|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Australian Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights |
In this report the committee has examined the following bills and legislative instruments for compatibility with human rights. The committee's full consideration of legislation commented on in the report is set out in Chapters 1 and 2.
|
Chapter 1: New and continuing matters
|
|
|
Bills introduced 25 November to 28 November 2024
|
15
|
|
Bills previously
deferred[2]
|
3
|
|
Bills commented on in
report[3]
|
2
|
|
Private members or senators' bills that may engage and limit human
rights
|
2
|
|
Chapter 2: Concluded
|
|
|
Bills committee has concluded its examination of following receipt of
ministerial response
|
3
|
|
The bill (now Act) provides for legislative and administrative mechanisms
to facilitate the establishment of the new aged care framework
under the Aged
Care Act 2024. The committee has previously raised in Report 9 of 2024 and Report 10 of 2024 that a number of measures in the Aged
Care Act 2024 would promote human rights, including the right to health, an
adequate standard of living and the rights of persons with disability.
However,
the committee reiterates its concerns that a number of measures it introduced,
including the inclusion of a Statement of
Rights, rules regarding the use of
restrictive practices, the publication of banning orders and the use and
disclosure of personal
information, would also engage and limit multiple human
rights.
In facilitating the establishment of the new aged care framework, the Act
also amends the Crimes Act 1914 to allow for the disclosure of a
person's criminal history (including spent convictions) when being assessed for
employment within
the aged care sector. The committee notes that while the
statement of compatibility identifies that the right to privacy is engaged
in
relation to this measure, it does not provide information to demonstrate that
such a limit on the right to privacy would be permissible
(that is, information
as to whether the measure is sufficiently circumscribed, accompanied by
safeguards, and subject to oversight
or review mechanisms).
|
|
|
No comment
|
|
|
No comment
|
|
|
No comment
|
|
|
This bill would establish a workplace protection orders scheme to prevent
personal violence against, or with respect to, Commonwealth
workers and
Commonwealth workplaces. It would permit a court to make interim orders in the
absence of the respondent, which may remain
in force for up to 12 months, as
well as urgent interim orders and final orders. An order may impose any
conditions a court considers
is necessary or desirable to prevent the respondent
from engaging in further violence and to ensure the safety of a worker or people
at a workplace. Either party may apply to the court to vary or revoke an order
at any time. The breach of an order would be a criminal
offence.
An order may be made against a child aged 14 years and above. The statement
of compatibility states that this promotes the rights
of the child by limiting
applications to children aged 14 years and over. However, it also limits the
rights of the child. The statement
of compatibility does not identify what
measures (if any) would be required to be implemented to ensure that processes
were appropriately
tailored to recognise the special rights that children have
under international human rights law, and to give effect to Australia's
obligation to ensure that, in all actions concerning children, the best
interests of the child are a primary consideration. In addition,
as the proposed
scheme would enable orders to be made in the absence of a respondent (for
potentially up to one year), the bill may
engage and limit the right to a fair
hearing, which the statement of compatibility does not identify. The committee
has authorised
its secretariat to notify departments where statements of
compatibility appear to be inadequate. As such, the committee's secretariat
has
written to the department in relation to this matter.
|
|
|
No comment
|
|
|
No comment
|
|
|
Doctors for the Bush Bill 2024
|
|
|
The committee notes that this non-government bill appears to engage and may
limit human rights. Should this bill proceed to further
stages of debate, the
committee may request further information from the legislation proponent as to
the human rights compatibility
of the bill.
|
|
|
Advice to Parliament
|
Regulating the authorisation of certain electoral or referendum
matters
Rights to freedom of expression; participation in public affairs;
privacy
This bill would amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the
Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 to prohibit the authorisation
of certain electoral matters (or referendum matters), where they include content
which is ‘inaccurate
and misleading to a material extent’ during
electoral and referendum periods. The committee considered that regulating the
publication of electoral and referendum matters which include content that is
inaccurate or misleading to a material extent may promote
the right to
participate in public affairs, and the right to privacy and reputation. However,
the committee considered that restricting
what people can communicate regarding
elections and referendums engages and limits the right to freedom of expression,
and the publication
of decisions by the panel (that a person has authorised an
electoral advertisement or referendum material containing inaccurate and
misleading information) may engage and limit the right to privacy. The committee
sought further information from the minister in
Report 11 of 2024 in order to assess the
compatibility of the measure with these rights.
