Chapter 2
Concluded matters
2.1
This chapter considers the responses of legislation proponents to
matters raised previously by the committee. The committee has concluded its
examination of these matters on the basis of the responses received.
2.2
Correspondence relating to these matters is included at Appendix 1.
Comptroller-General of Customs (Use of Force) Directions 2015 [F2015L01044]
Comptroller Directions (Use of Force) 2015 [F2015L01085]
Portfolio:
Immigration and Border Protection
Authorising
legislation: Customs Act 1901
Last day to disallow: 17 September 2015 (Senate)
Purpose
2.3
The Comptroller-General of Customs (Use
of Force) Directions 2015 and the Comptroller Directions (Use of Force) 2015 (the
new directions) give directions, respectively, to mainland customs officers and
customs officers of the Indian Ocean Territories Customs Service regarding the
deployment of approved firearms and other approved items of personal defence
equipment in accordance with Operational Safety Order (2015).
2.4
A customs officer may only use force in accordance with the procedures
set out in Operational Safety Order (2015).
2.5
Measures raising human rights concerns or issues are set out below.
Background
2.6
The committee commented on the Customs
Act 1901 - CEO Directions No. 1 of 2015 and Customs Act 1901 - CEO
Directions No. 2 of 2015 (the previous
directions) in its Nineteenth Report of the 44th Parliament.[1] A response was received and commented on in the committee's Twenty-second
Report of the 44th Parliament.[2]
2.7
The committee considered the new directions in its Twenty-sixth
Report of the 44th Parliament, and requested a copy of the
Operational Safety Order (2015) in order for the committee to fully assess
the new directions with the right to life.[3]
Use of lethal force
2.8
The previous directions were, in the main, in the same form as the new
directions. The directions were remade to reflect the introduction of the
Australian Border Force and the integration of the Australian Customs and
Border Protection Service within the Department of Immigration and Border
Protection.
2.9
The new directions permit the use of force in accordance with procedures
set out in the Operational Safety Order (2015).
2.10
The committee considered in its previous report that the use of force
engages and may limit the right to life.
Right to life
2.11
The right to life is protected by article 6(1) of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and article 1 of the Second
Optional Protocol to the ICCPR. The right to life has three core elements:
- it prohibits the state from arbitrarily killing a person;
- it imposes an obligation on the state to protect people from
being killed by others or identified risks; and
- it requires the state to undertake an effective and proper
investigation into all deaths where the state is involved.
2.12
The use of force by state authorities resulting in a person's death can
only be justified if the use of force was necessary, reasonable and
proportionate in the circumstances. For example, the use of force may be
proportionate if it is in self-defence, for the defence of others or if
necessary to effect arrest or prevent escape (but only if necessary and
reasonable in the circumstances).
2.13
However, this right may be subject to permissible limitations which are
provided by law and are not arbitrary. In order for limitations not to be
arbitrary, they must seek to achieve a legitimate objective and be reasonable,
necessary and proportionate to achieving that objective.
Compatibility of the measures with
the right to life
2.14
The Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs and Border
Protection Service made a copy of the previous Use of Force Order (2015)
available to the committee in confidence. As the Operational Safety
Order (2015) supersedes the Use of Force Order (2015), the committee
requested a copy of the new order on an in‑confidence basis in order to
properly assess its compatibility with the right to life.
2.15
The committee also noted a commitment made to the committee to make an
edited version of the previous Use of Force Order available on a public website.
The committee therefore recommended that the Operational Safety Order (2015) be
similarly published (and redacted if necessary).
Australian Border Force Commissioner's response
In response to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human
Rights Twenty-sixth Report of the 44th Parliament, please find attached
a copy of the Operational Safety Order (2015) to assist in your assessment of
the instrument's compatibility with the right to life.
Note that the Order is classified as For Official Use Only
and is provided on an in-confidence basis to the Committee. Consistent with
past practice, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection will publish
a version of the Operational Safety Order (2015), which has been edited to an Unclassified
level, on its website.
This Order provides a policy framework around using
reasonable force by an officer in the exercise of their statutory powers and is
mainly relevant to the duties of officers who are in the Australian Border
Force.
