Australian Human Rights Commission Submission to the CEDAW Committee – 12 June 2018 Recommendation 19: That the Australian Government ensure that the human rights of people subject to third country processing are adequately protected. Further information about the Commission’s complaints function can be found at www.humanrights.gov.au. 2 This submission is based on work that has been undertaken by the Commission in accordance with its mandate and functions, or otherwise on publicly available information. The Commission has brought the issues raised in this submission to the attention of the Australian Government. 1 This submission provides information concerning sex discrimination experienced by key population groups in Australia and other thematic issues relating to sex discrimination. In relation to each section, the Commission has, where appropriate, referred to the relevant articles of CEDAW engaged, the relevant paragraph of the Committee’s concluding observations on Australia’s sixth and seventh reports (CO) and the Committee’s list of issues (LOI) and questions in relation to the eighth periodic report of Australia. 3 The PJCHR analyses bills and legislative instruments introduced into the federal Parliament for compliance with human rights. The Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth) requires each bill, regulation and ordinance introduced into Parliament to be accompanied by a statement of compatibility with human rights, defined as the seven core international human rights instruments to which Australia is a party. See: Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), ss 8, 9. At https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2011A00186 (viewed 11 September 2017). 4 George Williams and Daniel Reynolds, ‘The Operation and Impact of Australia’s Parliamentary Scrutiny Regime for Human Rights’ (2015) 41(2) Monash University Law Review 469, 477, 506–7. At http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/2015/17.html (viewed 11 September 2017). 5 George Williams and Daniel Reynolds, ‘The Operation and Impact of Australia’s Parliamentary Scrutiny Regime for Human Rights’ (2015) 41(2) Monash University Law Review 469, 474–5. At http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MonashULawRw/2015/17.html (viewed 11 September 2017). For example, some statements of compatibility devote cursory attention to assessing a draft law’s identified impingement on human rights and some simply assert (without due explanation) that a draft law is compatible with human rights even where an impingement on rights has been acknowledged. See: Shawn Rajanayagam, ‘Does Parliament Do Enough? Evaluating Statements of Compatibility under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act’ (2015) 38(3) University of New South Wales Law Journal 1046, 1069–1070. At http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/download.cgi/cgibin/download.cgi/download/au/journals/UNSWLJ/2015/37.pdf (viewed 11 September 2017). The Australian Law Reform Commission has made a number of suggestions to improve the mechanisms and processes for the scrutiny of laws for compatibility with rights and freedoms (including the PJCHR). See: Australian Law Reform Commission, Traditional Rights and Freedoms — Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws (Final Report) (2016) 75–76 [3.95]. At https://www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/publications/alrc_129_final_report_.pdf (viewed 11 September 2017). The ALRC’s suggestions include additional guidance to policy makers during policy development and legislative drafting stages; improving quality of explanatory material and statements of compatibility; effective and appropriate streamlining of overlapping work across scrutiny committees; increasing time available to conduct scrutiny; and improving extent to which Parliament considers the scrutiny reports. 6 Parliamentary scrutiny processes include the Senate Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances, Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security and Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. Other review mechanisms include the Australian Human Rights Commission, Independent National Security Legislation Monitor and Australian Law Reform Commission. See Australian Law Reform Commission, Traditional Rights and Freedoms — Encroachments by Commonwealth Laws (Final Report) (2016) Ch 3. At https://www.alrc.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/publications/alrc_129_final_report_.pdf (viewed 11 September 2017). 15