Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697632637273.pdf (Australia)
PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS GUIDANCE NOTE 1: Drafting statements of compatibility December 2014 This note sets out the committee's approach to human rights assessments and its requirements for statements of compatibility.

It is designed to assist legislation proponents in the preparation of statements of compatibility.
Background Australia's human rights obligations Human rights are defined in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 as the rights and freedoms contained in the seven core human rights treaties to which Australia is a party.
These treaties are:        International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Convention on the Rights of the Child Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Australia has voluntarily accepted obligations under these seven core UN human rights treaties.
Under international law it is the state that has an obligation to ensure that all persons enjoy human rights.

Australia's obligations under international human rights law are threefold:    to respect – requiring government not to interfere with or limit human rights; to protect – requiring government to take measures to prevent others (for example individuals or corporations) from interfering with human rights; to fulfil – requiring government to take positive measures to fully realise human rights.
Where a person's rights have been breached, there is an obligation to ensure accessible and effective remedies are available to that person.

Australia's human rights obligations apply to all people subject to Australia's jurisdiction, regardless of whether they are Australian citizens.
This means Australia owes human rights obligations to everyone in Australia, as well as to persons outside Australia where Australia is exercising effective control over them, or they are otherwise under Australia’s jurisdiction.

The treaties confer rights on individuals and groups of individuals and not companies or other incorporated bodies.

Civil and political rights Australia is under an obligation to respect, protect and fulfil its obligations in relation to all civil and political rights.
It is generally accepted that most civil and political rights are capable of immediate realisation.

1 Economic, social and cultural rights Australia is also under an obligation to respect, protect and fulfil economic, social and cultural rights.

However, there is some flexibility allowed in the implementation of these rights.

This is the obligation of progressive realisation, which recognises that the full realisation of economic, social and cultural rights may be achieved progressively.
Nevertheless, there are some obligations in relation to economic, social and cultural rights which have immediate effect.

These include the obligation to ensure that people enjoy economic, social and cultural rights without discrimination.

Limiting a human right It is a general principle of international human rights law that the rights protected by the human rights treaties are to be interpreted generously and limitations narrowly.
Nevertheless, international human rights law recognises that reasonable limits may be placed on most rights and freedoms – there are very few absolute rights which can never be legitimately limited.1 For all other rights, rights may be limited as long as the limitation meets certain standards.

In general, any measure that limits a human right has to comply with the following criteria (The limitation criteria) in order for the limitation to be considered justifiable.
Prescribed by law Any limitation on a right must have a clear legal basis.

This requires not only that the measure limiting the right be set out in legislation (or be permitted under an established rule of the common law); it must also be accessible and precise enough so that people know the legal consequences of their actions or the circumstances under which authorities may restrict the exercise of their rights.
Legitimate objective Any limitation on a right must be shown to be necessary in pursuit of a legitimate objective.

To demonstrate that a limitation is permissible, proponents of legislation must provide reasoned and evidence-based explanations of the legitimate objective being pursued.

To be capable of justifying a proposed limitation on human rights, a legitimate objective must address a pressing or substantial concern, and not simply seek an outcome regarded as desirable or convenient.
In addition, there are a number of rights that may only be limited for a number of prescribed purposes.2 Rational connection It must also be demonstrated that any limitation on a right has a rational connection to the objective to be achieved.