You would already be aware that the Operational Safety Order
(2015) supersedes the Use of Force Order (2015). I note that the Committee
recently reviewed the Use of Force Order (2015) and concluded in its Twenty-second
Report of the 44th Parliament that it was 'likely compatible with human
rights'.
I wish to inform the Committee that some minor amendments
have since been made to the Operational Safety Order (2015). These amendments
were made following a review to ensure currency and consistency with other law
enforcement agencies, and to ensure the order accurately reflected changes to
terminology and workforce structure following integration with the Department
of Immigration and Border Protection on 1 July 2015. The Operational Safety
Order (2015) otherwise remains consistent with the Use of Force Order (2015),
and it is the Department's view that it continues to remain compatible with
human rights. [4]
Committee response
2.16
The committee thanks the Australian Border Force Commissioner for
his response and for providing a copy of the Operational Safety
Order (2015) to the committee on an 'in confidence' basis.
2.17
The committee also appreciates the advice that an edited version of the
Operational Safety Order (2015) will be published on the Australian Border
Force's website.
2.18
Having reviewed the Operational Safety Order (2015), the committee
considers that it continues to contain sufficient safeguards.
2.19
On the basis of the information provided, the committee concludes
that the Operational Safety Order (2015) and the new directions are likely
to be compatible with human rights.
Export Market Development Grants (Associate and Fit and Proper Person)
Guidelines 2015 [F2015L01027]
Portfolio:
Trade and Investment
Authorising
legislation: Export Market Development Grants Act 1997
Last day to
disallow: 17 September 2015 (Senate)
Purpose
2.20
The Export Market Development Grants (Associate and Fit and Proper
Person) Guidelines 2015 (the 2015 Guidelines) are being made to replace the Export
Market Development Grants (Associate and Fit and Proper Person) Guidelines
2014. The 2015 Guidelines provides the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of
Austrade guidance in:
- making decisions regarding 'excluded consultants' under the Export
Market Development Grants Act 1997 (the EMDG Act);
- determining who is an 'associate' of a person for the purposes of
the EMDG Act; and
- forming an opinion whether a person, or any associate, is a fit
and proper person to receive a grant.
2.21
Measures raising human rights concerns or issues are set out below.
Background
2.22
The committee previously considered the 2015 Guidelines in its
Twenty‑sixth
Report of the 44th Parliament (previous report) and requested
further information from the Minister for Trade and Investment as to the
compatibility of the 2015 Guidelines with the right to privacy (right to
reputation).
[5]
Criteria for establishing a person is a 'fit and proper' person
2.23
Under the EMDG Act grants can be made to specified Australian businesses
which have incurred expenses promoting the export of their Australian goods,
services, intellectual property rights and know-how. The EMDG Act sets out that
the CEO can form the opinion, in accordance with the guidelines, that a person,
or associate of a person, is not a 'fit and proper' person for the purposes of
a grant.
2.24
The 2015 Guidelines set out a very broad basis on which the CEO of
Austrade can determine whether a person, or associate of a person, is not to be
considered to be a 'fit and proper person',
2.25
The committee considered in its previous report that the broad basis on
which the CEO can declare that a person is ineligible for a grant on the basis
that they are not a 'fit and proper' person engages and may limit the right to
privacy (right to reputation).
Right to privacy (right to
reputation)
2.26
Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) prohibits arbitrary or unlawful interferences with an individual's
privacy, family, correspondence or home and prohibits unlawful attacks on a
person's honour and reputation.
2.27
This right includes protection of the professional and business
reputation of a person. The article is understood as meaning that the law must
provide protection against attacks on a person's reputation (for example,
through the law of defamation), as well as requiring that any law which affects
a person's reputation must not be arbitrary.
2.28
However, this right may be subject to permissible limitations which are
provided by law and are not arbitrary. In order for limitations not to be
arbitrary, they must seek to achieve a legitimate objective and be reasonable,
necessary and proportionate to achieving that objective.
Compatibility of the measure with
the right to privacy (right to reputation)
2.29 The statement of compatibility states that the determination is
compatible with human rights.
