Source document: https://docs-lawep.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/1697640620081.pdf (Australia)
Page 9 Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2014 Portfolio: Trade and investment Introduced: House of Representatives, 6 March 2014 Summary of committee concerns 1.29 The committee seeks further information regarding the power of the CEO of Austrade to exclude an export market development grants consultant (EMDG consultant), where the CEO has formed the opinion that the EMDG consultant is not a fit and proper person.
Overview 1.30 This bill seeks to amend the Export Market Development Grants Act 1997 to:       align the Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) scheme rules with a revised level of scheme funding; increase the number of grants able to be received by an applicant from seven to eight; reduce the minimum expenses threshold required to be incurred by an applicant from $20 000 to $15 000; reduce the current $5000 deduction from the applicant's provisional grant amount to $2500 prevent the payment of grants to applicants engaging an EMDG consultant assessed to be a not fit and proper person; and enable a grant to be paid more quickly where a grant is determined before the 1 July following the balance distribution date.
Compatibility with human rights Statement of compatibility 1.31 The bill is accompanied by a brief statement of compatibility, which states: This Bill is compatible with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

This Bill is compatible with human rights as it does not raise any human rights issues.1 1 Statement of compatibility, p 3.
Page 10 1.32 The committee notes that the statement of compatibility does not meet the committee's expectations.

The committee expects statements of compatibility to read as self-contained documents and to include a description of the purpose and effect of the instrument.

1.33 The committee intends to write to the Minister for Trade and Investment in an advisory capacity in relation to the committee's expectations for statements of compatibility.
1.34 The committee also notes that the statement of compatibility concludes that the bill does not raise any human rights issues.

However, the committee considers that this bill engages the right to privacy.2 The committee's concerns are set out below.
Committee view on compatibility Right to privacy and reputation 1.35 The right to privacy provides that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.3 1.36 The committee has previously expressed the view that the right to privacy and reputation may extend to the protection of the professional and business reputation of a person.4 The proposed power to determine that a person is not a 'fit and proper person' for the purposes of the Act therefore engages this right, insofar as such a finding may damage or encroach on a person's professional reputation as an EMDG consultant.
1.37 Where a bill provides for the limitation of the right to privacy and reputation, as in this case, the committee's usual expectation is that the statement of compatibility provide an assessment of whether the limitation is to be imposed in pursuit of a legitimate objective, and whether it is both necessary and proportionate to achieving that objective.
This assessment will generally need to provide details of any less intrusive policy measures considered, as well as all relevant procedural and other safeguards intended to apply to the proposed measure.

2 3 4 Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Article 17 of the ICCPR.

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human rights, Third Report of 2013, pp 14-15.
1.38 The committee notes that the explanatory memorandum for the bill provides a description of the intended operation of the proposed fit and proper person test in relation to EMDG consultants,5 including that: Page 11     criteria for determining whether a person or an associate of the person is not a fit and proper person, and whether a person is an associate of an EMDG consultant, will be prescribed by legislative instrument (and based on the current Export Market Development Grants (Associate and Fit and Proper Person) Guidelines 2004); the CEO of Austrade will be able to seek relevant information from a person or their associate to assist in forming an opinion as to whether a person is not a fit and proper person; an excluded EMDG consultant may apply for the revocation of a determination that they are not a fit and proper person (known as administrative review); and an excluded EMDG consultant may also apply to have the decision reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (known as merits review).
1.39 The committee notes that these aspects of the bill appear relevant to an assessment of the bill's compatibility with the right to privacy and reputation.

However, as the statement of compatibility does not assess the bill's compatibility with the right to privacy and reputation, the committee is unable to form a view on the bill's overall compatibility with human rights.
1.40 The committee further notes that concerns in relation to the operation of the fit and proper person test were raised in its consideration of the earlier and related Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2013,6 which established the test as a basis for non-payment of a grant to person or an associate of the person.7 The current bill effectively seeks to extend the application of the test to EMDG consultants in their own right (such as in circumstances where an EMDG consultant engages in false or misleading behaviour).8 1.41 The committee intends to write to the Minister for Trade and Investment to seek further information on the compatibility of the bill with the right to privacy and reputation, particularly the justification for the fit and proper person measure, including: 5 6 7 8 Explanatory memorandum, pp 3-5.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human rights, Third Report of 2013, pp 14-15.

Explanatory memorandum, p 5.

Explanatory memorandum, p 6.

Page 12    whether it is to be imposed in pursuit of a legitimate objective; whether it is both necessary and proportionate to achieving that objective, including all relevant procedural and other safeguards; and details of any less intrusive policy measures that may have been available or were considered in the development of this measure.