Membership of the committee

[1]          The human rights committee secretariat is staffed by parliamentary officers drawn from the Department of the Senate Legislative Scrutiny Unit (LSU), which usually includes two principal research officers with specialised expertise in international human rights law. LSU officers regularly work across multiple scrutiny committee secretariats.

[2]          These are the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD); the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).

Chapter 1 - New and continuing matters

[1]          See Appendix 1 for a list of legislation in respect of which the committee has deferred its consideration. The committee generally takes an exceptions based approach to its substantive examination of legislation.

[2]          The committee examines legislative instruments registered in the relevant period, as listed on the Federal Register of Legislation. See, https://www.legislation.gov.au/.

[3]          See, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) pp. 3-69; Eighteenth Report of the 44^th Parliament (10 February 2015) pp. 71-73; Nineteenth report of the 44th Parliament (3 March 2015) pp. 56-100; Thirtieth report of the 44th Parliament (10 November 2015) pp. 82-101; and Report 4 of 2018 (8 May 2018) pp. 88-90.

[4]          See Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) p. 3; Sixteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (25 November 2014) p. 7; Nineteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (3 March 2015); Twenty-second Report of the 44th Parliament (13 May 2015); Thirty-sixth Report of 44th Parliament (16 March 2016) p. 85; Report 7 of 2016 (11 October 2016) p. 64.

[5]          Criminal Code, section 104.5.

[6]          Explanatory Memorandum (EM) p. 2; Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2018 (2018 bill), item 11.

[7]          These amendments include permitting an issuing court to vary an interim control order where there is agreement to a variation between the AFP and the subject of the control order; extending the minimum duration of time between the making of the interim control order and the confirmation proceeding from 72 hours to seven days; providing that the issuing court cannot make cost orders against the controlee except in limited circumstances where the controlee has acted unreasonably in conducting the control order proceedings: See EM, pp. 3-38, 40-41.

[8]          See Criminal Code, section 104.5.

[9]          See Criminal Code, section 104.2; EM p. 8.

[10]          See Criminal Code, sections 104.2 and 104.4.

[11]          See Criminal Code, section 104.4.

[12]        See Criminal Code, section 104.4.

[13]        See Criminal Code, sections 104.5(f); 104.14; EM, statement of compatibility (SOC) p. 8.

[14]        EM, p. 4.

[15]        EM, SOC, from page 10.

[16]        See, for example, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirty-sixth Report of 44th Parliament (16 March 2016) p. 94; Report 7 of 2016 (11 October 2016) p. 69.

[17]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 7 of 2016 (11 October 2016) p. 69.

[18]        EM, SOC, p. 9.

[19]        EM, SOC, p. 7.

[20]        See, for example, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) 16.

[21]        See Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirty-sixth Report of the 44th Parliament (16 March 2016) p. 90; Report 7 of 2016 (11 October 2016) p. 68. See, also, Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Declassified Annual Report (20 December 2012) p. 30.

[22]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 7 of 2016 (11 October 2016) p. 64.

[23]        INSLM, Reviews of Divisions 104 and 105 of the Criminal Code (including the interoperability of Divisions 104 and 105A): Control Orders and Preventative Detention Orders (2017) pp. 51-54. See, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Review of police stop, search and seizure powers, the control order regime and the preventative detention order regime (1 March 2018) p. 54.

[24]        INSLM, Declassified Annual Report (20 December 2012) p. 4.

[25]        EM, SOC, p. 9.

[26]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Review of police stop, search and seizure powers, the control order regime and the preventative detention order regime, (February 2018) [3.56] p. 54. 

[27]        INSLM, Reviews of Divisions 104 and 105 of the Criminal Code (including the interoperability of Divisions 104 and 105A): Control Orders and Preventative Detention Orders (2017) pp. 51-54.

[28]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirty-second Report of the 44th Parliament (1 December 2015) p. 11.

[29]        See, for example, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 7 of 2016 (11 October 2016) p. 64.

[30]        See Criminal Code section 104.4.

[31]        EM, SOC, p. 11.

[32]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 7 of 2016 (11 October 2016) p. 64.

[33]        See Criminal Code, section 104.4.

[34]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 7 of 2016 (11 October 2016) p. 64.

[35]        See Criminal Code, subsection 104.4(1)-(2).

[36]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) p. 17.

[37]        See, for example, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) p. 17.

[38]        EM, p. 2.

[39]        EM, SOC, p. 15.

[40]        EM, p. 37.

[41]        See Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) p. 3; Sixteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (25 November 2014) p. 7; Nineteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (3 March 2015); Twenty-second Report of the 44th Parliament (13 May 2015); Thirty-sixth Report of 44th Parliament (16 March 2016) p. 85; Report 7 of 2016 (11 October 2016) p. 64.

[42]        The period of detention is up to 48 hours.

[43]        See subsection 105.4(4) of the Criminal Code. There is also the power for a PDO to be issued if a terrorist act has occurred within the last 28 days and it is reasonably necessary to detain the subject to preserve evidence of, or relating to, the terrorist act, and detaining the subject for the period for which the person is to be detained is reasonably necessary for preserving that evidence (subsection 105.4(6)).