2.30
The committee noted that it previously examined this same issue when it considered
legislation relating to the fit and proper person test in respect of the EMDG
Act.[6] In this assessment, the committee noted that a finding that a
person is not a 'fit and proper' person to be involved in the process of
preparing an application for a government grant is a finding that is likely to
have an adverse impact on a person's business reputation.
2.31
The committee considered in its previous report that the condition
engages and limits the right to privacy and reputation. The committee therefore
sought the advice of the Minister for Trade and Investment as to whether the
proposed measure is aimed at achieving a legitimate objective, whether there is
a rational connection between the limitation and that objective, and whether
the limitation is a reasonable and proportionate measure for the achievement of
that objective.
Minister's response
Objective of the measure
The Export Market
Development Grants Act 1997 (the EMDG Act) provides non-discretionary
grants to Australian small and medium-sized businesses that have incurred
specified expenses promoting the export of their goods, services, intellectual
property rights and know-how. The grant is a partial reimbursement of the
expenses incurred.
The Export Market Development Grants Amendment Act 2004 (the 2004 Amendment Act) introduced a 'not fit and proper person' test, to
be applied by Austrade in accordance with Ministerial guidelines when assessing
entitlement to payment of an EMDG grant.
The 2004 Amendment Act provided that a grant to which an
applicant is otherwise entitled is not payable if, in accordance with
Ministerial guidelines, Austrade determines that the applicant or an associate
of the applicant is 'not fit and proper' to receive a grant.
As required under paragraph 101(1)(bb) of the Act, the Export
Market Development Grants (Associate and Fit and Proper Person) Guidelines 2004
(the 2004 instrument) provide guidelines to be complied with by Austrade:
- in determining who is an associate
of a person, for the purposes of the 'not fit and proper' provision;
and
- in forming an opinion whether a
person or any associate of the person is a fit and proper person to
receive a grant.
In 2014 the Government amended the Export Market Development
Grants (Associate and Fit and Proper Person) Guidelines 2004 so that the
instrument's 'not fit and proper person' rules also applied to consultants
preparing applications on behalf of their clients.
Recently this instrument was remade as it was due to sunset.
The remade instrument is unchanged from the 2014 instrument.
Connection between the limitation and the objective of the
Guidelines
The probity and good public image of EMDG applicants and
consultants can have a significant impact on the public perception of the EMDG
scheme, and the Government's management of it. The Government, applicants and
EMDG consultants all share an interest in the EMDG scheme maintaining broad
public support. This support depends upon public confidence in the probity of
the scheme.
The Government considers that it is therefore appropriate
that applicants are required to be fit and proper to receive a grant, and that
consultants should also meet a similar standard. If the scheme were to be
withdrawn due to poor public perception thousands of small and medium-sized
Australian exporters would be directly affected.
The public is entitled to expect that taxpayer funds are
directed to businesses that operate in accordance with Australian laws and
acceptable business standards, and that the Government will take all reasonable
steps to be sure that this happens. The 'fit and proper person' test for
applicants provides this assurance.
Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) consultants have a
direct and vested interest in the outcome of their clients' EMDG assessments
and have an increasingly high public profile associated with the EMDG scheme.
Consultants currently prepare almost 70 per cent of EMDG claims, and earn fees
from the scheme, usually on a commission basis.
A 'fit and proper person' test for consultants provides an
incentive for consultants to act honestly and to prepare claims with a high
attention to claim accuracy. Consultants are not subject to the disciplinary
rules of any professional body. The only influence the Government has over the
conduct of consultants in the preparation of claims is through the mechanism of
preventing them from preparing and lodging further claims where they are found
to be 'not fit and proper'.
The 'fit and proper person' test provides applicants that are
using a consultant to lodge a claim on their behalf with a degree of confidence
that the consultant will act in a professional manner, will have sufficient
skills and experience to complete the claim.
Is the limitation reasonable and proportionate?
The Government recognises that the making of a finding that
an applicant or a consultant is not a fit and proper person is significant, and
therefore there are a number of procedural and other safeguards in place to
ensure that an applicant's or consultant's right to reputation is not limited
and that any treatment is reasonable and proportionate.