To demonstrate that a limitation is permissible, proponents of legislation must provide reasoned and evidence-based explanations as to how the measures are likely to be effective in achieving the objective being sought.
Proportionality To demonstrate that a limitation is permissible, the limitation must be proportionate to the objective being sought.
In considering whether a limitation on a right might be proportionate, key factors include:   whether there are other less restrictive ways to achieve the same aim; whether there are effective safeguards or controls over the measures, including the possibility of monitoring and access to review; 1 Absolute rights are: the right not to be subjected to torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment; the right not to be subjected to slavery; the right not to be imprisoned for inability to fulfil a contract; the right not to be subject to retrospective criminal laws; the right to recognition as a person before the law.
2 For example, the right to association.
For more detailed information on individual rights see Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Guide to Human Rights (March 2014), available at http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Committees/Joint/PJCHR/Guide%20to%20Human%20Rights.pdf 2    the extent of any interference with human rights – the greater the interference the less likely it is to be considered proportionate; whether affected groups are particularly vulnerable; and whether the measure provides sufficient flexibility to treat different cases differently or whether it imposes a blanket policy without regard to the merits of an individual case.
Retrogressive measures In respect of economic, social and cultural rights, as there is a duty to realise rights progressively there is also a corresponding duty to refrain from taking retrogressive measures.

This means that the state cannot unjustifiably take deliberate steps backwards which negatively affect the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights.

In assessing whether a retrogressive measure is justified the limitation criteria are a useful starting point.
The committee’s approach to human rights scrutiny The committee's mandate to examine all existing and proposed Commonwealth legislation for compatibility with Australia's human rights obligations, seeks to ensure that human rights are taken into account in the legislative process.

The committee views its human rights scrutiny tasks as primarily preventive in nature and directed at minimising risks of new legislation giving rise to breaches of human rights in practice.
The committee also considers it has an educative role, which includes raising awareness of legislation that promotes human rights.

The committee considers that, where relevant and appropriate, the views of human rights treaty bodies and international and comparative human rights jurisprudence can be useful sources for understanding the nature and scope of the human rights referred to in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.
Similarly, there are a number of other treaties and instruments to which Australia is a party, such as the International Labour Organization (ILO) Conventions and the Refugee Convention which, although not listed in the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, may nonetheless be relevant to the interpretation of the human rights protected by the seven core human rights treaties.
The committee has also referred to other non-treaty instruments, such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, where it considers that these are relevant to the interpretation of the human rights in the seven treaties that fall within its mandate.

When the committee relies on regional or comparative jurisprudence to support its analysis of the rights in the treaties, it will acknowledge this where necessary.
The committee’s expectations for statements of compatibility The committee considers statements of compatibility as essential to the examination of human rights in the legislative process.

The committee expects statements to read as stand-alone documents.

The committee relies on the statement as the primary document that sets out the legislation proponent's analysis of the compatibility of the bill or instrument with Australia's international human rights obligations.
While there is no prescribed form for statements under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011, the committee strongly recommends legislation proponents use the current templates provided by the Attorney-General’s Department.

3 The statement of compatibility should identify the rights engaged by the legislation.

Not every possible right engaged needs to be identified in the statement of compatibility, only those that are substantially engaged.
The committee does not expect analysis of rights consequentially or tangentially engaged in a minor way.
3 The Attorney-General's Department guidance may be found at https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Human-rights-scrutiny/Pages/Statements-of- Compatibility.aspx 3 Consistent with the approach set out in the guidance materials developed by the Attorney-General's department, where a bill or instrument limits a human right, the committee requires that the statement of compatibility provide a detailed and evidence-based assessment of the measures against the limitation criteria set out in this note.
Statements of compatibility should provide analysis of the impact of the bill or instrument on vulnerable groups.

Where the committee's analysis suggests that a bill limits a right and the statement of compatibility does not include a reasoned and evidence-based assessment, the committee may seek additional/further information from the proponent of the legislation.

Where further information is not provided and/or is inadequate, the committee will conclude its assessment based on its original analysis.
This may include a conclusion that the bill or instrument (or specific measures within a bill or instrument) are incompatible with Australia's international human rights obligations.

This approach is consistent with international human rights law which requires that any limitation on a human right be justified as reasonable, necessary and proportionate in pursuit of a legitimate objective.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights PO Box 6100 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Phone: 02 6277 3823 Fax: 02 6277 5767 E-mail: human.rights@aph.gov.au Internet: http://www.aph.gov.au/joint_humanrights 4