[44]        Criminal Code, section 105.4(5).

[45]        EM, p. 2; Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2018, item 11.

[46]        Criminal Code, section 105.42.

[47]        Criminal Code, sections 105.34, 105.35, 105.45.

[48]        EM, SOC, p. 19.

[49]        In accordance with the terms of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

[50]        See, for example, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights: Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014); Sixteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (25 November 2014); Nineteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (3 March 2015); Twenty-second Report of the 44th Parliament (13 May 2015); and Thirty-Sixth Report of the 44th Parliament (16 March 2016).

[51]        EM, SOC, p.18.

[52]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 7 of 2016 (11 October 2016) p. 64.

[53]        INSLM, Reviews of Divisions 104 and 105 of the Criminal Code (including the interoperability of Divisions 104 and 105A): Control Orders and Preventative Detention Orders (2017) pp. 51-54. See, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Review of police stop, search and seizure powers, the control order regime and the preventative detention order regime (1 March 2018) p. xii.

[54]        INSLM, Declassified Annual Report (20 December 2012) p. 67.

[55]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Review of police stop, search and seizure powers, the control order regime and the preventative detention order regime, (February 2018) [4.80] p. 103. 

[56]        EM, SOC, p. 18.

[57]        EM, SOC, p. 18.

[58]        Section 101.6 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence to do 'any act in preparation for, or planning a terrorist act'.

[59]        Miller & Carroll v New Zealand (2502/2014) UN Human Rights Committee (2017) [8.5].

[60]        EM, SOC, p. 19.

[61]        See, for example, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 7 of 2016 (11 October 2016) p. 64. Schedule 5 of the Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2016 (now Act) changed the current definition of a 'terrorist act' as being one that is imminent and expected to occur in the next 14 days, to one that 'is capable of being carried out, and could occur, within the next 14 days'.

[62]        The offence carries a maximum penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment.

[63]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) pp. 34-44; Nineteenth report of the 44th Parliament (3 March 2015) pp. 56-100; and Thirtieth report of the 44th Parliament (10 November 2015) pp. 82-101. The bill passed both Houses of Parliament and received Royal Assent on 2 November 2014.

[64]        See, for example, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, 'Criminal Code (Foreign Incursions and Recruitment—Declared Areas) Declaration 2018—Mosul District, Ninewa Province, Iraq [F2018L00176],' Report 4 of 2018 (8 May 2018) pp. 88-90. Also see, Eighteenth Report of the 44^th Parliament (10 February 2015) pp. 71-73.

[65]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) pp. 34-44.

[66]        EM, SOC, pp. 23, 25.

[67]        EM, SOC, p. 22.

[68]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 4 of 2018 (8 May 2018) p. 90.

[69]        These include: providing aid of a humanitarian nature; satisfying an obligation to appear before a court or other body exercising judicial power; performing an official duty for the Commonwealth, a State or Territory; performing an official duty for the government of a foreign country or the government of part of a foreign country; performing an official duty for the United Nations or an agency of the United Nations; making a news report of events in the area, where the person is working in a professional capacity as a journalist or is assisting another person working in a professional capacity as a journalist; making a bona fide visit to a family member; and other purposes prescribed by regulations. See, section 119.2(3) of the Criminal Code.

[70]        EM, SOC, p. 24.

[71]        Proposed subsection 119.3(6) (5a) of the Criminal Code. The statement of compatibility states that this new provision 'ensures that limitations on the right to freedom of movement are proportionate and operate for no longer than necessary in order to achieve the legitimate objective'. See EM, SOC, p. 24.

[72]        EM, SOC, p. 24. Currently, subsection 119.3(7) of the Criminal Code provides that the PJCIS may review a declaration before the end of the period during which the declaration made through a legislative instrument may be disallowed.

[73]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) pp. 34-38.

[74]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) p. 41.

[75]        EM, SOC, p. 25.

[76]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) p. 37.

[77]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) pp. 42-44.

[78]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) pp. 38-39.

[79]        See, for example, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014); Nineteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (3 March 2015); Thirtieth Report of the 44th Parliament (10 November 2015).

[80]        Explanatory memorandum, Anti-Terrorism Bill (No 2) 2005, p. 1.

[81]        'Commonwealth place' means a place (not being the seat of government) with respect to which the Parliament, by virtue of section 52 of the Constitution, has, subject to the Constitution, exclusive power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth: Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 section 3.

[82]        The minister may, upon application from a police officer, declare, in writing, a Commonwealth place to be a 'prescribed security zone' if the minister considers that a declaration would assist in preventing a terrorist act occurring, or in responding to a terrorist act that has occurred: Crimes Act 1914, section 3UJ.

[83]        Crimes Act 1914, sections 3UC-3UE.

[84]        Crimes Act 1914, section 3UEA.

[85]        EM, SOC, p. 26.

[86]        EM, SOC, p. 26; Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2018 (2018 bill), item 11.

