House of Representatives

Explanatory Memorandum

Circulation with the authority of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the Hon Christian Porter MP)

Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights

Prepared in accordance with Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011.

Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015

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.

Overview of the Bill

The Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 (the Bill) is a whole of government initiative to amend or repeal legislation across seven portfolios. The Bill brings forward measures to reduce regulatory burden for business, individuals and the community sector that are not the subject of an individual stand-alone bill.

Human rights implications

Schedule 1, Part 1

The proposed repeal of the Dairy Adjustment Act 1974, the Domestic Meat Premises Charge Act 1993, the Meat Export Charge Act 1984 (the MEC Act ), the Meat Inspection Act 1983, the Meat Inspection Arrangements Act 1964, and the Primary Industry Councils Act 1991 do not engage any applicable human rights because the Acts are redundant.

The Meat Export Charge Collection Act 1984 (the MECC Act) does not engage any applicable human rights as the MECC Act will be redundant upon repeal of the MEC Act.

Schedule 1, Part 2

The proposed abolition of the Australian Landcare Council (the ALC) does not engage any human right because the ALC has no members and its functions will be continued by the National Landcare Advisory Committee.

Schedule 1, Part 3

The proposed amendment to the Export Inspection and Meat Charges Collection Act 1985, the Export Inspection (Establishment Registration Charges) Act 1985, the Export Inspection (Quantity Charge) Act 1985 and the Export Inspection (Service Charge) Act 1985 are machinery in nature and do not engage any applicable human rights.

Schedule 2

The proposed repeal and amendment of provisions in two Acts administered in the Environment portfolio make minor technical amendments to improve the ease of administering legislation. The proposed repeal and amendments do not engage any applicable human right because they repeal redundant or inactive provisions.

Schedule 3

The proposed amendments are machinery in nature and reduce the regulatory burden on non-government parties involved in compensation recovery under the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995, with no increase of or detrimental impact on their existing obligations. This measure does not engage any of the applicable rights or freedoms and is compatible with human rights as it does not raise any human rights issues.

Schedule 4, Part 1

The proposed repeal of the Aboriginal Affairs (Arrangements with States) Act 1973 does not engage any applicable human rights because the Act does not have any ongoing practical effect. The Public Service Act 1999 now provides a similar arrangement for the transfer of state and APS employees to another state or Agency to perform services, including services relating to Indigenous Affairs.

The proposed repeal of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act 1975 does not engage any applicable human rights because the Act does not have any ongoing practical effect. The Act was enacted for the purpose of superseding certain provisions of the laws of Queensland that discriminated against Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. The Queensland laws targeted by the Act have since been repealed.

Schedule 4, Part 2

The proposed consequential amendment to remove section 16 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Self-management) Act 1978 does not engage any applicable human rights because section 16 will have no effect after the proposed repeal of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act 1975.

Schedule 5, Part 1

The proposed amendments are consistent with the right to protection against arbitrary or unlawful interferences with privacy under article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR). The use of the term 'arbitrary' in Article 17 means that any interference with privacy must be in accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the ICCPR and should be reasonable in all the circumstances.

The amendments to the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 (the NTS Admin Act), the Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 (the PPL Act), the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the SSA Act) and the Student Assistance Act 1973 (the SA Act) do not infringe the right to privacy and do not engage any other human rights. The proposed changes support the right to privacy in Article 17 by facilitating the release of information collected under the four Acts in an aggregate and de-identified form that does not disclose, either directly or indirectly, information about a particular person.

As the provisions of Part 1 will not result in disclosing, either directly or indirectly, protected information about an individual, Part 1 would not interfere with an individual's right to privacy.

Part 1 seeks to clarify that the use of protected information for the purpose of producing aggregated data is permissible under the respective laws and does not engage any applicable human rights.

Schedule 5, Part 2

The proposed repeal of the provisions in the Social Security Act 1991(the SS Act) and A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 are of a technical nature only. The repeal of these provisions does not change the effect of the social security and family assistance law as currently or previously enacted and do not engage any applicable human rights.

Schedule 5, Part 3

Part 3 engages the following human rights:

Right to social security

Article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the ICESCR) recognises the right of everyone to social security.

The proposed amendments to the SS Act engage the right to social security by repealing:

•

Part 3.14A and related provisions of the SS Act providing for the retirement assistance for farmers scheme during the period from 1997 to 2001;

•

Part 3.14B and related provisions of the SS Act providing for the retirement assistance for sugarcane farmers scheme during the period from 2004 to 2007.

The proposed repeal of these provisions will have no impact on the right to social security as the provisions are spent and redundant as they relate to schemes that are no longer operable.

Schedule 5, Part 4

The proposed repeal of spent savings, transitional and application provisions from Schedule 1A of the SS Act do not engage any applicable human rights.

The spent savings, application and transitional provisions relate to rules that were required to deal with former legislative amendments dealing with persons transitioning from one set of arrangements to another. A number of savings and transitional provisions in Schedule 1A no longer have any effect as they deal with circumstances that can no longer occur. Removing these redundant provisions will simplify the social security legislation and make it more accessible.

Schedule 6 - Part 1

The amendments made by Part 1 of Schedule 6 repeal the Income Tax (Withholding Tax Recoupment) Act 1971, the International Monetary Agreements Act 1959, the Occupational Superannuation Standards Regulations Application Act 1992, the States Grants (aboriginal Advancement) Act 1972 and the Taxation Laws (Clearing and Settlement Facility Support) Act 2004. The repeals made by this Part do not engage with any human rights. The Acts being repealed have no operative effect, so the only consequence of their removal is to reduce the volume of Commonwealth law.

This Part is compatible with human rights as it does not raise any human rights issues.

Schedule 6 - Part 2

The amendments made by Part 2 of Schedule 6 amend various provisions in the tax law as well as in certain related Acts to repeal concessions relating to pre-establishment expenditure for regional headquarters and concessions for certain securities. The repeals made by this Part do not engage with any human rights. The provisions being repealed have no operative effect, so the only consequence of their removal is to reduce the volume of Commonwealth law.

This Part is compatible with human rights as it does not raise any human rights issues.

Schedule 6 - Part 3

The provisions of Part 3 preserve the prior operation of the repealed Acts and provisions in Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 6, ensuring that rights, obligations and entitlements that arose before the provisions became inoperative are not affected.

This Part is compatible with human rights as it does not raise any human rights issues.

Schedule 7, Part 1

Part 1 engages the following human rights:

Right to social security

Article 9 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the ICESCR) recognises the right of everyone to social security.

The proposed amendments to the VE Act engage the right to social security by repealing:

•

Division 8 of Part IIIB providing for the retirement assistance for farmers scheme during the period from 1997 to 2001;

•

Division 8 of Part IIIB providing for the retirement assistance for sugarcane farmers scheme during the period from 2004 to 2007.

The proposed repeal of these provisions will have no impact on the right to social security because the provisions are spent and redundant as they relate to schemes that are no longer operable.

Schedule 7, Part 2

Part 2 engages the following human rights:

Right to social security

Article 9 of the ICESCR recognises the right of everyone to social security.

The amendments to the VE Act will engage the right to social security by repealing the savings provision, clause 3 of Schedule 5 which had provided for the continued payment of rent assistance to persons who would otherwise have been adversely affected because of provisions of the VE Act that were repealed in 1988.

The repeal of the provision will have no impact on the right to social security because the provision is spent and redundant as there are no persons in receipt of rent assistance under the savings provision.