Guidelines in the legislative instrument set out criteria for
the Chief Executive Officer's (CEO's) decision. The CEO's decision will be
subject to the normal rules of administrative law. These include the principle
of procedural fairness (natural justice). In accordance with this legal
requirement, before a decision is made, Austrade must advise each applicant or
consultant it considers may not be a fit and proper person of the grounds for
that concern, and of any adverse material or information that may be taken into
account, and give the applicant or consultant the opportunity to respond. The
applicant's or consultant's response must be taken into account in making the
decision.
Other applicable rules of administrative law include that the
CEO must act reasonably on the basis of the evidence and must take account of
relevant considerations and not take account of irrelevant considerations.
Applicants and consultants will have access to merits review
by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) of an adverse decision under
section 87 AA or 79A (respectively) of the EMDG Act. This is provided for by
section 97(ca) of the EMDG Act in the case of applicants and section 97(caa) of
the EMDG Act in the case of consultants.
In addition, there is an entitlement to judicial review under
the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 as well as under
the common law. Judicial review would consider the lawfulness of a decision in
particular, in relation to whether the decision complied with the rules of
administrative law.
However, provided the CEO acts in good faith, there would be
no liability in defamation in relation to a finding that an applicant or
consultant is not a fit and proper person.
It is also important to note that section 87 AA and section
79A determinations are not made for an unlimited period. Further section 79E of
the EMDG Act provides that the excluded consultant may apply at any time for a
revocation of the determination.
In doing so, the CEO will have to take into account any
relevant submissions by the consultant and any change in the circumstances,
such as a successful appeal against a conviction and the lapse of time since any
adverse event. The safeguards outlined apply each time the CEO makes a
decision. Thus, a decision by the CEO that an applicant or consultant is not a
fit and proper person does not operate indefinitely into the future. It does
not constitute a ban on the applicant or consultant in relation to all future
applications.
In light of these various safeguards, the legislative
instrument and its assessment criteria are considered to be a reasonable and
proportionate measure to give effect to the aim being pursued by the
legislative instrument. In particular, it is considered that they do not breach
an applicant's or a consultant's right to be protected from unlawful attacks on
his or her reputation.[7]
Committee response
2.32
The committee thanks the Minister for Trade and Investment for
his response.
2.33 The committee notes the minister's advice regarding the objective of
the measure, including that the fit and proper person test provides a means of
monitoring the conduct of consultants, helping to ensure they act professionally
and honestly, and accepts that this is likely to be a legitimate objective for
the purposes of international human rights law.
2.34
The committee also notes the information provided regarding the
proportionality of the measure, including access to merits review and judicial
review of adverse decisions. However, the committee considers that for as long
as the procedural safeguards relating to a finding that a person is not a 'fit
and proper' person are not specified, the broad discretion given to the CEO may
unjustifiably limit the right to privacy.
2.35
The committee therefore recommends that, in order to avoid any incompatibility
with the right to privacy (right to reputation) under article 17 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the 2015 Guidelines be
amended to include procedural safeguards relating to how the Chief Executive
Officer makes an assessment that a person is not a 'fit and proper' person to
be involved in preparing an application for a government grant.
Social Security (Parenting payment participation requirements-classes of
persons) Amendment Specification 2015 (No. 1) [F2015L00938]
Portfolio:
Employment
Authorising
legislation: Social Security Act 1991
Last day to
disallow: 17 September 2015 (Senate)
Purpose
2.36
The Social Security (Parenting payment participation requirements—classes
of persons) Amendment Specification 2015 (No. 1) (the 2015 Specification)
amends the Social Security (Parenting payment participation
requirements—classes of persons) (DEEWR) Specification 2011 (No. 1), with the
effect that individuals will continue, from 30 June 2015 to 31 March 2016,
to be considered to fall within the 'teenage parent' or 'jobless families'
class of persons. These individuals will be subject to the Helping Young
Parents (HYP) and Supporting Jobless Families (SJF) measures. These measures
provide select recipients of Parenting Payments with additional support and
additional responsibilities.
2.37
Measures raising human rights concerns or issues are set out below.
Background
2.38
The committee previously considered the 2015 Specification in its
Twenty‑sixth
Report of the 44th Parliament (previous report) and requested
further information from the Assistant Minister for Employment as to the
compatibility of the 2015 Specification with human rights.