[87]        As noted in the committee's Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) p. 28: These powers may also engage and limit the right to freedom of expression; the right to be treated with humanity and dignity; and the right to equality and non-discrimination.

[88]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Nineteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (3 March 2015) p. 69.

[89]        In accordance with the terms of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

[90]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Nineteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (3 March 2015) p. 69.

[91]        EM, SOC, p. 26.

[92]        EM, SOC, pp. 26-27.

[93]        See, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) pp. 25-28.

[94]        See, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) pp. 25-28.

[95]        Section 3R of the Crimes Act 1914.

[96]        Division 2 of Part IAA of the Crimes Act 1914.

[97]        See, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) pp. 3-69; Nineteenth report of the 44th Parliament (3 March 2015) pp. 56-100; and Thirtieth report of the 44th Parliament (10 November 2015) pp. 82-101.

[98]        The SOC also refers to protections in the ASIO Act as a safeguard in relation to the prohibition on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. See EM, SOC, p. 33.

[99]        See, subsection 34ZE of Division 3 of Part III of the ASIO Act.

[100]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Nineteenth Report of the 44th Parliament
(3 March 2015) p. 69.

[101]        EM, SOC, p. 29.

[102]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) p. 12.

[103]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, ASIO's questioning and detention Powers: Review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of Division 3 of Part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (March 2018).

[104]      Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Certain Questioning and Detention Powers in Relation to Terrorism (October 2016) p. 1.

[105]      Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Certain Questioning and Detention Powers in Relation to Terrorism (October 2016) p. 41.

[106]      Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, Certain Questioning and Detention Powers in Relation to Terrorism (October 2016) p. 1.

[107]      See figures cited in Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, ASIO's questioning and detention Powers: Review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of Division 3 of Part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (March 2018) p. 11.

[108]      See, Attorney-General’s Department, Submission 7, p. 14, made in relation to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security's review of ASIO's questioning and detention powers. See also, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, ASIO's questioning and detention Powers: Review of the operation, effectiveness and implications of Division 3 of Part III of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 (March 2018) p. 11.

[109]      Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) p. 11.

[110]      See, section 34L of Division 3 of Part III of the ASIO Act.

[111]      See, subsection (8), section 34L of Division 3 of Part III of the ASIO Act.

[112]      See, subsection 4(c), section 34G of Division 3 of Part III of the ASIO Act.

[113]      See EM, SOC, pp. 30-34.

[114]      This includes that relying on other methods of collecting the intelligence would be ineffective and that there is a written statement of procedures in force to be followed in the exercise of authority under the warrant. See, EM, SOC, p. 32.

[115]      A 'prescribed authority' is a person who has served as a judge in a superior court for a period of at least five years, and no longer holds a commission as a judge of a superior court, or in certain circumstances a current judge of a state or territory Supreme Court or District Court (or an equivalent) who has served in the position for at least five years. See, section 34B of Division 3 of Part III of the ASIO Act.

[116]          See Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Eleventh Report of 2013: Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012 and related legislation (27 June 2013) and 2016 Review of Stronger Futures measures (16 March 2016).

[117]          Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Twenty-seventh report of the 44^th Parliament (8 September 2015) pp. 20-29 and Thirty-first report of the 44th Parliament (24 November 2015) pp. 21-36. Also see, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Social Security (Administration) (Trial - Declinable Transactions) Amendment Determination (No. 2) 2016 [F2016L01248], Report 7 of 2016 (11 October 2016) pp. 58-61.

[118]          See, further, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2016 Review of Stronger Futures measures (16 March 2016) p. 39.

[119]          Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area - Ceduna and Surrounding Region) Amendment Determination (No. 2) 2016 [F2016L01424] and Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area – East Kimberley) Amendment Determination 2016 [F2016L01599]. See Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 8 of 2016 (9 November 2016) p. 53.

[120]          See Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 5 of 2017 (14 June 2017) 31-33 and Report 8 of 2017 (15 August 2017) pp. 122-125.

[121]          Social Security (Administration) (Trial Area) Amendment Determination (No. 2) 2017 [F2017L01170]; see Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Repot 9 of 2017 ( 5 September 2017) pp. 34-40; Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2017 (17 October 2017) pp. 126-137.

[122]          Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2017 (5 September 2017) pp. 34-40; Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2017 (17 October 2017) pp. 126-137.

[123]          Item 1, Section 124PD(1) of the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Cashless Debit Card) Act 2018. Each of these areas were defined in section 124PD(1).

[124]          Proposed section 124PF(1)(b) of the bill.

[125]        Proposed section 124PF(3) of the bill.

[126]        Proposed section 124PGA(1)(a)-(c) of the bill.

[127]        Proposed section 124PGA(1)(d)-(f) of the bill. The relevant types of income management are income management under section 123UC (child protection income management), 123UCB (disengaged youth income management), 123UCC (long-term welfare payment recipient income management), or 123UF (Queensland Family Responsibilities Commission income management).

[128]        Proposed section 124PGA(1)(g); 124PGA(3) of the bill.

[129]        Proposed sections 124PJ(4B); 124PJ(4C).

