For example, where legislation has bipartisan support, Parliament may be less likely to prioritise relevant human rights implications. This has occurred in relation to national security issues under time pressures to meet perceived security risks. For example, mandatory metadata retention legislation was passed in 2015 with bipartisan support,87 despite concerns about its implications for privacy, procedural fairness and freedom of expression.88 Since 2015, a suite of other surveillance measures have been passed into law, vastly expanding executive power and limiting the right to privacy for Australians.89 There have been subsequent reviews of metadata retention and surveillance laws by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) and the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor (INSLM) but, when these bodies have recommended the mitigation or removal of overreaching surveillance powers, these recommendations are often not implemented. For example, in 2020 the PJCIS recommended stronger reporting requirements, and tighter restrictions on authorisation for accessing metadata.90 That same year, the INSLM recommended amendments to powers of security agency heads and the Attorney-General to issue certain requests to communications companies for assistance – including mandatory requests to provide decrypted communications.91 However these amendments have not been made. This highlights the importance of upstream processes to address human rights issues prior to the passage of legislation. 56 • Parliamentary scrutiny of compliance with human rights Parliamentary scrutiny, prior to the passage of legislation, occupies one point on the spectrum of consideration of encroachments on rights and freedoms. It has a long history in Australia, since the establishment of the first scrutiny committee, the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances (now the Senate Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation) in 1932.92 The Senate scrutiny function was expanded with the introduction of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, in 1981. Then, in 2011, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (PJCHR) was established with a specific mandate to examine Bills and legislative instruments for compatibility with human rights, by reference to the ICCPR, ICESCR and a number of other international instruments.93 Since the establishment of the PJCHR, the proponent of a Bill must prepare a Statement of Compatibility, justifying any limitations on individual rights and freedoms. This is an important mechanism which helps Parliament consider the human rights impacts of a law before it is passed. Statements of Compatibility do not affect the validity, operation or enforcement of a Bill,94 but should be a factor in Parliament’s consideration of whether to pass or amend the Bill. The PJCHR process can assist Parliament to consider the human rights impact of a Bill in more depth.95 The Commission’s proposal for a Human Rights Act includes recommendations designed to strengthen the scrutiny process, which should be undertaken alongside the Human Rights Act. This is considered in chapter 13.