[8]
Extension of measures requiring certain classes of persons to participate
in compulsory activities
2.39
Under the HYP and SJF measures, parents in receipt of Parenting Payments
are required to attend appointments with the Department of Human Services and
sign a Parenting Payment Employment Pathway Plan ('Parenting Plan'). In
addition, parents who fall within the 'teenage parent' class of persons are
required to have a minimum of two compulsory activities in their Parenting Plan.
Failure to attend appointments or compulsory activities without a reasonable
excuse, or sign their Parenting Plan, may result in a person's social security
benefits being suspended.
2.40
The committee considered in its previous analysis that the measure engages
and may limit the right to social security, the right to an adequate standard
of living and the right to equality and non-discrimination.
Right to social security
2.41
The right to social security is protected by article 9 of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). This
right recognises the importance of adequate social benefits in reducing the
effects of poverty and plays an important role in realising many other
economic, social and cultural rights, particularly the right to an adequate
standard of living and the right to health.
2.42
Access to social security is required when a person has no other income
and has insufficient means to support themselves and their dependents.
Enjoyment of the right requires that sustainable social support schemes are:
- available to people in need;
- adequate to support an adequate standard of living and health
care;
- accessible (providing universal coverage without discrimination
and qualifying and withdrawal conditions that are lawful, reasonable,
proportionate and transparent; and
- affordable (where contributions are required).
2.43
Under article 2(1) of ICESCR, Australia has certain obligations in
relation to the right to social security. These include:
- the immediate obligation to satisfy certain minimum aspects of
the right;
- the obligation not to unjustifiably take any backwards steps that
might affect the right;
- the obligation to ensure the right is made available in a
non-discriminatory way; and
- the obligation to take reasonable measures within its available
resources to progressively secure broader enjoyment of the right.
2.44
Specific situations which are recognised as engaging a person's right to
social security, include health care and sickness; old age; unemployment and
workplace injury; family and child support; paid maternity leave; and
disability support.
Right to an adequate
standard of living
2.45
The right to an adequate standard is guaranteed by article 11(1) of the
ICESCR, and requires state parties to take steps to ensure the availability, adequacy
and accessibility of food, clothing, water and housing for all people in
Australia.
2.46
In respect of the right to an adequate standard of living, article 2(1)
of the ICESCR also imposes on Australia the obligations listed above in
relation to the right to social security.
Compatibility of the measure with
the right to social security and an adequate standard of living
2.47
The statement of compatibility explains that the 2015 Specification
engages and limits the right to social security and an adequate standard of
living and sets out why this limitation is justifiable. It sets out the
objective of the measure as providing 'opportunities... to boost the educational
attainment and job readiness... of young parents and jobless families with young
children in highly disadvantaged locations in Australia'.
[9]
2.48
The committee previously considered that the measure seeks to achieve a
legitimate objective for the purposes of international human rights law.
However, the committee considered that it is unclear whether the limitation on
the right to social security and an adequate standard of living (in suspending
a person's social security payments), is rationally connected to the objective
being sought. In other words, it is unclear if the measures are likely to be
effective in achieving the objective.
2.49
The committee therefore sought the advice of the Assistant Minister for
Employment as to whether there is a rational connection between the limitation
and the legitimate objective of helping teenage parents and jobless families,
and in particular, whether there is evidence that demonstrates that the
measures are likely to be effective in achieving the stated objective.
Assistant Minister's response
Background information
The Helping Young Parents and Supporting Jobless Families
measures commenced in 2012 as early intervention measures targeting vulnerable
groups of parents living in 10 socio-economically disadvantaged locations. Many
of these parents face a higher risk of long-term unemployment, reliance on
income support and intergenerational unemployment. This early intervention
contact ensures earlier identification of the parents' and families' needs and
barriers to employment and provides tailored assistance through linkages to the
most appropriate local services-while recognising and taking into consideration
their family responsibilities.