[130]        See Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirty-first report of the 44th Parliament (24 November 2015) pp. 21-36; 2016 Review of Stronger Futures measures (16 March 2016) p. 61; and Report 7 of 2016 (11 October 2016) pp. 58-61; Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2017 ( 5 September 2017) pp. 34-40; Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2017 (17 October 2017) pp. 126-137.

[131]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2016 Review of Stronger Futures measures (16 March 2016) 43-63.  It is noted that the statement of compatibility states that in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area, it is estimated that 14% of participants will be Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.  The statement of compatibility also states that the proportion of Indigenous participants across the four trial sites will be approximately 33%: SOC, p. 9.

[132]        Statement of compatibility (SOC) p. 1.

[133]        SOC, p. 2.

[134]        SOC, p. 2. The SOC also provides some statistics as to the prevalence of these issues in the Bundaberg and Hervey Bay area on page 2 of the SOC.

[135]        See, for example, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2017 (17 October 2017) pp. 126-137.

[136]        See, for example, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2017 (17 October 2017) pp. 126-137.

[137]        SOC, pp. 2-3. See ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017).

[138]        See, most recently, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 11 of 2017 (17 October 2017) pp. 36-37.

[139]        SOC, p. 3.

[140]        SOC, p. 3; ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 4.

[141]        SOC, p. 3; ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 4.

[142]        SOC, p. 3; ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 4.

[143]        SOC, p. 3; ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 4.  The report caveats, however, that self-reports of illegal drug use in a survey context are subject to a high risk of social desirability bias and should be interpreted with caution.

[144]        SOC, p. 3.

[145]        ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) pp. 4-5.

[146]        ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 4.              

[147]        ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 6.

[148]        ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 7.

[149]        Defined as 'making unreasonable financial demands on family members or other local community members'. See ORIMA Research, Wave 1 Interim Evaluation Report of the Cashless Debit Card Trial (February 2017) p. 6.

[150]        ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 76.

[151]        ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 64.

[152]        It is noted that the ORIMA report findings and methodology have also been criticised in a review by the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR) at the Australian National University: see J Hunt, The Cashless Debit Card Evaluation: Does it really prove success? (CAEPR Topical Issue No.2/2017).

[153]        SOC, p. 2.

[154]        SOC, p. 2.

[155]        SOC, p. 3; ORIMA Research, Cashless Debit Card Trial Evaluation: Final Evaluation Report (August 2017) p. 6.

[156]        Proposed section 124PGA(1)(a).

[157]        See Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Queensland Commission Income Management Regime) Bill 2017, Report 5 of 2017 (14 June 2017) pp. 45-48.

[158]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 5 of 2017 (14 June 2017) 47.

[159]        SOC, pp. 5-6.

[160]        Proposed section 124PGA(5) of the bill.

[161]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, 2016 Review of Stronger Futures measures (16 March 2016) p. 52.

[162]        See section 124PB of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

[163]        Which includes a number of payments, including specified social security payments and family tax benefits: see section 124PD(1) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

[164]        Section 124PM(a).

[165]        Section 124PM(b).

[166]        See item 20, proposed section 124PM and explanatory memorandum, p. 10. 

[167]        Explanatory Memorandum to the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Housing Affordability) Bill 2017, 6.

[168]        'Cash-like' products are defined in proposed section 124PQA to include '(a) a gift card, store card, voucher or similar article (whether in a physical or electronic form); (b) a money order, postal order or similar order (whether in a physical or electronic form); (c) digital currency'.

[169]        See Item 17, proposed paragraph 124PM(a).

[170]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 1 of 2018 (6 February 2018) p. 137.

[171]        Previously, the trial areas of East Kimberley and Ceduna were primarily governed by legislative instruments, but the trials are now included in the primary legislation: section 124PD of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

[172]        See Part 2 of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial of Cashless Welfare Arrangements) Determination 2018.

[173]        The determination repeals and remakes the following legislative instruments: Social Security (Administration) (Trial-Community Body- Ceduna Region Community Panel) Authorisation 2016, Social Security (Administration)(Trial-Community Body- East Kimberley Regional Community Panels) Authorisation 2015, Social Security (Administration)(Trial – Excluded Voluntary Participants) Determination 2016, Social Security (Administration)(Trial  - Variation of Percentage Amounts) Determination 2016.

[174]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 7 of 2016 (11 October 2016) p. 61.

[175]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 8 of 2017 (15 August 2017) 124-125.

[176]        See Explanatory Statement, p. 1.

[177]        SOC to the Social Security (Administration) (Trial of Cashless Welfare Arrangements) Determination 2018 [F2018L00245], 5-6; SOC to the Social Security (Administration) (Trial – Declinable Transactions and Welfare Restricted Bank Account) Determination 2018 [F2018L00251] pp. 4-5.

[178]        See section 8 of the Social Security (Administration) (Trial of Cashless Welfare Arrangements) Determination 2018.

Chapter 2 - Concluded matters

[1]          Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 4 of 2018 (8 May 2018) pp. 2-3.

