Chapter 3Australia's human rights framework

Overview

3.1In 2009, the National Human Rights Consultation chaired by Father Frank Brennan released its final report, which included 31 recommendations concerning protection of human rights in Australia. The main recommendations were that a federal Human Rights Act be adopted,[1] but recommendation 8 also stated, in part:

The committee recommends as follows:

that the Federal Government develop a whole-of-government framework for ensuring that human rights—based either on Australia's international obligations or on a federal Human Rights Act, or both—are better integrated into public sector policy and legislative development, decision making, service delivery and practice more generally…[2]

3.2In 2010, in response to this and other recommendations, the government released Australia's Human Rights Framework (the Framework). It did not accept the recommendation to adopt a federal Human Rights Act (HRA) but outlined its other high-level commitments to improving human rights in Australia. The Framework arranged these commitments under five headings.

3.3Firstly, the government reaffirmed its commitment to human rights and to the seven core international human rights treaties. It recognised the importance of creating a human rights culture in order to ensure all members of the Australian community are treated with dignity and respect.[3]

3.4Secondly, the Framework included a 'comprehensive suite of education initiatives to ensure all Australians are able to access information on human rights'.[4] These initiatives included incorporating human rights into the work of the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority for primary and secondary school students; funding for non-government organisations to deliver community education concerning human rights; additional funding for the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) to enhance its community education role; a human rights education and training program for the Commonwealth public sector; and the potential for human rights to be included directly in the Australian Public Service (APS) Values and Code of Conduct.[5]

3.5Thirdly, the government committed to continue its engagement with the international community, including through the development of a National Human Rights Action Plan. The government also pledged to engage with non-government organisations through forums on human rights hosted by the Attorney-General and the Minister for Foreign Affairs.[6]

3.6Fourthly, the government committed to increasing parliamentary powers to protect human rights, specifically through the creation of this committee and a legislated requirement that bills and disallowable legislative instruments must be accompanied by a statement of compatibility with human rights.[7]

3.7Finally, the government pledged to respect its human rights commitments by reviewing existing legislation, policies and practices to ensure compliance with international obligations. It also committed to a review of federal anti-discrimination legislation.[8]

3.8The government committed to conducting a review of the Framework in 2014.[9] However, as noted by the Attorney-General's Department (AGD) in evidence, by 2014 the Framework and the National Human Rights Action Plan 'reflected the commitments of…the former government' and that consequently 'the department didn't continue with the implementation of those specific commitments, with the Framework and Action Plan as guiding documents'.[10]

3.9The table below summarises some of the key commitments and the outcomes of these commitments, which are covered in more detail in the following sections.

Sources: Attorney-General’s Department, Australia's Human Rights Framework, April 2010; Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission1; Attorney-General's Department, Submission 114.

Reaffirm

3.10The Framework’s first section set out that the government reaffirmed its commitment to promoting awareness and understanding of human rights in the Australian community and to respecting the seven core UN human rights treaties to which Australia is a party. This part of the Framework contained no specific commitments. AGD submitted that in relation to this aspect of the Framework the government ‘remains committed’ to the seven core UN treaties and its obligations under them.[11]

Educate

3.11The Framework's committed to supporting human rights education in primary and secondary schools. In its submission, the AGD included details on the implementation of the educational aspects of the Framework. AGD noted that the first version of the Australian Curriculum (the curriculum) was released in December 2010. The curriculum included a number of measures to support human rights education, particularly within the civics curriculum. AGD further noted that the curriculum had been revised 24 times since its initial release, and that the seven underlying principles of the curriculum include 'intercultural understanding, ethical understanding and personal and social capability', the inclusion of which 'enables students to recognise, examine and respond to human rights and responsibility issues broadly'.[12]

3.12The Framework also included a commitment to provide $2 million in funding over four years to non-government organisations for the development of community education and engagement programs.[13] AGD reported that the resulting Human Rights Community Education Grants Program administered a total of $957 309 in grant funding to 30 recipients over two rounds in 2010–11 and 2011–12. Successful projects included:

human rights education and skills development workshops for Aboriginal women in North-West New South Wales;

an interactive program using the language of sport to teach human rights principles to children and young people;

workshops engaging with individuals, local government and non-government organisations to adopt a human-rights approach to community work in Victoria;

human rights workshops and resources to empower people with a disability from non-English speaking backgrounds run by the National Ethnic Disability Alliance; and

human rights education through multi-lingual story telling for immigrant and refugee women in up to 17 community languages run by the Multicultural Centre for Women's Health.[14]