The committee considers that it remains unclear why the prohibition on
authorising certain electoral matters (or referendum matters)
during electoral
and referendum periods would not apply where the communication is paid for by an
allowance provided for under the
Parliamentary Business Resources Act
2017 (which provides for parliamentarians’ remuneration,
expenses, allowances and other public resources), or where the communication
was
authorised by a Commonwealth department. The committee considers that
prohibiting all electoral matters which include content
which is inaccurate and
misleading to a material extent would appear to promote (and, equally, would not
appear to limit) the right
to take part in public affairs. Further, the
committee considers it remains unclear whether there are adequate safeguards in
place
to protect the right to privacy of persons who have had a decision
published against them by the Electoral Communications Panel and,
as such, the
committee considers there is a risk that the measure would constitute an
impermissible limit on the right to privacy.
The committee has made a
recommendation to amend the bill and otherwise draws its human rights concerns
to the attention of the minister
and the Parliament.
|
|
Advice to Parliament
|
Gift caps, electoral expenditure caps and increases to public funding of
parties and candidates
Right to take part in public affairs; freedom of expression; right to
equality and non-discrimination
This bill seeks to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 to cap
the provision of electoral financing gifts and permissible electoral
expenditure, and seeks to increase public funding to incumbent
parties and
candidates. The committee considered that (to the extent the bill may achieve
this in practice) limiting the influence
of big donors and allowing for more
individuals and entities to participate in political debate may promote the
right to take part
in public affairs and the right to freedom of expression.
However, the committee considered that if these measures were to also impact
the
ability of an individual or entity to campaign effectively by limiting donations
and electoral expenditure, they may also limit
these same rights and may
disproportionately impact people with particular protected attributes who are
underrepresented by major
political parties (for example, women or ethnic
minority groups), and as such they may also engage and limit the right to
equality
and non-discrimination. The committee sought further information from
the minister in Report 11 of 2024 in order to assess the
compatibility of the measure with these rights.
The committee considers that it remains unclear whether the measures would
disproportionately impact independents or new entrants,
and that it is unclear
how the measures would be rationally connected to (that is, effective to
achieve) the objectives sought. The
committee considers that it remains unclear
whether the cap limits set have taken into account the additional hurdles to
entry for
independents or new entrants and whether the measures would indirectly
disadvantage particular groups of people from standing for
election, and whether
less rights restrictive alternatives (such as identifying any structural
disadvantages some individuals may
face over others and introducing measures to
counteract them) would be ineffective to achieve the stated objectives of the
measures.
As such, the committee considers there may be a risk that these
measures would impermissibly limit the rights to take part in public
affairs,
freedom of expression and equality and non-discrimination in practice. The
committee draws these human rights concerns to
the attention of the minister and
the Parliament.
Rights to privacy; take part in public affairs
The bill seeks to reduce the threshold for which disclosure of an electoral
donation must be made public from $16,900 to $1,000. The
committee considered
that, to the extent that this would provide greater transparency over political
donations, this may promote
the right to take part in public affairs. However,
the committee considered that the requirement to publicly disclose a greater
number
of donations, a process which includes the publication of personal
information on the Australian Electoral Commission's Transparency
Register, also
engages and limits the right to privacy and, if this measure resulted in
individuals choosing not to donate to political
candidates because they do not
want their information to be public, may limit the right to take part in public
affairs. The committee
sought further information from the minister in Report 11 of 2024 in order to assess the
compatibility of the measure with these rights.
The committee considers that it remains unclear how the $1,000 threshold
was calculated and whether it may impact the privacy of individuals.
The
committee considers it an important objective to have transparency and
accountability around the conduct of public affairs. However,
the committee also
notes there may be a risk that these measures may limit the right to engage in
public affairs and the right to
privacy. The committee draws its human rights
concerns to the attention of the minister and the Parliament.