[2]          See Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Privacy Policy (2018) https://www.aihw.gov.au/privacy-policy.

[3]          Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 4 of 2018 (8 May 2018) pp. 4-11.

[4]          See Parliament of Australia, Migration and Maritime Powers Amendment Bill (No.1) 2015, available https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r5532.

[5]          Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirtieth Report of the 44th Parliament (10 November 2015) pp. 28-52; Thirty-fourth report of the 44th Parliament (23 February 2016) pp. 29-65.

[6]          UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment 35: Liberty and security of person (2014), [18].

[7]          See Migration Act, sections 189, 198.

[8]          See F.K.A.G v. Australia (2094/2011), UN Human Rights Committee, 20 August 2013, [9.5]; M.M.M et al v Australia (2136/2012), UN Human Rights Committee, 25 July 2013, [10.4] ['the authors are kept in detention in circumstances where they are not informed of the specific risk attributed to each of them... They are also deprived of legal safeguards allowing them to challenge their indefinite detention'].

[9]          Statement of compatibility (SOC), p. 26.

[10]          SOC, p. 26.

[11]          SOC, p. 26.

[12]        Human Rights Committee, General Comment 35: Liberty and security of person (2014), [18].

[13]        SOC, p. 23.

[14]        See, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Seventh Report of the 44^th Parliament p. 30 (18 June 2014); Tenth Report of the 44^th Parliament (26 August 2014) p. 78; Fourteenth Report of the 44^th Parliament (28 October 2014) p. 114; Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirty-fourth report of the 44th Parliament (23 February 2016) pp. 33-34.

[15]        See, for example, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirty-fourth report of the 44th Parliament (23 February 2016) pp. 33-34.

[16]        See, for example, FJ et al v Australia, Communication No.2233/2013, UN Doc. CCPR/C/116/D/2233/2013 (2016);  Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its eightieth session, 20-24 November 2017, Opinion No. 71/2017, UN Doc. A/HRC/WGAD/2017/71 (2017).

[17]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirty-fourth report of the 44th Parliament (23 February 2016) pp. 33-34. The relevant bill, Migration and Maritime Powers Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2015, lapsed at prorogation on 15 April 2016.

[18]        CAT, article 3(1); ICCPR, articles 6(1) and 7; and Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty; Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 and its Protocol 1967 (Refugee Convention).

[19]        See Refugee Convention, article 33. The non-refoulement obligations under the CAT and ICCPR are known as 'complementary protection' as they are protection obligations available both to refugees and to people who are not covered by the Refugee Convention, and so are 'complementary' to the Refugee Convention.

[20]        ICCPR, article 2; Agiza v. Sweden, Communication No. 233/2003, UN Doc CAT/C/34/D/233/2003 (2005) [13.7]; Josu Arkauz Arana v. France, CAT/C/23/D/63/1997, (CAT), 5 June 2000; Mohammed Alzery v. Sweden, Communication No. 1416/2005, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/88/D/1416/2005 (2006) [11.8]. See, also, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 2 of 2017 (21 March 2017) pp 10-17; Report 4 of 2017 (9 May 2017) pp. 99-111.

[21]        Migration Act, section 198.

[22]        SOC, p. 27.

[23]        See for example, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44th Parliament (28 October 2014) pp. 77-78.

[24]        See, for example, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirtieth Report of the 44th Parliament (10 November 2015) 32; Thirty-fourth report of the 44th Parliament (23 February 2016) 35-36; Second Report of the 44th Parliament (11 February 2014), [1.89] to [1.99]; Fourth Report of the 44th Parliament (18 March 2014) [3.55] to [3.66].

[25]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Thirty-fourth report of the 44th Parliament (23 February 2016) p. 35.

[26]        CRC, article 3(1).

[27]        SOC, p. 28.

[28]        SOC, p. 28.

[29]        UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General comment No. 14  on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration, CRC/C/GC/14 (29 May 2013).

[30]        UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, General comment No. 14  on the right of the child to have his or her best interests taken as a primary consideration, CRC/C/GC/14 (29 May 2013).

[31]          Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 4 of 2018 (8 May 2018) pp. 12-16.

[32]          See the commencement information for Schedule 2 in section 2 of the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Act 2012.

[33]          The 2012 Act was introduced to parliament on 23 May 2012, whereas the committee's First Report of 2012 considered bills introduced between 18 June-29 June 2012: see Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, First Report of 2012 (August 2012) p.3.

[34]          Explanatory memorandum to the National Consumer Credit Protection Amendment (Mandatory Comprehensive Credit Reporting) Bill 2018, [1.26].

[35]          See the definition of 'eligible licensee' in proposed section 133CN. An ADI is considered large when its total resident assets are greater than $100 billion: see the EM to the bill, [1.14]. Other credit providers will be subject to the regime if they are prescribed in regulations: see proposed section 133CN(1)(a).

[36]          See Division 3 of Schedule 1 of the bill.

[37]          Statement of compatibility (SOC), [2.12].

