedom of religion and culture, depending on the type of conduct prohibited in practice.
- The committee considers that the collection, use and disclosure of identifying information of suspected foreign offenders may not be a proportionate limitation on the right to privacy and the rights of the child (insofar as information gathering procedures are carried out on children).
- The committee reiterates its concerns that the Income Apportionment Resolution Scheme is unlikely to be an effective remedy for the limitation on the right to social security resulting from the retrospective validation of income apportionment, as the reparation payment available is substantially less than the amount of debt incurred and the Scheme does not take into account other impacts of the debt on the individual.
- The committee considers that the statement of compatibility accompanying this instrument provides an insufficient assessment of the compatibility of enabling Commonwealth entities to share private health information with the National Focal Point with the right to privacy.
- The committee reiterates its concerns that enabling staff of the ACT Integrity Commission to access stored communications and telecommunications data held by telecommunications providers, including the content of messages and emails, does not constitute a permissible limitation on the right to privacy.
- The committee notes that while this instrument expands the avenues for verification of identity for the purposes of accessing prepaid mobile services, the committee reiterates its concerns that the underlying requirement for carriage service providers to verify the identity of customers before providing prepaid mobile services may limit the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and the right to equality and non discrimination.