About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

42 Fed. L. Rev. 1 (2014)

handle is hein.journals/fedlr42 and id is 1 raw text is: THE HUMAN RIGHTS (PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY) ACT 2011 (CTH) AND THE COURTS Dan Meagher* ABSTRACT The Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth) ('the Act') has established a new model of pre-legislative rights scrutiny of proposed Commonwealth laws. This is undertaken by the political arms of government and involves: (1) the requirement that a statement of (human rights) compatibility must accompany proposed laws and certain legislative instruments when introduced into Parliament; and (2) the establishment of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights ('PJCHR') which regularly reports to the Parliament on the compatibility of its proposed laws with human rights. This article looks at the relationship between the Act - and these two new mechanisms - and the interpretive role of the courts. It does so by first considering the (possible) direct use of statements of compatibility and PJCHR reports by Australian courts in the interpretation of Commonwealth laws that engage human rights. It then assesses whether the Act may exert an indirect influence on the content and scope of the common law interpretive presumptions that protect human rights. I INTRODUCTION This article will consider what impact the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth) ('the Act') may have upon the judicial interpretation of Commonwealth legislation that engages human rights. It is an important question the answer to which, as Rosalind Dixon notes, falls 'entirely outside the terms of the Act itself'.1 The Act, as will be detailed in Part II, establishes a model of pre-legislative rights scrutiny of proposed laws that is undertaken by the political arms of government not the courts. It is a model that former Attorney-General Robert McClelland said was 'aimed at enhancing understanding of and respect for human rights in Australia and ensuring School of Law, Deakin University. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Australian Association of Constitutional Law Victorian Seminar Series, Melbourne, 7 June 2012 and in a staff seminar at the Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania, Hobart, 13 June 2013. Thanks to Matthew Groves and the two anonymous referees for their invaluable feedback and suggestions. 1 Rosalind Dixon, 'A New (Inter)National Human Rights Experiment for Australia' (2012) 23 Public Law Review 69, 77.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most