[38]          See SOC, [2.20] citing the explanatory memorandum to the Privacy Amendment (Enhancing Privacy Protection) Bill 2012.

[39]          SOC, [2.15].

[40]        SOC, [2.21].

[41]        SOC, [2.17]-[2.19]

[42]        See the definition of 'repayment history information' in section 6V of the Privacy Act 1988.

[43]        SOC, [2.22].

[44]        APP 9; APP 6.2(b).

[45]        See Australian Law Reform Commission, For Your Information: Australian Privacy Law and Practice (ALRC Report 108) (2008) Recommendation 57-2.

[46]          Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 4 of 2018 (8 May 2018) pp. 20-25.

[47]          See proposed sections 16, 24, 32, 43.

[48]          See, for example, Explanatory Memorandum (EM) p. 13.

[49]          See, for example, EM, p. 33, p. 38.

[50]          EM, p. 28.

[51]          EM, p. 13.

[52]          With respect to subsection 24(3), it is noted that one of the exceptions to the offence of providing a vehicle in Australia for the first time that is not on the RAV includes 'a circumstance set out in the rules': subsection 24(3)(f) of the Road Vehicle Standards Bill 2018. The committee will consider the human rights compatibility of any legislative instrument enacted pursuant to this proposed section of the bill once it is received.

[53]          Subsection 32(2) provides that the offence of giving false or misleading information or documents under or for the purposes of the bill does not apply if the information or document is not false or misleading in a material particular.

[54]          These exceptions are proceedings relating to a refusal or failure to comply with a disclosure notice, knowingly providing false or misleading information in response to a disclosure notice, or knowingly giving false or misleading information to a Commonwealth entity.

[55]        Section 43 of part 3, division 4.

[56]        EM, SOC, p. 20.

[57]        EM, p. 44.

[58]        It is noted that the statement of compatibility does acknowledge that the right to privacy is engaged by other measures in the bill, including in relation to the powers of inspectors, drawn from the Regulatory Powers (Standards Provisions) Act 2014, to enter premises and inspect documents or things on the premises. See, EM, SOC, pp. 18-19.

[59]        See, subsection 41(1)(b) of the bill.

[60]        For example, an agency may disclose personal information or a government related identifier of an individual where its use or disclosure is required or authorised by or under an Australian Law: Australian Privacy Principles 6.2(b) and 9.

[61]          Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 4 of 2018 (8 May 2018) pp. 26-29.

[62]          Item 7, proposed section 120.

[63]          Item 11, proposed sections 126B and 126C.

[64]          Explanatory memorandum (EM), p. 9.

[65]          Fit for the Future: A Capability Review of ASIC (December 2015) p. 21.

[66]          Fit for the Future: A Capability Review of ASIC (December 2015) p. 108.

[67]          The ASIC Capability Review noted that the use of IFAs was relatively uncommon at ASIC at the time the review was conducted and, further, that such arrangements 'affect efficiency given the additional complexity of managing these arrangements'. See, Fit for the Future: A Capability Review of ASIC (December2015) pp. 107-108.

[68]          Part 6, sections 120(3) and 120(4) of the ASIC Act.

[69]          See also EM, p. 13.

[70]        See Article 2(1) of ICESCR.

[71]          Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 4 of 2018 (8 May 2018) pp. 30-32.

[72]          See Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the bill, proposed section 265-95(2).

[73]          See Part 1 of Schedule 1 of the bill, proposed section 265-95(3).

[74]          See Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the bill, proposed section 8C(1)(fa).

[75]          See Part 3 of Schedule 5 of the bill, proposed section 255-120(2).

[76]          See Part 3 of Schedule 5 of the bill, proposed section 255-120(3).

[77]          See, Statement of Compatibility (SOC), pp. 119-120, 122-123.

[78]          SOC, [10.11] and [10.31].

[79]          Explanatory memorandum (EM), pp. 12-14, 25-26, 82-84.

[80]        See proposed section 265-95(3) discussed above.

[81]        Explanatory memorandum, p. 26.

[82]          Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 4 of 2018 (8 May 2018) pp. 33-37.

[83]          Proposed section 29(6).

[84]          Proposed section 31(6).

[85]          Proposed section 35(5).

[86]          Proposed section 30(6). There are also a number of civil penalties for which the proposed penalty is 120 penalty units ($25,000); however, the committee considers such penalties in context would be unlikely to be considered criminal for the purposes of international human rights law: see proposed section 27 (failing to notify Minister of transfer of permit); section 28 (breach of permit condition); section 32 (supplying and offering to supply protected underwater cultural heritage without a permit); section 33 (advertising to sell underwater cultural heritage without a permit); section 34 (importing protected underwater cultural heritage without a permit); section 36 (importing underwater cultural heritage of a foreign country without a permit); section 37 (failing to produce a permit); section 38 (failing to respond to notice from Minister); section 39 (failing to comply with Ministerial direction); and section 40 (failing to advise Minister of discovery of underwater cultural heritage).

[87]          Statement of compatibility (SOC), p.11.