3.13The government discontinued further funding for the program in 2012–13 and no further programs were funded.[15]

3.14Further, the government committed $6.6 million over four years to enable the AHRC to expand its community education role.[16] In its submission, the AHRC reported that it established 'a community education team which led its activities under the Framework'.[17] Among these activities, the AHRC supported AGD in developing human rights training for federal public servants; consulted on the development of the curriculum with the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority; developed resources for schools, early childhood education and vocational education, as well as for the business sector; conducted research and business partnerships; established a Human Rights Network for federal public servants; conducted a program of work on violence, harassment and bullying; and undertook community human rights education.[18]

3.15This funding was delivered in full,[19] but was not continued after the initial four years elapsed.[20]

3.16Under the Framework the government also committed $3.8 million to an education and training program for the Commonwealth public sector. AGD reported that the Human Rights Public Sector Education Program was launched on 7 September 2011, and delivered workshops to 706 public servants from 35departments and agencies in 20 workshops held between August and October 2011.[21] Participants reported 'a significant increase in awareness of human rights principles, international obligations and the Framework', and the workshops were considered successful.[22] AGD also created an introductory booklet on human rights, public sector guidance sheets, and an e-learning module which was hosted from October 2012 to June 2015.[23] None of these initiatives were continued after the initial funding,[24] although the guidance sheets remain available on AGD's website.[25]

3.17The government also committed to considering 'the need for public servants to respect human rights in policy making' in any revision to the APS Values or Code of Conduct.[26] The Public Service Amendment Act 2013 inserted the 'Respectful' Value into the APS Values, which states: 'The APS respects all people, including their rights and their heritage'.[27] AGD submitted that the value of ‘respect’ also encompassed being respectful of people’s human rights.[28] However, some submitters considered that there remains no formal obligation for the APS to consider human rights in their actions of decisions in the Code of Conduct, noting that the value of ‘respect’ does not require a consideration of human rights in decision making processes.[29]

3.18In summary, active government support of human rights education initiatives under the Framework had all ceased by the end of the Framework's initial four-year timeframe. Numerous submitters called for the education commitments made in the Framework to be reinstated, including for the APS.[30]

Engage

National Action Plan on Human Rights

3.19The Framework included a commitment to develop a National Action Plan on Human Rights. The government released Australia's National Human Rights Action Plan (the Action Plan) in 2012. The Action Plan contained 356 individual actions outlining what was being done to improve human rights. In doing so it articulated in detail how Australia would implement the commitments it made in 2011 during Australia’s first Universal Periodic Review (UPR) at the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council. The then Attorney-General the Hon Nicola Roxon MP stated that the Action Plan ‘demonstrates how Australia is turning the commitments made at the UPR into specific actions to improve and promote human rights’.[31] The Action Plan was lodged with the UN Human Rights Council in June 2013.[32]

3.20The AHRC noted that the Action Plan 'had no funding attached to it, which limited the ability to achieve outcomes or even buy-in from federal government departments and state and territory governments',[33] a point supported by National Legal Aid.[34] Regarding its effectiveness, Professor Simon Rice (also considering previous action plans in 1994, 1995, 1996 and 2004) pointed out that 'there was never an evaluation of the national action plans, nor any measurement of their effect and effectiveness'.[35] The UNSW Law Society submitted that the Action Plan suffered from a 'lack of specialised and measurable performance indicators and timelines'.[36]

Universal Periodic Review

3.21The UPR process was established in March 2006 by the UN General Assembly, and is 'designed to prompt, support, and expand the promotion and protection of human rights in every country'.[37] Each UN member state is reviewed across a four-year cycle, with the review led by the UN Human Rights Council with the participation of every other UN member state. Following interactive discussions between the reviewed state and other member states, a report consisting of questions, comments and recommendations made by any member state is released, also including responses from the reviewed state.[38]

3.22Australia participated in its first UPR process in 2011, and accepted almost 95 per cent of the recommendations. As part of this process, Australia undertook to use these recommendations in formulating the Action Plan, and to use it in order to measure progress for the next UPR review in 2015.[39]

3.23In its submission to the second UPR in 2015, the government indicated that it 'does not propose to establish a National Human Rights Action Plan'.[40] In an associated submission to the UPR, Amnesty International considered both the Framework and the Action Plan to be 'largely defunct'.[41] Consequently, no form of national action plan played any role in Australia's third UPR in 2021.