Ability to vote in cases of cognitive impairment
Rights of persons with disability to equal recognition before the law;
take part in public affairs
The bill would substitute the words in two provisions of the
Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 from ‘being of unsound mind’
to ‘cognitive impairment’. The effect of this is to retain
provisions which restrict
the circumstances in which an individual is entitled
to be enrolled and vote based on cognitive impairment. The committee sought
further information from the minister in Report 11 of 2024 in order to assess the compatibility of
the measure with the rights of persons with disabilities to equal recognition
before the
law and the right to take part in public affairs.
The committee considers that there appears to be a risk that the existing
process for electoral objections relating to people with
disability
impermissibly limits the rights of persons with disabilities to equal
recognition before the law and the right to take
part in public affairs. The
committee has made a recommendation that consideration be given to reviewing the
relevant sections to
ensure that they are compatible with Australia’s
obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
and otherwise draws its human rights concerns to the attention of the minister
and the Parliament.
|
|
No comment
|
|
|
No comment
|
|
|
No comment
|
|
|
Health Legislation Amendment (Modernising My Health Record—Sharing
by Default) Bill 2024
|
|
|
Advice to Parliament
|
Sharing information with the My Health Record system
Right to privacy
This bill seeks to amend the My Health Records Act 2012 to require
that a prescribed healthcare provider organisation must, subject to exceptions,
share with the My Health Record system
healthcare information or a healthcare
record created in relation to a healthcare recipient who has a My Health Record,
as specified
in the My Health Records rules. The bill would establish a number
of exceptions to these requirements. Where a prescribed healthcare
provider
organisation did not meet these requirements, they would be subject to a civil
penalty of 30 penalty units (currently $9,900)
and would not be eligible to
receive a Medicare benefit for the service provided. By requiring registered
healthcare providers to
upload types of healthcare information to be specified
in the My Health Records rules, this bill engages and limits the right to
privacy. The committee has previously considered that, notwithstanding the
legitimate objective of the My Health Record scheme, the
scheme in its opt-out
form is likely incompatible with the right to privacy. The committee notes that
the scheme has been amended
to provide that if a person cancels their My Health
Record, that record (and all contents) is required to be destroyed, which
assists
with the proportionality of the scheme overall. However, the committee
considers that, while requiring healthcare providers to upload
specified
information to the system by default may enhance the utility of the My Health
Record scheme, in order to be a proportionate
limitation on the right to privacy
individuals should be made aware that they can opt-out of My Health Record, or
advise their healthcare
provider not to upload certain records. The committee
has made recommendations to amend the bill and has proposed that the statement
of compatibility be updated.
|
|
Migration Amendment Bill 2024 and related
instruments[4]
|
|
|
Advice to Parliament
|
Cessation of bridging visas
Multiple human rights
This measure provides for the cessation of certain bridging visas where a
third country that is party to a ‘third country reception
arrangement’ has given the non-citizen ‘permission’ to enter
and remain in that foreign country. The effect of
a visa cancellation is that
the non-citizen becomes an unlawful non-citizen and is subject to immigration
detention prior to their
removal to the foreign country.
The cessation of a person’s visa and consequent detention in
immigration detention engages and limits the right to liberty.
If an individual
was detained for a protracted period of time pursuant to this measure while
awaiting removal to a foreign country,
the committee considers there to be a
significant risk that such detention may be arbitrary. If a person's right to
liberty was violated,
it is not clear that the person would have access to an
effective remedy for such a violation.
The removal of a person to a foreign country under a third country
arrangement may engage and limit multiple rights. The committee
notes that there
is a likelihood that Australia would exercise effective control under
international law over persons removed to
a third country pursuant to this
measure and therefore Australia would owe human rights obligations to such
persons. The committee
considers that the measure does not appear to be
compatible with multiple rights. The committee considers that to assist the
human
rights compatibility of this measure the Act should be amended to require
that third country reception arrangements must include
safeguards to ensure that
Australia does not remove a person to a third country where there are
substantial grounds for believing
that there is a real risk of irreparable harm,
such as the arbitrary deprivation of life or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment
or torture, or chain refoulement.
