Explanatory Memorandum
(Circulated by the authority of the Minister for Government Services, the Hon Stuart Robert MP)Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011
SERVICES AUSTRALIA GOVERNANCE AMENDMENT BILL 2020
The 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.
Overview of the Bill
The Bill:
- •
- amends legislation as a result of the abolition of Services Australia as a Department of State on 1 February 2020 and its replacement with an Executive Agency under the Public Service Act 1999; and
- •
- makes related governance changes.
The amendments:
- •
- replace references to the former Department of State Services Australia and its Secretary with references to the new Executive Agency Services Australia and its Chief Executive Officer (CEO);
- •
- make provision for the CEO of Services Australia to occupy three statutory offices - Chief Executive Centrelink, Chief Executive Medicare and Child Support Registrar; and
- •
- modify powers of delegation to the Chief Executive Centrelink and Chief Executive Medicare, and those office-holders' powers of sub-delegation.
The amendments described above are all machinery or technical in nature and do not affect the rights or obligations of any person.
The Bill also protects the name 'Services Australia' from unauthorised use. A person will not be able to use the name for a commercial purpose, if that use asserts or implies a connection with Services Australia or broader Australian Government services delivery, without written consent from the CEO of Services Australia. Existing rights (eg current trade marks) will not be affected.
Human rights implications
The protected name amendments limit the right to freedom of expression, primarily in commercial advertising. They broaden the offence provisions in the Human Services (Centrelink) Act 1997, in a limited way. The amendments therefore limit the rights in article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).
The broader offence will only apply if the prosecution proves that a person's use of the name Services Australia asserts or implies a false connection to Services Australia or broader Australian Government service delivery. Exercise of existing rights (for example, continued use of existing registered trade marks) will not be affected.
The modest limitations imposed by the amendments on the right to freedom of expression are necessary to ensure that people are not mislead into thinking that, for example, a business using the Services Australia name is part of, or connected to, the Australian Government. For example, social security recipients could mistakenly provide sensitive personal information to an organisation that could be used to their financial and other detriment. The limitations are a proportionate way of reducing that sort of harm, and consistent with article 19(3). In this way, the amendments indirectly support the right to an adequate standard of living in article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Conclusion
The Bill is compatible with human rights as the modest limitations it imposes on the right to freedom of expression are necessary and proportionate to protect social security recipients from being mislead to their detriment.