NGO Forums

3.24The government also committed to improved engagement with non-government organisations, particularly concerning the Forums on Human Rights (the NGO Forums) hosted by the Attorney-General and the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Framework indicates that the government will 'bring together' the NGO Forums so that they 'provide a comprehensive consultation mechanism for discussion about domestic and international human rights issues'.[42]

3.25In its submission, AGD reported that there have been 11 NGO Forums since 2010, including three co-hosted with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in 2010, 2011 and 2012.[43] AGD was not explicit in considering the length of time since a joint NGO Forum had been hosted, but the AHRC indicated that the joint NGO Forums prescribed by the Framework lapsed after its expiration.[44]

3.26In its assessment of the Framework's effectiveness regarding NGO consultation, the AHRC submitted that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's NGO Forums were 'internationally focused' while AGD's NGO Forums were 'domestically focused'. The AHRC also suggested that AGD 'has been sporadic in conducting NGO forums'.[45] In its submission, AGD noted that 'the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the frequency of the forums (there was no forum in 2020)'.[46]

3.27The committee did not receive specific evidence on the effectiveness of joint NGO Forums.

Protect

Parliamentary scrutiny

3.28The Framework also included a commitment to 'protect' human rights. The first outcome relating to this was the introduction of legislation to establish a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR) to provide greater scrutiny of legislation for compliance with Australia’s international human rights obligations under the seven core UN human rights treaties to which Australia is a party.[47] This commitment was implemented via the passage of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act

3.29The Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act provides that the PJCHR consists of 10 members, five from the House of Representatives and five from the Senate.[48] The committee's functions are to: examine bills and legislative instruments for compatibility with human rights, and report to the Parliament on that issue; examine and report on Acts for compatibility with human rights and; inquire 'into any matter relating to human rights which is referred to it by the Attorney-General'. This legislation also establishes the committee's remit, defining 'human rights' as the rights and freedoms recognised or declared by specified international instruments.[49] These are seven core international human rights treaties to which Australia is a party, namely:

International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD);

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR);

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW);

Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT);

Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); and

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

3.30All other matters relating to the powers and proceedings of the committee are determined by resolution of both Houses of the Parliament, which occurs at the beginning of each new Parliament.[50] This resolution has traditionally provided that the committee will elect a government member as its Chair and non-government member as its Deputy Chair, sets out the requirements for quorum, and other powers and procedural matters.[51]

3.31The committee has been in operation since early 2012. In this time, the committee has examined an average of 250 bills and 1,800 legislative instruments per year, commenting substantively on 27 per cent of bills and three per cent of legislative instruments.[52]The Attorney-General has referred human rights matters to the committee for inquiry three times ( including this inquiry),[53] and the committee has completed six self-initiated inquiry reports into proposed legislation (which included calling for submissions and holding public hearings).[54] The effectiveness of the committee in achieving the stated aims is examined in Chapter 8 of this report.

Statements of compatibility

3.32The second element of the Framework to 'protect' human rights was the establishment of a requirement that each new bill introduced into Parliament, and delegated legislation subject to disallowance, must be accompanied by a statement which assesses its compatibility with the seven core UN human rights treaties to which Australia is a party (a ‘statement of compatibility’).[55]

3.33The explanatory memorandum to the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2011, which subsequently established the requirement, stated that a statement of compatibility, to be prepared by the proponent of legislation, must assess whether the bill or legislative instrument is compatible with these human rights.[56] It noted that the bill itself did not prescribe a particular form for such statements, and that such statements are intended to be succinct assessments aimed at informing parliamentary debate and containing ‘a level of analysis that is proportionate to the impact of the proposed legislation on human rights’.[57]The bill also provided that a statement of compatibility is not binding on any court or tribunal, and that a failure to prepare one does not affect the validity, operation or enforcement of the Act or any other provision of a law of the Commonwealth.[58] It also, inexplicably, provided that a statement of compatibility is only required in relation to legislative instruments subject to parliamentary disallowance.[59] Consequently, while the committee is required to examine all legislative instruments for compatibility with human rights, those exempt from parliamentary disallowance (up to 20 per cent of all legislative instruments)[60] generally have no statement of compatibility against which to make such an assessment.