Reversing a protection finding
Multiple human rights
This measure expands the circumstances in which the minister may determine
that a protection finding would no longer be made in relation
to a person. The
effect of the measure is that a broader category of people may have their
protection finding reversed, including
lawful non-citizens who may have been in
Australia for a substantial period of time. This measure may limit multiple
human rights
depending on how the power was used in practice. The committee
considers that while regulating Australia's migration system is a
legitimate
objective, it remains unclear whether the measure addresses a pressing and
substantial concern, and whether the safeguards
are sufficient to ensure any
limitation on human rights is proportionate.
Disclosure of criminal history information, including to foreign
countries
Multiple human rights
This measure authorises the collection, use and disclosure of personal
information (including criminal history information) to various
persons or
bodies, including foreign countries, for a wide range of purposes. This measure
engages and limits the right to privacy,
and may engage further rights depending
on the scope of information shared and the foreign country that receives the
information.
With respect to the right to privacy, the committee considers that while
protecting the safety of the Australian community is an important
objective, it
remains unclear whether the measures addresses a pressing and substantial
concern, and whether it is necessary to share
the full scope of information in
order to achieve the stated objective. The committee considers that the
accompanying safeguards
do not appear to be sufficient and as such the measure
may not constitute a proportionate limitation on the right to privacy. The
committee notes that if an individual’s right to privacy was violated by
the measure, it is not clear that they would have
access to an effective
remedy.
With respect to the right to life, the right to non-refoulement and the
prohibition against ill-treatment and torture, the committee
considers that
while there are some safeguards set out in policy documents, it is not clear
these are sufficient to ensure the measure
is compatible with these rights in
practice.
The committee has recommended a number of amendments to the Act to assist
with the human rights compatibility of the measure.
Enforceable bridging visa conditions
Multiple human rights
This measure amends the requirements relating to the imposition of visa
conditions on certain bridging visas and expands the cohort
of non-citizens who
would be eligible for grant of bridging visa subject to mandatory visa
conditions. The imposition of visa conditions,
including electronic monitoring
and curfew conditions, engages and limits multiple rights.
The committee notes that it has previously considered the mandatory
imposition of visa conditions on bridging visa holders when the
measures were
first introduced, and concluded that there may be a significant risk that the
conditions impermissibly limit multiple
rights. In relation to this measure, the
committee considers there to be some risk that the conditions taken together
would be so
severe as to amount to a criminal penalty under international human
rights law and, if this were the case, it has not been demonstrated
that the
relevant provisions are consistent with the criminal process rights.
In relation to the other rights, the committee considers that while
protecting the safety of the Australian community is an important
objective, it
remains unclear whether this constitutes a legitimate objective in the context
of this specific measure and whether
the accompanying safeguards are sufficient
to ensure any limitation on rights is proportionate.
|
|
The committee notes that this non-government bill appears to engage and may
limit human rights. Should this bill proceed to further
stages of debate, the
committee may request further information from the legislation proponent as to
the human rights compatibility
of the bill.
|
|
|
Advice to Parliament
|
Retrospective validation of warrants
Rights to privacy; fair trial
This bill (now Act) provides that information or a record obtained under
ten specified warrants issued to the Australian Federal Police
under the
Crimes Act 1914 and Surveillance Devices Act 2004 was not
intercepted while passing over a telecommunications system and was lawfully
obtained under those warrants. The committee
notes that this legislation serves
the important purpose of supporting the legal system to address serious
transnational organised
crime.
However, the committee further notes that the Act is consistent with the
interpretation of relevant law adopted by the Court of Appeal
of South Australia
and so does not alter the current state of the law. However, the committee
considers that there is a risk that,
if (absent this legislation) the outcome of
the pending High Court of Australia appeal with respect to these matters were to
have
been inconsistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal, then the effect
of the Act would be to alter the current state of the
law. The committee notes
that in that case, the effect of the Act would be to retrospectively authorise
the unlawful interception
of the defendants’ private communications. The
committee considers that there is therefore a risk that the Act could
impermissibly
limit the right to privacy. The committee further notes that in
that situation, the Act would directly affect the outcome of a case
currently
pending before the High Court of Australia (and indirectly affect the outcome of
various pending criminal trials). The
committee considers there is a risk that
this would constitute an impermissible interference with the independence and
impartiality
of the judiciary, an element of the right to a fair trial. The
committee also considers that retrospectively rendering evidence admissible,
if
the evidence was obtained unlawfully and in violation of the right to privacy,
would raise further concerns from the perspective
of the right to a fair
trial.