[88]          Other guarantees include the guarantee against retrospective criminal laws (Article 15(1)) and the right not to incriminate oneself (article 14(3)(g)). These guarantees are not engaged by the proposed civil penalties, as the law does not appear to apply retrospectively and the conduct giving rise to the offence does not appear to engage the right not to incriminate oneself.

[89]          SOC, p. 12.

[90]          See proposed sections 27(6), 28(3), 29(5), 30(5), 31(5), 32(5), 33(4), 34(4), 35(4), 36(4), 37(5), 38(6), and 39(7).

[91]        SOC, p.13.

[92]          Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities – Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) Amendment List 2017 (No. 2) [F2017L01063]; Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities – Democratic People's Republic of Korea) Amendment List 2017 (No.3) [F2017L01592]; Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons – Syria) List 2017 [F2017L01080]; Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities – Democratic People's Republic of Korea) Continuing Effect Declaration 2018 [F2018L00049]; Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons – Zimbabwe) Continuing Effect Declaration 2018 [F2018L00108]; Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons – Iran) Continuing Effect Declaration 2018 [F2018L00102]; Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons – Libya) Continuing Effect Declaration and Revocation Instrument 2018 [F2018L00101]; Autonomous Sanctions (Designated and Declared Persons – Former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) Continuing Effect Declaration and Revocation Instrument 2018 [F2018L00099]; Autonomous Sanctions (Designated Persons and Entities and Declared Persons – Syria) Continuing Effect Declaration and Revocation Instrument 2018 [F2018L00100].

[93]          Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 3 of 2018 (27 March 2018) pp. 82-96.

[94]          Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 4 of 2018 (8 May 2018) pp. 64-83.

[95]          See footnote 1.

[96]          See, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Sixth report of 2013 (15 May 2013) pp. 135-137; and Tenth report of 2013 (26 June 2013) pp. 13-19; Twenty-eighth report of the 44th Parliament (17 September 2015) pp. 15-38; and Thirty-third report of the 44th Parliament (2 February 2016) pp. 17-25.

[97]          Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2016 (22 November 2016) pp. 41-55.

[98]          Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2016 (22 November 2016) p. 53; see also Report 10 of 2017 (12 September 2017) pp. 27-31.

[99]          Section 10(2) of the Autonomous Sanctions Act 2011.

[100]          Section 6 of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011.

[101]        Section 14 of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011.

[102]        See section 18 of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011.

[103]        See section 20 of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011.

[104]        See subsection 20(3)(b) of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011.

[105]        See the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 'Consolidated List', available at: http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/security/sanctions/pages/consolidated-list.aspx.

[106]        See further below and Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2016 (22 November 2016) p. 45.

[107]        See Migration Regulations 1994, section 2.43(1)(aa) and section 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958.

[108]        The minister may grant a permit for the payment of such expenses (including foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines or medical treatment, public utility charges, insurance, taxes, legal fees and reasonable professional fees): Section 18 and 20 of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011.  However, the minister must not grant a permit unless the minister is satisfied that it would be in the national interest to grant the permit and is satisfied about any circumstance or matter required by the regulations to be considered for a particular kind of permit: section 18(3) of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011.

[109]        UN Human Rights Committee, General Comment No.27: Article 12 (Freedom of Movement) (1999). See also Nystrom v Australia (1557/2007), UN Human Rights Committee, 1 September 2011.

[110]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2016 (22 November 2016) p. 44.

[111]        See the examples in the committee's previous analysis at paragraph [1.114] of the Twenty-Eighth report of the 44^th Parliament  and section 6 of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011

[112]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2016 (22 November 2016) p. 46. 

[113]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2016 (22 November 2016) pp. 46-47; and Twenty-eighth Report of the 44th Parliament (17 September 2015) [1.116] to [1.123].

[114]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2016 (22 November 2016) p. 47.

[115]        See, http://dfat.gov.au/international-relations/security/sanctions/pages/consolidated-list.aspx; Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2016 (22 November 2016) pp. 48-49.

[116]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2016 (22 November 2016) p. 49.

[117]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2016 (22 November 2016) p. 49.

[118]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2016 (22 November 2016) p. 49.

[119]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2016 (22 November 2016) p. 50.

[120]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2016 (22 November 2016) p. 50.

[121]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2016 (22 November 2016) p. 50.

[122]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2016 (22 November 2016) p. 51.

[123]        See further below.

[124]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2016 (22 November 2016) p. 48.

[125]        Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v Switzerland, ECHR (Application no. 5809/08) (21 June 2016).

[126]        On 23 May 2018, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (UK) (SAML Act) was passed, repealing and replacing Part 1 of the Terrorist Asset Freezing etc Act 2010 (UK), which was previously referred to in the committee's reports on sanctions regimes. The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (UK) retains some of the safeguards previously discussed by the committee, including the requirement to report to parliament on the operation of the regime (section 30 of SAML Act) and oversight by an independent reviewer of sanctions enacted for a counter-terrorism purpose (section 31 of SAML Act).  However, some of the safeguards previously discussed have been repealed. The United Kingdom Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) reported on the SAML bill and raised a number of human rights concerns in relation to it: see JCHR, Legislative Scrutiny: The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill (28 February 2018).  The JCHR's report also made a number of recommendations to amend the (then) SAML bill, and the government subsequently accepted the JCHR's recommendation that there be independent review of counter-terrorism sanctions (as had been the case under the previous law) and amended the bill accordingly:  see Government response from the Minister of State for Europe and the Americas, relating to the Committee's report on Legislative Scrutiny: The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, dated 25 April 2018, available https://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/human-rights/Sanctions-Anti-Money-Laundering-bill-response.pdf.