3.34When the requirement to draft a statement of compatibility was first introduced in 2012, a suite of education resources was also developed to help public servants to draft them. As the AHRC noted in its Free and Equal Report, all public servants were required to complete a mandatory training module on human rights, with supporting toolkits, fact sheets and other guidance resources.[61] However, this initial resourcing under the Framework was not maintained after 2013. The AHRC also hosted a federal Public Service Human Rights Network to create a forum for public servants to network and share information as they met their legislative responsibilities.[62] However, it stated that funding for these initiatives ceased in 2017. Similarly, the AGD advised that they do not deliver training related to drafting statements of compatibility, though departments do contact them for advice on an ad hoc basis.[63] The Human Rights Unit of the AGD also developed a series of templates and other resources to assist departments in identifying whether and how a legislation or policy may engage human rights, and in preparing statements of compatibility.[64] When the committee commenced operation, it published a guidance note setting out its expectations for statements of compatibility, as well as continuously providing feedback on the varying quality of statements of compatibility through its scrutiny dialogue function.

3.35The effectiveness of the statement of compatibility process is examined in Chapter 8 of this report.

Respect

Review of existing legislation

3.36The Framework and Action Plan stated that a comprehensive review of legislation, policies and practices for compliance with the seven core international treaties by the AGD was ongoing.[65] It stated that the review of legislation would incorporate a number of key elements, including: the identification of priority areas within portfolios particularly relevant to human rights for review, and ensuring that human rights obligations are considered as part of legislation reviews proposed in other contexts. It stated that reviews would be designed to suit the particular circumstances. For example, a review at the time of introducing substantial amendments to an Act may be appropriate. It also stated that, in some cases, the government may ask this committee to review particular legislation, while in others, a review team may be established or existing bodies may undertake a review. It stated that views expressed by UN human rights bodies would be taken into account in identifying areas forreview. However, AGD advised ‘there has not been a coordinated review of all pre-existing legislation, policies and practices’.[66]

3.37As a result, hundreds of large, complex and significant laws—including the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 and other surveillance legislation, Migration Act 1958, Extradition Act 1988 and Criminal Code Act 1995 and Crimes Act 1914—have not been subject to a foundational human rights assessment. While statements of compatibility are prepared where such laws are proposed to be amended, it is often unclear how those proposed amendments may interact with the existing Act as a whole, and consequently the full extent of any limitation on human rights. The committee frequently states that it is not possible to conclude as to whether a limit on human rights may be permissible without a foundational assessment of such laws (and recommends that this take place), however no such assessments have occurred.[67]

3.38The Framework also committed to ensuring that its national security laws and powers contain appropriate safeguards and are accountable in their operation.[68] In this respect, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor was established with the role of reviewing the operation and effectiveness of counter terrorism and national security legislation, including considering Australia’s human rights obligations.[69] However, some submitters raised concerns that Australia’s counter-terrorism laws are not compatible with human rights,[70] and this committee has raised concerns on multiple occasions about the human rights compatibility of proposed national security laws and powers (which subsequently pass Parliament without amendments to satisfy those human rights concerns).[71]

Anti-discrimination framework

3.39The Framework also stated that the government would develop exposure draft legislation harmonising and consolidating Commonwealth anti- discrimination laws to remove unnecessary regulatory overlap, address inconsistencies across laws and make the system more user-friendly.[72] The framework stated that it was timely to undertake this review to ensure that the legislation was working effectively, and would include consideration of the complaints handling processes and the related role and functions of the AHRC. An exposure draft bill was developed and consulted on, but the draft bill was not introduced into Parliament.[73]

3.40The Framework noted that the National Anti-Discrimination Information Gateway was established to assist individuals and businesses find information on anti-discrimination laws, providing an overview of all Commonwealth, State and Territory anti-discrimination systems and links to further information about each jurisdiction’s anti-discrimination schemes. This process also lapsed with the change in government in 2013.