Extension of the Helping Young Parents and Supporting
Jobless Families measures
As part of the Youth Employment Strategy under the Growing
Jobs and Small Business package, a new programme incorporating successful
elements of the trials was introduced in the 2015-16 Federal Budget. The
Supporting Parents to Plan and Prepare for Employment (Supporting Parents)
programme will commence on 1 April 2016 and will continue to support eligible
parents residing in the 10 disadvantaged locations to make a better transition
into paid employment. The new programme incorporates the compulsory participation
model but with the requirement to participate in one activity only-instead of
two compulsory activities under the Helping Young Parents measure.
Both the Helping Young Parents and Supporting Jobless
Families measures have been extended until 31 March 2016 to enable eligible
parents to access the local services that meet their needs and address
identified vocational and non-vocational barriers to employment for as long as
possible and on a continuous basis, ensuring eligible parents transition
smoothly from the trials into the Supporting Parents measure from 1 April 2016.
Compliance
Under both the Helping Young Parents and Supporting Jobless
Families measures, all participants are required to attend interviews and sign
a Participation Plan, however, only the Helping Young Parents measure requires
compulsory participation in activities.
Without regular ongoing contact with the Australian
Government Department of Human Services (Human Services) and participation in
the activities, parents may fail to participate actively in their community or
to take up opportunities for building a more secure future for themselves and
their children.
Rational connection between the limitation and legitimate
objective
The rational connection between the limitation and legitimate
objective is demonstrated by the range of evidence showing that the measures,
in particular their compulsory elements, have been effective in achieving their
stated objectives.
Increased participation in education
Departmental analysis has shown that the proportion of
Helping Young Parents participants undertaking study increased by 15 percentage
points to 39 per cent over their participation to 30 June 2013. By 30 June
2013, more than 250 parents in Helping Young Parents exited the measure due to
having completed Year 12 or equivalent qualification and more than 40 young
parents started a new job.
Helping Young Parents participants in areas of high
unemployment obtained the most benefit, with almost half participating in
education compared with 32 per cent of young parents not participating in the
measure. Participants reported that their increased awareness and use of Jobs,
Education and Training Child Care Fee Assistance had greatly helped them to
participate in education.
Under the Helping Young Parents measure, the minimum
education level requirement was to attain a Year 12 or equivalent
qualification. However, operational data from Human Services shows some young
parents have been willing to enrol in higher-level education courses, such as
Certificates III/IV, diplomas and degrees. This highlights the benefits of the
measure in increasing participants' education levels.
Increased engagement
Since the implementation of the Helping Young Parents and
Supporting Jobless Families measures in 2012, Human Services officers have
provided regular qualitative evidence to the Department of Employment that
parents participating in the trials have shown a positive increase in their
engagement with Human Services and interest in engaging with local services
following the development of a Participation Plan tailored to their own and
their families' needs.[10]
Committee response
2.50
The committee thanks the Assistant Minister for Employment for
his response.
2.51
The committee notes the minister's advice that the measures are being extended
for nine months in order to ensure eligible parents can access local services
and address barriers to employment before the transition to the new Supporting
Parents to Plan and Prepare for Employment commences on 1 April 2016.
2.52
The committee further notes the detailed evidence provided regarding the
effectiveness of the measures in improving participation and education rates of
participants in the trials, and on the basis of this information the committee
considers that they are likely to be rationally connected to their stated
objective.
2.53
Accordingly, the committee considers that the measures are likely
to be compatible with the right to social security and right to an
adequate standard of living.
Right to equality and
non-discrimination
2.54
The right to equality and non-discrimination is protected by articles 2,
16 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
2.55
This is a fundamental human right that is essential to the protection
and respect of all human rights. It provides that everyone is entitled to enjoy
their rights without discrimination of any kind, and that all people are equal
before the law and entitled without discrimination to the equal and
non-discriminatory protection of the law.
2.56
The ICCPR defines 'discrimination' as a distinction based on a personal
attribute (for example, race, sex or religion),[11] which has either the purpose (called 'direct' discrimination), or the effect
(called 'indirect' discrimination), of adversely affecting human rights.[12] The UN Human Rights Committee has explained indirect discrimination as 'a rule
or measure that is neutral on its face or without intent to discriminate',
which exclusively or disproportionately affects people with a particular
personal attribute.[13]
2.57
Articles 2, 3, 4 and 15 of the Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) further describes the content of
these rights, describing the specific elements that state parties are required
to take into account to ensure the rights to equality for women.
