|
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Bills unlikely to raise human rights concerns
Excise Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2014
Customs Tariff Amendment (Tobacco) Bill 2014
Portfolio:
Treasury
Introduced:
House of Representatives, 26 February 2014
1.1
These bills propose to amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Customs
Tariff Act 1995 to:
-
increase the rates of excise and excise equivalent customs duty
on tobacco through a series of four staged increases of 12.5 per cent,
commencing on 1 December 2013; and
-
index the rates of excise and excise equivalent customs duty on
tobacco to average weekly ordinary time earnings (AWOTE) instead of the
consumer price index.
1.2
According to the explanatory memorandum, '[t]hese amendments seek to
reduce the premature death and disease due to smoking by increasing the rates
of duty on tobacco through both indexation changes and staged increases to
rates of duty'.[1]
1.3
These bills are accompanied by a statement of compatibility that states
that the bills engage and promote the right to health.[2]
1.4
The committee considers that these bills do not appear to give
rise to human rights concerns.
1.5
However, the committee notes its expectation that statements of
compatibility provide more than assertions in relation to the impact of a proposed
measure on the promotion of specific human rights. The committee expects that
where a matter is capable of evaluation in light of empirical evidence, the
statement should include relevant supporting data. For example, in relation to
these bills, the committee considers that the statement should have included
relevant data in support of the assertion that such measures will contribute to
efforts to reduce smoking rates.
1.6
The committee also re-iterates its expectation that where a
package of two or more bills is presented to Parliament accompanied by an
explanatory memorandum addressing all of the bills, there should be a separate
statement of compatibility accompanying each bill.
Governor-General Amendment (Salary) Bill
2014
Portfolio: Prime Minister
Introduced: House of
Representatives, 27 February 2014
1.7
This bill proposes to amend the Governor-General Act 1974 to set
the salary for the next Governor-General, General Peter Cosgrove AC MC, prior
to his swearing-in on 28 March 2014.
1.8
Section 3 of the Constitution provides that the salary of the
Governor-General shall not be altered during their continuance in office. The
explanatory statement states that, in line with past practice, the proposed
salary has been calculated with reference to the estimated average salary of
the Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia over the notional five year
term of the appointment of the Governor-General.[3]
1.9
The bill is accompanied by a statement of compatibility that states that
the bill does not raise any human rights issues.
1.10
The committee considers that the bill does not appear to give
rise to human rights concerns.
Land Transport Infrastructure Amendment
Bill 2014
Portfolio: Infrastructure and Regional
Development
Introduced: House of
Representatives, 27 February 2014
1.11
This bill proposes to amend the Nation Building Program (National
Land Transport) Act 2009 to rename the Act and provide for the Roads to
Recovery Programme to continue after 30 June 2014.
1.12
The bill also proposes to make provision for a new eligible project type,
Transport Development and Innovation Projects, to allow funding of research and
investigations of projects funded under the Act.
1.13
Finally, the bill seeks to repeal the Australian Land Transport Development
Act 1988, the Roads to Recovery Act 2000 and the Railway
Standardization (New South Wales and Victoria) Agreement Act 1958 as they
are spent legislation.
1.14
The bill is accompanied by a statement of compatibility that states that
the bill does not raise any human rights issues.
1.15
The committee considers that the bill does not appear to give
rise to human rights concerns.
Live Animal Export Prohibition (Ending Cruelty)
Bill 2014
Sponsor:
Mr Wilkie
Introduced:
House of Representatives, 24 February 2014
1.16
This bill proposes to amend the Australian Meat and Livestock
Industry Act 1997 and the Export Control Act 1982 to introduce a ban
on the export of live animals for slaughter. The ban would commence on 1 July
2017. The bill also proposes to introduce additional conditions applying to a
licence for export of live animals for slaughter up to 1 July 2017. These
include that the licence holder will take all reasonable efforts to ensure that
the live-stock are treated satisfactorily in the country of destination and
notification requirements where the licence holder becomes aware of evidence
that such live-stock have not been treated satisfactorily.
1.17
The bill is accompanied by a statement of compatibility that states that
the bill engages the right to work[4]
and may constitute a limitation on this right in that the 'prevention of live
exports may negatively affect the business of farmers and exporters'.[5]
The statement refers to evidence suggesting that agricultural workers are more
likely to benefit from keeping slaughtering procedures within Australia and
highlights the transitional period proposed by the bill, which will enable
individuals to 'adapt to the change and mitigate the loss, if any'.[6]
The statement concludes that any limitations on the right to work are therefore
reasonable.
1.18
The committee has previously commented on measures relating to
live-stock export licences and noted that powers relating to licencing regimes,
including the power to refuse or revoke licences, are likely to engage the
right to a fair hearing.[7]
However, the committee considered that the specific operation of these powers
would appear to be subject to the existing review framework contained in the
parent Act and is therefore unlikely to raise any human rights concerns.
1.19
The committee considers that the bill does not appear to give
rise to human rights concerns.
Primary Industries (Excise) Levies Amendment
(Dairy Produce) Bill 2014
Portfolio:
Agriculture
Introduced:
House of Representatives, 13 February 2014
1.20
This bill proposes to increase the maximum rates (caps) of the
Australian Animal Health Council levies on dairy produce from 0.058 to 0.145 of
a cent per kilogram of milk fat and from 0.13850 to 0.34625 of a cent per
kilogram of protein. The current operative levies are equivalent to the current
cap rates.
1.21
The levies are payable by the producer of the relevant dairy produce and
are collected by the Commonwealth for disbursement to Animal Health Australia,
as provided for under the Australian Animal Health Council (Live-stock Industries)
Funding Act 1996. Australian Dairy Farmers Limited, the national
representative body for the dairy industry, has requested the amendments.
1.22
The bill is accompanied by a statement of compatibility that states that
it does not engage any human rights.
1.23
The committee considers that the bill does not appear to give
rise to human rights concerns.
Public Service Amendment (Employment for All of
Us)
Bill 2014
Sponsor: Mr
Bandt
Introduced:
House of Representatives, 24 February 2014
1.24
This bill proposes to amend the Public Service Act 1999 to
require the Public Service Commissioner to issue a direction to the Australian
Public Service (APS) regarding the employment of people with a disability and
people from a non-English speaking background. The direction requires the total
number of APS employees with a disability and the total number APS employees
who come from a non-English speaking background that exist at 1 July 2014 to be
doubled by 1 July 2019.
1.25
The explanatory memorandum states that 'current employment in the public
service does not reflect the diversity of the Australian population'[8]
and that the bill seeks 'to address this failure by setting targets for the
employment of people with a disability, and employment of people from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds'.[9]
1.26
The bill is accompanied by a statement of compatibility that states that
the bill 'gives effect to a number of Australia’s human rights obligations
including those contained in the International Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination [ICERD] and the Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities [CRPD].'[10]
The statement concludes that 'the bill is compatible with human rights because
it advances the protection of human rights'.[11]
1.27
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)
guarantees the right of every citizen '[t]o have access, on general terms of
equality, to the public service in his [or her] country’, without distinction
based on grounds such as race, colour, sex, language and other status (which
includes disability) 'and without unreasonable restrictions’.[12]
Under the CRPD States parties undertake to safeguard and realise the right of
persons with disabilities to work and agree to take appropriate measures,
including through legislation, to employ persons with disabilities in the
public sector without discrimination.[13]
1.28
The committee recognises that setting targets for the employment of
particular groups of citizens in the public service may give rise to concerns
about equality and non-discrimination. In general, the guarantees of equality
and non-discrimination contained in the relevant UN human rights treaties
require persons to be treated equally without regard to national or ethnic
origin, linguistic background or disability. However, under international
human rights law, States are permitted, and in some cases required, to take
positive measures to redress the disproportionate and unreasonable exclusion of
members of such groups from opportunities enjoyed by others, including
employment in the public service.[14]
This may include temporary special measures as understood under treaties such
as the ICERD[15]
and the ICCPR.[16]
1.29
This committee and its predecessor committee have noted that where
differential treatment based on grounds such as race, national or ethnic
origin, linguistic background or disability is proposed, such treatment may be
permissible if it can be justified as an objective and reasonable measure
adopted in pursuit of a legitimate goal. Our predecessor committee has also set
out the approach that has been adopted nationally and internationally in assessing
the permissibility of measures based on such grounds where these measures are
sought to be justified as ‘special measures’ under international law.[17]
1.30
Where a measure is proposed in order to redress the
under-representation in a particular sector of members of a group protected
against discrimination, the committee would normally expect such measures to be
supported by statistical information which sets out the disparities in level of
participation by the protected groups, as well as other relevant historical or
contextual material. Such information has been provided in relation to a number
of bills this committee and its predecessor have examined. The committee
considers that such information is important not only for the committee’s
consideration of compatibility, but also because it is an indication that the
proper human rights analysis has taken place in the process of formulating the
relevant policy and legislation.
1.31
The committee accepts that the goals of having the composition of the
APS broadly representative of the Australian community is a legitimate goal, as
is ensuring that particular sectors of the community are not discriminated
against in access to employment in the public service. As noted above, the
statement of compatibility merely states that certain groups are
under-represented, without providing further details of the disparity between
the percentage of those groups in the overall population eligible for
employment in the APS and the percentage of those groups employed in the APS. The
bill proposes setting a figure of a 100% increase in employment of members of
those groups by 1 July 2019. The statement of compatibility does not indicate
whether, if this goal were achieved, this would fully redress the disparity.
1.32
However, the second reading speech delivered by Mr Bandt addresses these
issues in general terms and also provides some relevant figures. It states that
‘[a]s far as unemployment goes, research has shown that officially, amongst
people from non-English-speaking backgrounds, the unemployment rate is at least
twice the national average,’ and that ‘[w]hat we know from the research is that
the workforce participation rate is around 30 per cent lower for people with a
disability. The second reading speech also states:
We know that almost 20 per cent of Australians identify as
having a disability, but the number of people with a disability employed by the
APS dropped to 2.9 per cent of the entire workforce in 2012. Similarly, one in
four people in Australia identify as being from a non-English-speaking
background but account for only 5.1 per cent of the APS workforce.
1.33
The committee considers that it would have been helpful if this
information had been included in the statement of compatibility.
1.34
The committee considers that, in light of the information
provided in the second reading speech, the bill does not appear to give rise to
human rights concerns.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page
Top
|