Effectiveness of Framework and re-establishment

3.41Most submitters gave evidence that the Framework, while it had laudable aims, was ineffective in achieving its goal of achieving ‘positive and practical change to promote and protect human rights’.[74] Many submitters noted that while the objectives of the Framework were appealing they were either not completed or lapsed and as the Framework was limited to encouraging awareness of human rights, it offered little guidance on the practical steps available when rights are breached.[75]

3.42As to whether the Framework should be re-established, a large number of submitters agreed there should be a new National Human Rights Framework, but with substantial changes to ensure its effectiveness. For example, the AHRC submitted:

Despite the failures of the 2010 Framework, the Commission supports the establishment of a new National Human Rights Framework to ensure human rights are appropriately advanced at the national level – one that is designed to be effective, addressing the weaknesses and failings of the 2010 Framework.[76]

3.43Most submitters argued that the introduction of a federal HRA would establish a strong foundation for protecting and promoting human rights and it is a HRA that would provide the legal framework to reflect and implement Australia’s international human rights law obligations.[77] Arguments regarding a HRA are set out in Chapter 5 of this report.

Footnotes

[1]National Human Rights Consultation, Report, September 2009, recommendations 17–31.

[2]National Human Rights Consultation, Report, September 2009, p. xxxi.

[3]Attorney-General’s Department, Australia's Human Rights Framework, April 2010, p. 4.

[4]Attorney-General’s Department, Australia's Human Rights Framework, April 2010, p. 5.

[5]Attorney-General’s Department, Australia's Human Rights Framework, April 2010, pp. 5–6.

[6]Attorney-General’s Department, Australia's Human Rights Framework, April 2010, p. 7.

[7]Attorney-General’s Department, Australia's Human Rights Framework, April 2010, p. 8.

[8]Attorney-General’s Department, Australia's Human Rights Framework, April 2010, p. 9.

[9]Attorney-General’s Department, Australia's Human Rights Framework, April 2010, p. 11.

[10]Ms Anne Sheehan, First Assistant Secretary, Attorney-General's Department, Committee Hansard, 12 May 2023, p. 12.

[11]Attorney-General’s Department, Submission 114, p. 6.

[12]Attorney-General’s Department, Submission 114, pp. 11–12.

[13]Attorney-General’s Department, Australia's Human Rights Framework, April 2010, p. 5.

[14]Attorney-General's Department, Submission 114, pp. 12–13.

[15]Attorney-General's Department, Submission 114, p. 13.

[16]Attorney-General’s Department, Australia's Human Rights Framework, April 2010, p. 6.

[17]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 1, p. 31.

[18]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 1, pp. 31–32.

[19]Attorney-General's Department, Submission 114, p. 13.

[20]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 1, p. 31.

[21]Attorney-General's Department, Submission 114, p. 13.

[22]Attorney-General's Department, Submission 114, pp. 13–14.

[23]Attorney-General's Department, Submission 114, p. 14.

[24]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 1, p. 31.

[25]Attorney-General's Department, Public sector guidance sheets.

[26]Attorney-General’s Department, Australia's Human Rights Framework, April 2010, p. 6.

[27]Attorney-General's Department, Submission 114, p. 8. See Public Service Act 1999, subsection 10(3).

[28]Ms Anne Sheehan, First Assistant Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department, Committee Hansard, 12 May 2023, p. 21. See also Attorney-General’s Department, Submission 114, p. 8.

[29]Queensland Human Rights Commission, Submission 142, p. 8.

[30]See, for example, Law Council of Australia, Submission 120, p. 28; Refugee Legal, Submission 129, p.19; Students for Sensible Drug Policy, Submission 130, p. 3; Save the Children and 54 Reasons, Submission 168, pp.19–20.

[31]Attorney-General’s Department, Australia’s National Human Rights Action Plan, 2012, p. 4.

[32]Attorney-General's Department, Submission 114, p. 8.

[33]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 1, pp. 41–42.

[34]National Legal Aid, Submission 118, pp. 8–9.

[35]Professor Simon Rice OAM, Submission 204, p. 5.