[127]        See, Committee against Torture, General Comment No.4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 in the context of article 22 (9 February 2018).

[128]        See, Migration Regulations 1994, section 2.43(1)(aa) and section 116(1)(g) of the Migration Act 1958.

[129]        See, for example, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44^th Parliament (October 2014) pp. 76-77; Report 11 of 2017 (17 October 2017) pp. 108-111.

[130]        See further section 8(3) of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

[131]        'Relevant visas' are defined in regulation 2.43(3) and means a visa of the following subclasses: Subclass 050 (Bridging Visa E); Subclass 070 (Bridging (Removal Pending) Visa); Subclass 200 (Refugee Visa); Subclass 201 (In-country Special Humanitarian Visa); Subclass 202 (Global Special Humanitarian Visa);  Subclass 203 (Emergency Rescue Visa); Subclass 204 (Women at Risk Visa); Subclass 449 (Humanitarian Stay (Temporary) Visa); Subclass 785 (Temporary Protection Visa); Subclass 786 (Temporary Humanitarian Concern Visa); Subclass 866 (Permanent Protection Visa).

[132]        See Department of Home Affairs, Safe Haven Enterprise Visa (Subclass 790) at https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/trav/visa-1/790-.

[133]        Section 197C was introduced by Schedule 5 to the Migration and Maritime Powers Legislation Amendment (Resolving the Asylum Legacy Caseload) Act 2014.

[134]        ICCPR, article 2. See Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 4 of 2017 (9 May 2017) p. 102.

[135]        See Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Fourteenth Report of the 44^th Parliament (October 2014) p.77-78. See also Thirty-sixth report of the 44th Parliament (16 March 2016) pp. 149-194.

[136]        Section 9(2) of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

[137]        For example, under the autonomous sanctions regime a person can be designated or declared by the minister on a number of grounds relating to whether the minister is subjectively satisfied the person is or has been involved in certain activities. These include, for example, that a person is a supporter of the former regime of Slobodan Milosevic; is a close associate of the former Qadhafi regime in Libya (or an immediate family member); is providing support to the Syrian regime; is responsible for human rights abuses in Syria; has engaged in activities that seriously undermine democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law in Zimbabwe; or is responsible for, or complicit in, the threat to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine.

[138]        Al-Dulimi and Montana Management Inc. v Switzerland, ECHR (Grand Chamber)(Application no. 5809/08) (21 June 2016).

[139]        Pursuant to Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Freedoms.

[140]        European Commission and Others v Kadi, Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber)(Cases C‑584/10 P, C‑593/10 P and C‑595/10 P)(18 July 2013) [119].

[141]        JCHR, Legislative Scrutiny: The Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill (28 February 2018) [48]-[54].

[142]        Bouchra Al Assad v Council of the European Union Judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) (Case No. T-202/12) (12 March 2014) [107]-[121].

[143]        Nada v Switzerland, ECHR (Grand Chamber) (Application No. 10592/08) (12 September 2012) [167]-[199].

[144]        See Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 3 of 2018 (27 March 2018) [1.287].

[145]        Sayadi and Vinck v Belgium, UN Human Rights Committee (Application No. 1472/2006) (22 October 2008) [10.12].

[146]        Section 18(3)(a) of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations 2011.

[147]        Section 18(4) of the Autonomous Sanctions Regulations.

[148]        By way of contrast, the sanctions that were the subject of scrutiny in the decision of Bouchra Al Assad v Council of the European Union, discussed above in relation to the right to privacy, allowed for the authorisation of the release of funds after having determined the funds were necessary to satisfy basic needs, without an additional requirement that it be in the national interest: See Article 19(3) of Council Decision 2011/782/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Syria.

[149]        Sayadi and Vinck v Belgium, UN Human Rights Committee (Application No. 1472/2006) (22 October 2008) [10.6].

[150]        Sayadi and Vinck v Belgium, UN Human Rights Committee (Application No. 1472/2006) (22 October 2008) [10.8].

[151]        Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Report 9 of 2016 (22 November 2016)
pp. 53-54.

Appendix 2

[1]          Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Guide to Human Rights (June 2015).

[2]          Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Guidance Note 1 (December 2014).

[3]          The prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Under 'other status' the following have been held to qualify as prohibited grounds: age, nationality, marital status, disability, place of residence within a country and sexual orientation. The prohibited grounds of discrimination are often described as 'personal attributes'.

[4]           Althammer v Austria HRC 998/01, [10.2]. See above, for a list of 'personal attributes'.