However, as the bill has passed the committee makes no further
comment.
|
|
Transport Security Amendment (Security of Australia’s Transport
Sector) Bill 2024
|
|
|
The bill seeks to amend the Aviation and Transport Security Act
2004 and the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act
2003 to, among other things, impose requirements to report ‘cyber
security incidents’ that amount to unlawful interference,
and broaden the
Secretary’s existing power to issue a special security direction in the
Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 to
align with existing security direction provisions in the Aviation and
Transport Security Act 2004, which would allow a direction to be given where
a threat of unlawful interference is made or exists. The explanatory
materials do
not explain what a security direction may provide for.
The committee notes that the requirement to report a cyber security
incident may include the collection and disclosure of personal
information.
Further, the issue of a special security direction may (depending on its
content) also engage and limit the right to
privacy (such as, if it were to
require physical frisks or searches, or require persons to produce
identification). These provisions
engage and may limit the right to privacy, and
while the statement of compatibility identifies that the collection and
disclosure
of personal information engages the right to privacy, it is unclear
what personal information may be disclosed, how specific safeguards
in the
Privacy Act 1988 would apply in these circumstances, and what other
safeguards would apply. The committee has authorised its secretariat to notify
departments where statements of compatibility appear to be inadequate. As such,
the committee's secretariat has written to the department
in relation to this
matter.
|
|
|
Treasury Laws Amendment (Divesting from Illegal Israeli Settlements)
Bill 2024
|
|
|
No comment
|
|
|
No comment
|
|
|
Chapter 1: New and continuing matters
|
|
|
Legislative instruments registered on the Federal
Register of Legislation
between 22 October to 12 December
2024[5]
|
285
|
|
Legislative instruments commented on in
report[6]
|
5
|
|
Legislative instruments
deferred[7]
|
9
|
|
Chapter 2: Concluded
|
|
|
Legislative instruments committee has concluded its examination of
following receipt of ministerial
response[8]
|
1
|
|
Autonomous Sanctions Amendment (Periodic Legislative Review) Regulations
2024
|
|
|
Advice to Parliament
|
Repeal of automatic expiry of autonomous sanctions listings
Rights to fair hearing; privacy; protection of the family; adequate
standard of living; freedom of movement
This legislative instrument removes the automatic expiry of sanctions
listings every three years and to provide for a review of the
autonomous
sanctions legislative framework every five years. While the committee considers
that sanctions regimes operate as important
mechanisms for applying pressure to
regimes and individuals with a view to ending the repression of human rights
internationally,
it is important to recognise that the sanctions regime operates
independently of the criminal justice system, and can be used regardless
of
whether a designated or declared person has been charged with or convicted of a
criminal offence. For those in Australia who may
be subject to sanctions,
requiring ministerial permission to access money for basic expenses could, in
practice, impact greatly on
a person's private and family life. The committee
notes that the minister, in making a designation or declaration, is not required
to hear from the affected person at any time; or provide reasons; and there is
no provision for merits review of any of the minister's
decisions (including any
decision to grant, or not grant, a permit allowing access to funds).
The committee has previously found that there is a risk that the autonomous
sanctions regime may be incompatible with the right to
a fair hearing, right to
privacy, right to protection of the family, right to an adequate standard of
living and the right to freedom
of movement. The committee considers that
removing the automatic expiry of sanctions listings removes one aspect of the
regime which
had some potential safeguard value, while the broader five year
review the legislative instrument provides for may have very limited
safeguard
value with respect to human rights. The committee reiterates its long-held view
that the compatibility of the sanctions
regime may be assisted were the
autonomous sanctions legislation amended to include the safeguards
previously recommended by the
committee, and recommends that this instrument be
amended to require that each five-yearly review of the regime must have regard
to international human rights law.
|
|
Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Rules
2024
|
|
|
These rules provide transitional arrangements for entities which were
already operating in the unlegislated Australian Government
Digital ID System
(AGDIS) to have their accreditations transitioned to the accreditation scheme,
and to be deemed to be participating
in the AGDIS on or at a specified date
after commencement of the Schedule.