[36]UNSW Law Society, Submission 215, p. 4.

[37]United Nations Human Rights Council, Universal Periodic Review.

[38]United Nations Human Rights Council, Basic facts about the UPR.

[39]Attorney-General’s Department, Australia's National Human Rights Action Plan, 2012, p. 5.

[40]United Nations General Assembly, Report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review – Australia – Addendum: Views on conclusions and/or recommendations, voluntary commitments and replies presented by the State under review, A/HRC/31/14/Add.1 (2016), p. 3.

[41]United Nations General Assembly, Summary prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in accordance with paragraph 15 © of the annex to Human Rights Council resolution 5/1 and paragraph 5 of the annex to Council resolution 16/21, A/HRC/WG.6/23/AUS/3 (2015), p. 5.

[42]Attorney-General’s Department, Australia's Human Rights Framework, April 2010, p. 7.

[43]Attorney-General's Department, Submission 114, pp. 9, 16.

[44]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 1, p. 38.

[45]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 1, pp. 33, 38.

[46]Attorney-General's Department, Submission 114, p. 16.

[47]Attorney-General’s Department, Australia’s Human Rights Framework, April 2010, p. 3.

[48]Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, section 5.

[49]Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, section 3.

[50]Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, section 6.

[51]Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Resolution of Appointment, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, House of Representatives Hansard, Tuesday 26 July 2022, p.30.

[52]For a detailed analysis of the work of the committee in the first 10 years of its operation, see Charlotte Fletcher and Anita Coles,Reflections on the 10th anniversary of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights(August 2022).

[53]See, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Inquiry into freedom of speech in Australia: Inquiry into the operation of Part IIA of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and related procedures under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (February 2017) and Inquiry into the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and related bills (February 2022).

[54]These reports are all available on the committee’s website.

[55]Attorney-General’s Department, Australia’s Human Rights Framework, April 2010, p. 8.

[56]Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2011, explanatory memorandum, p. 2.

[57]Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Bill 2011, explanatory memorandum, p. 4.

[58]See, Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, sections 8–9.

[59]See, Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, section 9.

[60]See, Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Delegated Legislation, Inquiry into the exemption of delegated legislation from parliamentary oversight, Final report (March 2021), pp. 8–9.

[61]Australian Human Rights Commission, Revitalising Australia’s Commitment to Human Rights: Free & Equal Final Report, 2023, p. 107.

[62]Australian Human Rights Commission, Revitalising Australia’s Commitment to Human Rights: Free & Equal Final Report, 2023, p. 108.

[63]Ms Anne Sheehan, First Assistant Secretary, International Law and Human Rights Division, Attorney-General’s Department, Committee Hansard, 12 May 2023, p. 13.

[64]Attorney-General’s Department, Statements of compatibility.

[65]Attorney-General’s Department, Australia’s Human Rights Framework, April 2010, p. 11 and Attorney-General’s Department, National Human Rights Action Plan, 2012, p. 12, outcome 28.

[66]Attorney-General’s Department, Submission 114, p. 10.

[67]See most recently for example, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 1 of 2024 (7 February 2024) pp. 94–110 (regarding a review of the sanctions regimes), and Report 5 of 2022 (20 October 2022) pp.31–32 regarding a review of the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the Surveillance Devices Act 2004, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and the Crimes Act 1914.

[68]Attorney-General’s Department, Australia’s Human Rights Framework, April 2010, p. 10.

[69]See Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Act 2010, section 3.

[70]See, for example, Mr Brian Wooler, Submission 256.

[71]See, for example, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2023 (18October2023), pp. 63–85 regarding the Counter-Terrorism and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2023 and Report 9 of 2020 (18 August 2020) pp. 1–114 regarding the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill 2020.

[72]Attorney-General’s Department, Australia’s Human Rights Framework, April 2010, p. 9.

[73]See Attorney General’s Department, Submission 114, p. 10.

[74]Attorney-General’s Department, Australia’s Human Rights Framework, April 2010, p. 1.

[75]See, for example, UNSW Law Society, Submission 215, Community Legal Centres National Human Rights Network, Submission 331, p.6.

[76]Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission 1, p. 42.

[77]See, for example, Mx Joel MacKay, Submission 258, p. 1–3.