Compatibility of the measure with
the right to equality and non-discrimination
2.58
The statement of compatibility does not address the right to equality
and non-discrimination. Both measures distinguish between Parenting Payment
recipients based on their age. The HYP measure only applies to parents who are
19 or under at the relevant time and the SJF measure applies to parents who are
22 or under at the relevant time (as well as to persons who have been on income
support for two years or more).
2.59
The distinction between recipients based on age constitutes direct
discrimination on the basis of a personal attribute, and therefore limits the
right to equality and non-discrimination. This limitation requires
justification.
2.60
The measures may also be indirectly discriminatory on the basis of sex,
as the vast majority of those affected by the measures (Parenting Payment
recipients) are likely to be female. Where a measure impacts on particular
groups disproportionately, it establishes prima facie that there may be
indirect discrimination.
2.61
The committee therefore sought the advice of the Assistant Minister for
Employment as to whether the proposed changes are aimed at achieving a
legitimate objective, whether there is a rational connection between the
limitation and that objective, and whether the limitation is a reasonable and
proportionate measure for the achievement of that objective.
Assistant Minister's response
Justification for targeting
teenage parents
There is ample evidence that the stated objective (to assist
young parents and jobless families with young children to improve their family
wellbeing, educational attainment and work readiness) addresses a pressing or
substantial concern.
In Australia, at any one time there are around 11,000 teenage
parents on Parenting Payment. Around 80 per cent of these parents have not
completed Year 12 or equivalent qualifications and over 25 per cent only have
primary school as their highest level of education.
It is well documented[14] that teenage parents and jobless families are far more likely to have poor
employment prospects, low educational attainment, low incomes, poor health and
low educational and employment outcomes for their children-contributing to the
risk of long term welfare dependency for themselves and their children.
To the extent that the measures may limit the right to
equality and non-discrimination on the basis of age and gender, the measures
are reasonable and proportionate to the policy objective of assisting young
parents to improve their family wellbeing, education attainment and work
readiness. The measures assist parents to identify their barriers to education
and employment, to develop a plan to address those barriers and to participate
in the agreed activities, thereby increasing their capacity to study or work.
This recognises that the right to educational and the right to work are
essential for realising other human rights (such as the right to an adequate
standard of living) and that the workforce participation of parents creates benefits
for their children. As already demonstrated, there is a range of evidence that
the measures have been effective in increasing young parents' participation in
education and in increasing engagement with local services.
Justification for targeting jobless families
In Australia, joblessness among families is a significant
social and economic problem resulting in one of the highest proportion of
children living in jobless families in the OECD.[15] Women make up the largest proportion of parents heading jobless families.
Evidence shows that long periods out of the workforce
increase the risk of difficulties returning to paid work. There is also
increased risk of experiencing disadvantage and a lower quality of life.
For Australian families who become jobless, the likelihood of
the family remaining jobless for a long period of time has increased in recent
years. Being in a family where no adult has worked for a long time can mean
higher levels of poverty, poorer health and lower levels of education for parents
and their children. This can lead to the risk of long term welfare dependency
and poor outcomes for the children.
Children from disadvantaged families, particularly where
parents have a low level of education, benefit from early childhood programmes
and perform better in their early school years because they are better prepared
for school, move into school more easily and are more motivated.[16]
If parents on income support are assisted to gain job related
skills and education earlier, as well as using the time when their children are
young to stabilise their family life, they are more likely to gain ongoing
employment and to move off income support.[17]
Committee response
2.62
The committee thanks the Assistant Minister for Employment for
his response.
2.63 The committee considers that that response demonstrates that
assisting young parents and jobless families with young children to improve
their family wellbeing, educational attainment and work readiness is a
legitimate objective for the purposes of international human rights law, and
that the measures appear to be rationally connected to that objective and
proportionate to achieving the stated objective.
2.64
Accordingly, the committee considers that the measures are likely
to be compatible with the right to equality and non-discrimination and
has concluded its examination of the bill.
The Hon Philip Ruddock MP
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents