Scrutiny update
On 4 February 2026, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights tabled its Report 1 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.
- These bills seek to facilitate the transition of the Defence and Veterans’ Service Commission to its own standalone Act. The Commission monitors, enquires into and reports on matters relating to suicide prevention and wellbeing outcomes for veterans.
- Several measures in these bills provide for the collection, use and disclosure of personal information, which engages and limits the right to privacy. The bill would provide that a person is not excused from giving evidence, information or a statement, or producing a document or thing on the ground that it might tend to incriminate that person. The bill would also provide that a person commits an offence if they engage in conduct that would obstruct or hinder the Commissioner or would constitute a contempt of court. The committee has recommended that the bill be amended to remove the offence for obstructing or hindering the Commissioner. The committee has recommended amendments to the bill.
- The committee sought further information from the minister to assess the compatibility of multiple measures in the bill with the right to access information, which is a component of the right to freedom of expression. The committee retains human rights concerns with respect to these measures.
- The committee considers that it is not possible to conclude that the measures pursue a legitimate objective and that the measures could result in greater review requests, which may undermine the key objective of efficiency gains. The committee considers that when considering all the measures together, the operation of the bill may not place a proportionate limit on the right to freedom of expression. The committee draws these concerns to the attention of the minister and the Parliament.
- Schedule 5 of this bill (now Act) introduces a broader power to cancel a person’s social security payments or concession cards where they are the subject of an arrest warrant in respect of a serious violent or sexual offence. The committee urgently sought further information from the minister to assess the compatibility of this measure with multiple human rights and retains human rights concerns in respect of this measure.
- The committee considers that it is unclear whether benefit restriction notices pursue a legitimate objective, are rationally connected to the stated objective or accompanied by adequate safeguards to ensure any limitation on the right to social security is proportionate. The committee considers that in the absence of access to review or the ability to seek backpay or compensation, there do not appear to be effective remedies available for any limitation on the right to social security.
- The committee considers that if the cancellation of social security payments were to be considered a criminal punishment, criminal process rights should be afforded. Further, the committee notes that there is a risk the measure would have a disproportionate impact on certain vulnerable groups, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. The committee draws these concerns to the attention of the minister and the Parliament.
Legislative Instruments (Report 1 of 2026)
- The committee considers that by prescribing bodies and international organisations to which specified officers may disclose identifying information about individuals, these instruments engage and limit the right to privacy and may engage and limit other rights. The committee is seeking further information from the minister to assess the compatibility of this measure with these rights.
- The committee had previously concluded its consideration of the human rights compatibility of this instrument in Report 6 of 2025. The Minister for Health nevertheless provided a further response to the committee. The committee welcomes the minister’s explanation of the difference between invasive and non-invasive examination techniques and the minister’s advice that an invasive physical examination would only be utilised in a situation of the gravest threat to public health.
- The committee sought further information from the minister to assess the compatibility of measures providing for conditions of detention and affording privacy when being searched with the rights to freedom of movement, humane treatment in detention, liberty and privacy, the rights of persons with disability and the rights of the child. The committee considers it has not been demonstrated that the measures represent a proportionate limitation on these rights, and draws these human rights concerns to the attention of the minister and the Parliament.
- The committee sought further information from the minister to assess the compatibility of the information sharing measures in these instruments with the right to equality and non-discrimination, right to privacy and the rights of persons with disability.
- The committee considers that internal policies and processes may act as an important safeguard to mitigate the risk that certain groups may be disproportionately affected by these information sharing measures. However, the committee notes that much will depend on the quality of the training and guidance provided to staff. The committee has therefore recommended the statement of compatibility be updated and otherwise draws its human rights concerns to the attention of the minister and the Parliament.
- The committee sought further information from the minister to assess the compatibility of the measures that determine the method of working out penalty amounts and matters to be considered for suspending social security payments with the rights to social security, an adequate standard of living, and equality and non-discrimination. The committee retains human rights concerns with respect to these measures.
- It remains unclear to the committee whether the compliance framework is effective in encouraging participation in certain activities. The committee considers that the safeguards accompanying the measure may not be adequate and that there may be a less rights restrictive alternative, namely continuing the pause currently in place for the Job Seeker Compliance Framework.
- In relation to the right to equality and non-discrimination and the expectation of genuine consultation, the committee considers the differential treatment that may arise as a result of a different compliance framework applying to declared program participants in remote Australia may not be based on reasonable and objective criteria. The committee draws these human rights concerns to the attention of the minister and the Parliament.