The committee has previously considered (Report 14 of 2023) that the Digital ID Act
2024, in establishing a legislated Australian Government Digital ID System,
engages and limits the right to privacy, insofar as it would
involve the
collection, use, disclosure and retention of personal information. The committee
considered that, as individuals cannot
be required to create or use a Digital ID
to access government services, and given the presence of numerous safeguards,
the proposed
limitation on the right to privacy may be reasonable, necessary and
proportionate. However, the committee noted much would depend
on how securely
the personal information and data is held within the system and by accredited
entities in practice.
The committee notes that these rules would deem numerous federal government
bodies (including the Department of Social Services and
Services Australia, the
Department of Health and Aged Care, Department of Home Affairs) to be
participating in the legislated Digital
ID Scheme, meaning that persons may
elect to use a Digital ID to access these services. Given the significant volume
of personal
information (including sensitive information) that may be handled by
these bodies, the committee reiterates its view that, as individuals
cannot be
required to create or use a Digital ID to access government services, and given
the presence of numerous legislative safeguards,
the limitation on the right to
privacy may be reasonable, necessary and proportionate, however much will depend
on how securely the
personal information and data is held within the Digital ID
system and by the various accredited entities in practice.
|
|
|
Eight Civil Aviation Safety Authority
instruments[9]
|
|
|
The committee has deferred consideration of eight CASA instruments, which
were registered on the Federal Register of Legislation on
29 November 2024
without explanatory materials (which include a statement of compatibility with
human rights).
|
|
|
Migration Amendment (Cessation and Grant of Bridging Visas) Regulations
2024
|
|
|
Advice to Parliament
|
Imposing visa conditions to prevent study or training
Right to education
The regulations amend the Migration Regulations 1994 to cease certain
bridging visas held by a non-citizen where the minister or their delegate has
determined the non-citizen is a person
whose presence in Australia may be
directly or indirectly associated with the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD).
On cessation of their bridging visa, the non-citizen is
immediately granted a replacement Subclass 050 (Bridging (General)) visa
with
mandatory conditions imposed to not undertake work in Australia without
permission from the minister and to not engage in study
or training in
Australia. The committee considers that the measure likely seeks a legitimate
objective and is rationally connected
to that objective. However, the committee
considers that some questions remain as to the proportionality of the measure
with the
right to education. The committee notes that the minister has a broad
discretion to make a WMD determination and that, while merits
and judicial
review appears to be available, it is unclear why other, less rights
restrictive alternatives are not considered appropriate.
To assist with the
proportionality of the measure, the committee has recommended that the
instrument be amended to provide that an
individual subject to a WMD
determination can seek the minister’s permission to undertake specified
studies.
|
|
Quality of Care Amendment (Restrictive Practices) Principles
2024
|
|
|
Advice to Parliament
|
Consent to the use of restrictive practices in aged care
Rights of persons with disability; equal recognition before the law;
equality and non-discrimination; access to justice; effective
remedy
This legislative instrument extends the operation of arrangements for
substitute decision-makers to consent to the use of restrictive
practices on
persons in aged care. The committee notes that it previously concluded that
the Quality of Care (Restrictive Practices)
Principles 2014 (which specify a
hierarchy of persons who can give consent on behalf of persons in aged care to
the use of restrictive
practices) risk being incompatible with a range of human
rights, particularly the rights of persons with disability. The committee
considers that, by further extending these arrangements, this instrument also
risks being incompatible with a range of human rights,
particularly the rights
of persons with disability, noting that there is no requirement to provide for
supported, rather than substitute,
decision-making; much depends on unknown
safeguards in state and territory legislation; much depends on aged care
providers understanding
the complex hierarchy of these consent arrangements and
understanding the interplay between this legislation and relevant state and
territory laws; and there is a broad-ranging immunity from liability. The
committee reiterates the detailed comments it made regarding
these matters in
2023.
The committee has made further recommendations to amend the Quality of Care
Principles 2014, to have regard to certain matters in
ongoing consultation
related to these matters, and to update the statement of compatibility. The
committee otherwise draws these
human rights concerns to the attention of the
minister and the Parliament.
|
[1] This section can be cited as Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report snapshot, Report 1 of 2025; [2025] AUPJCHR 2.
[2] Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2024; Surveillance Legislation (Confirmation of Application) Bill 2024; and Health Legislation Amendment (Modernising My Health Record—Sharing by Default) Bill 2024, which were previously deferred in Report 11 of 2024 (27 November 2024).
[3] The committee makes no comment on the remaining bills on the basis that they do not engage, or only marginally engage, human rights; promote human rights; and/permissibly limit human rights. This is based on an assessment of the bill and relevant information provided in the statement of compatibility accompanying the bill. The committee may have determined not to comment on a bill notwithstanding that the statement of compatibility accompanying the bill may be inadequate.
[4] Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Regulations 2024 and Migration Amendment (Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending)) Visa) Regulations 2024.
[5] The committee examines all legislative instruments registered in the relevant period, as listed on the Federal Register of Legislation. To identify all of the legislative instruments scrutinised by the committee during this period, use the advanced search function on the Federal Register of Legislation, and select ‘Collections’ to be 'legislative instruments'; ‘type’ to be ‘as made’; and date to be ‘registered’ and ‘between’ the date range listed above.
[6] Unless otherwise indicated, the committee makes no comment on the remaining legislative instruments on the basis that they do not engage, or only marginally engage, human rights; promote human rights; and/permissibly limit human rights. This is based on an assessment of the instrument and relevant information provided in the statement of compatibility (where applicable). The committee may have determined not to comment on an instrument notwithstanding that the statement of compatibility accompanying the instrument may be inadequate.
[7] CASA EX67/24 – Part 91 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2024 [F2024L01548]; CASA EX73/24 – Flight Operations Regulations – SMS, HFP&NTS and T&C Systems – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2024 [F2024L011554]; CASA EX69/24 – Part 121 and Part 91 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2024 [F2024L01550]; CASA EX74/24 – Part 121 – Single Pilot Aeroplane (MOPSC 10-13) Operations – Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2024 [F2024L01555]; CASA EX70/24 – Part 133 and Part 91 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2024 [F2024L01551]; CASA EX68/24 – Part 119 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2024 [F2024L01549]; CASA EX72/24 – Part 138 and Part 91 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2024 [F2024L01553]; and CASA EX71/24 – Part 135, Subpart 121.Z and Part 91 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2024 [F2024L01552]; Extradition Legislation Amendment (Commonwealth Countries) Regulations 2024 [F2024L01614].
[8] The committee has concluded its consideration of the Migration Amendment (Bridging Visa Conditions) Regulations 2024 as part of the concluded entry relating to the ‘Migration Amendment Bill 2024 and related instruments’.
[9] CASA EX67/24 – Part 91 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2024 [F2024L01548]; CASA EX73/24 – Flight Operations Regulations – SMS, HFP&NTS and T&C Systems – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2024 [F2024L011554]; CASA EX69/24 – Part 121 and Part 91 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2024 [F2024L01550]; CASA EX74/24 – Part 121 – Single Pilot Aeroplane (MOPSC 10-13) Operations – Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2024 [F2024L01555]; CASA EX70/24 – Part 133 and Part 91 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2024 [F2024L01551]; CASA EX68/24 – Part 119 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2024 [F2024L01549]; CASA EX72/24 – Part 138 and Part 91 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2024 [F2024L01553]; and CASA EX71/24 – Part 135, Subpart 121.Z and Part 91 of CASR – Supplementary Exemptions and Directions Instrument 2024 [F2024L01552].
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/AUPJCHR/2025/2.html