This bill became law on Nov 9th, 2022.
Law, justice & rights
New Australian Human Rights CommissionThe federal body that deals with human rights complaints and advises on human rights issues in Australia. appointments must go through a merit-based processA hiring process where candidates are assessed on suitability rather than political choice or private preference. and be publicly advertised, so these jobs cannot be filled privately without an open recruitment round.
In March 2022, the global accreditation body deferred the Human Rights Commission’s A-statusThe top international status for a national human rights institution, showing it is judged to meet key independence standards. because commissionersA senior statutory member of the Commission who helps carry out its work on discrimination and human rights. could be appointed without open merit selection and could potentially serve unlimited terms. The bill requires publicly advertised merit-based appointments, caps total service at seven years, and requires the PresidentThe head of the Commission, whose appointment now has to meet the same merit and qualification rules as other senior roles. to have suitable qualifications, knowledge or experience.
Before the bill, federal law let Australian Human Rights CommissionThe federal body that deals with human rights complaints and advises on human rights issues in Australia. members be appointed without a publicly advertised merit process, imposed no qualification test for the PresidentThe head of the Commission, whose appointment now has to meet the same merit and qualification rules as other senior roles. and left room for repeated reappointment beyond a clear overall limit. After criticism of the Lorraine Finlay appointment in September 2021, the commissionThe federal body that deals with human rights complaints and advises on human rights issues in Australia.’s A-statusThe top international status for a national human rights institution, showing it is judged to meet key independence standards. reaccreditationThe process of reviewing whether the Commission should keep its A-status after a set period. was deferred for 18 months in March 2022, and the bill responded by legislating open merit selection, a seven-year service cap and qualification requirements for the PresidentThe head of the Commission, whose appointment now has to meet the same merit and qualification rules as other senior roles. before becoming law in November 2022.
The main criticism was that the bill only partly fixed how Human Rights Commission appointments are made and did not go far enough to strengthen the commissionThe federal body that deals with human rights complaints and advises on human rights issues in Australia.'s independence or representation. That case was raised mainly by the Greens and some crossbench supporters, while no party represented in the debate opposed the bill outright.
Mark Dreyfus MP introduced this bill. It passed on the voices.
Did it become law?
Yes
Became law 09 Nov 2022
Final passage
Passed without a counted vote
2 recorded amendment or procedural votes were found, but no counted vote on the bill itself was recorded.
Passage speed
105 days
From introduction to the latest recorded parliamentary step
Meaning
New Australian Human Rights CommissionThe federal body that deals with human rights complaints and advises on human rights issues in Australia. appointments must go through a merit-based processA hiring process where candidates are assessed on suitability rather than political choice or private preference. and be publicly advertised, so these jobs cannot be filled privately without an open recruitment round.
The PresidentThe head of the Commission, whose appointment now has to meet the same merit and qualification rules as other senior roles. and all commissionersA senior statutory member of the Commission who helps carry out its work on discrimination and human rights. of the Australian Human Rights CommissionThe federal body that deals with human rights complaints and advises on human rights issues in Australia. can now serve no more than 7 years in total, including any reappointment.
The President of the Australian Human Rights CommissionThe head of the Commission, whose appointment now has to meet the same merit and qualification rules as other senior roles. must now have suitable qualifications, knowledge or experience, bringing that role into line with the rules already used for commissionersA senior statutory member of the Commission who helps carry out its work on discrimination and human rights..
The bill amends existing appointment's provisions for members of the commission to require that before making an appointment the minister must be satisfied that the selection of the appointee is the result of a merit based selection process that was publicly advertised. These amendments will require vacancies in commissioner positions or in the president's position to be advertised nationally, such as through newspapers and government websites. These legislative provisions will be supported by comprehensive policy guidelines to provide further guidance on what constitutes a merit based selection process. These amendments will remove the ability to appoint the president or commissioners directly without a merit based and publicly advertised selection process and ensure that these positions are open to all qualified members of the community.Minister's second reading speech
The bill will insert amendments clarifying that the term of appointment for the president and all commissioners is for a maximum of seven years, including reappointments. This addresses a concern of the subcommittee that the relevant acts are silent on the number of times commissioners can be reappointed, creating the possibility of unlimited tenure. This amendment codifies existing practice whereby commissioners are appointed for an initial five-year term and then maybe reappointed for one or two years to complete particular projects.Minister's second reading speech
Finally, the Bill will make a minor amendment to harmonise the qualification provisions for members of the Commission. Whilst legislation currently prescribes qualification requirements for all Commissioners, there are no qualification requirements to be appointed as President of the Commission. The Bill will insert a provision requiring the President have appropriate qualifications, knowledge or experience in order to be appointed, consistent with existing qualification provisions for the Commissioners.Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) explanatory memorandum
Context
Before the bill, federal law let Australian Human Rights CommissionThe federal body that deals with human rights complaints and advises on human rights issues in Australia. members be appointed without a publicly advertised merit process, imposed no qualification test for the PresidentThe head of the Commission, whose appointment now has to meet the same merit and qualification rules as other senior roles. and left room for repeated reappointment beyond a clear overall limit. After criticism of the Lorraine Finlay appointment in September 2021, the commissionThe federal body that deals with human rights complaints and advises on human rights issues in Australia.’s A-statusThe top international status for a national human rights institution, showing it is judged to meet key independence standards. reaccreditationThe process of reviewing whether the Commission should keep its A-status after a set period. was deferred for 18 months in March 2022, and the bill responded by legislating open merit selection, a seven-year service cap and qualification requirements for the PresidentThe head of the Commission, whose appointment now has to meet the same merit and qualification rules as other senior roles. before becoming law in November 2022.
Criticism of the Lorraine Finlay appointment highlights opaque selection rules
The Law Council said senior human rights roles should be filled through an open and participatory process after Lorraine Finlay was chosen as Human Rights CommissionerA senior statutory member of the Commission who helps carry out its work on discrimination and human rights..
Australian Financial Review ↗Global accreditation body defers the commissionThe federal body that deals with human rights complaints and advises on human rights issues in Australia.'s A-statusThe top international status for a national human rights institution, showing it is judged to meet key independence standards. reaccreditationThe process of reviewing whether the Commission should keep its A-status after a set period.
The Global Alliance of National Human Rights InstitutionsThe international network that oversees accreditation decisions for national human rights institutions. deferred reaccreditationThe process of reviewing whether the Commission should keep its A-status after a set period. for 18 months because Australia's appointment process was not clearly legislated as transparent and merit-based and allowed the possibility of unlimited tenure.
Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) explanatory memorandum ↗Bill is introduced to change how commissionersA senior statutory member of the Commission who helps carry out its work on discrimination and human rights. are chosen
The government introduced the bill to require publicly advertised merit-based appointments, cap total service at seven years and require the PresidentThe head of the Commission, whose appointment now has to meet the same merit and qualification rules as other senior roles. to have appropriate qualifications, knowledge or experience.
Hansard ↗Parliament passes the bill
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, clearing the way for the new appointment rules to be enacted.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. makes the new appointment standards law
Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament. turned the bill into an Act, locking merit-based advertising, a seven-year total tenure cap and PresidentThe head of the Commission, whose appointment now has to meet the same merit and qualification rules as other senior roles. qualification requirements into federal law.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Second reading agreed to
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Third reading agreed to
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Finally passed both Houses
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill only partly fixed how Human Rights Commission appointments are made and did not go far enough to strengthen the commissionThe federal body that deals with human rights complaints and advises on human rights issues in Australia.'s independence or representation. That case was raised mainly by the Greens and some crossbench supporters, while no party represented in the debate opposed the bill outright.
Criticism was limited and mostly about the bill being too narrow, not about its core merit-based appointment rules.
Too narrow to fix deeper appointment problems
Critics argued the bill improved appointment procedures but only partially addressed concerns about politicised appointments and did not fully meet broader standards for an independent Human Rights Commission.
Missed chance to add broader representation reforms
Some supporters said the bill should have gone further by adding an identified LGBTIQA+ commissionerA proposed Commission role that would focus on research, education, reporting and review work for LGBTIQA+ issues. or broader oversight reforms, warning that process changes alone would not address all gaps in the commissionThe federal body that deals with human rights complaints and advises on human rights issues in Australia.'s structure.
Further sources
Votes
The bill passed both chambers on the voices. The counted divisions below were about amendments or procedure, not final passage.
House agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Senate agreed to the bill's third reading on the voices, so there is no list of individual Aye and No votes for final passage in that chamber.
Passed on the voices
In a voice vote, members call out Aye or No and the presiding officer judges which side has it. Individual names are only recorded if a formal division is called.
Recorded amendment and procedural votes grouped by chamber. Expand a vote to see the party breakdown.
House
Passed 118 to 11. Support came from Labor, Liberal Party, Nationals, and Centre Alliance. Opposition came from Greens. Minor-party and independent votes were split.
The carried vote left the second-reading motion unchanged and allowed the bill to proceed without that extra statement.
Senate
Defeated 13 to 31. Support came from Greens and minor parties and independents. Opposition came from Labor, Liberal Party, Jacqui Lambie Network, Nationals, and minor parties and independents.
The 13-31 vote rejected the amendment package, so it did not change the bill.
These are amendment votes, not the final passage vote on the bill itself. The bill passed both chambers on the voices.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Dreyfus supports the bill because it makes appointments to the Human Rights Commission merit based and transparent, which he says will strengthen the commissionThe federal body that deals with human rights complaints and advises on human rights issues in Australia.'s independence and help restore its international accreditation.
Read in Hansard ↗Leeser supports the bill, saying the coalition does not oppose it and that it will make appointments to the commissionThe federal body that deals with human rights complaints and advises on human rights issues in Australia. more merit based, transparent and consistent.
Read in Hansard ↗Pocock supports the bill because it would make appointments to the Human Rights Commission more transparent and merit based, which he says will strengthen public trust.
Read in Hansard ↗Murphy supports the bill and says it should strengthen transparency, merit-based appointments, and public confidence in the Human Rights Commission.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
4 speakers · 5 contributions · 4 support
“The Australian Human Rights Commission has advocated for these reforms for some time and unreservedly supports the passage of the Bill as a priority.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“The effectiveness of our anti-discrimination system is dependent upon the proper functioning of, and support for, the Australian Human Rights Commission. An independent Human Rights Commission is fundamental to Australia's human rights agenda—both internationally and domestically. This government strongly supports the work of the Australian Human Rights Commission and is committed to restoring integrity to the process of President and Commissioner appointments.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Mark Dreyfus on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Minister's second reading speech
Dreyfus supports the bill because it makes appointments to the Human Rights Commission merit based and transparent, which he says will strengthen the commissionThe federal body that deals with human rights complaints and advises on human rights issues in Australia.'s independence and help restore its international accreditation. He presents it as part of the government's integrity agenda and says it will protect the commissionThe federal body that deals with human rights complaints and advises on human rights issues in Australia.'s credibility at home and abroad.
“This bill, of course, is part of our government's commitment to integrity and transparency. The bill implements the government's election commitment to restore integrity in appointments processes in the commission. Through legislating transparent and merit based selection processes, the bill strengthens the commission's institutional independence and integrity, ensuring the commission can undertake its statutory functions as an independent statutory body and engage in public debate impartially. These amendments will give the Australian public confidence in the commission, allowing any qualified Australian to put up their hand to represent their community.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Dreyfus supports the bill and commends it to the House because it restores merit-based, transparent appointments to the Human Rights Commission and helps protect the commissionThe federal body that deals with human rights complaints and advises on human rights issues in Australia.'s international accreditation and credibility. He says broader proposals, including creating a separate LGBTIQA+ commissionerA proposed Commission role that would focus on research, education, reporting and review work for LGBTIQA+ issues., should be dealt with separately and not through this bill.
“An independent human rights commission is fundamental to Australia's human rights agenda, both internationally and domestically. This government strongly supports the work of the Australian Human Rights Commission and is committed to restoring integrity to the process of commissioner appointments. As I've said, the bill will support the commission's reaccreditation as an A-status human rights institution, which is necessary for its international legitimacy and credibility. Most importantly, the bill reaffirms our commitments to restoring integrity to government. I do thank again all honourable members of the House for their contributions to the debate and commend the bill to the House.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
“An independent Human Rights Commission is fundamental to Australia's human rights agenda, both internationally and domestically. This government strongly supports the work of the Australian Human Rights Commission and is committed to restoring integrity to the process of commissioner appointments. The bill will support the commission's reaccreditation as an A-status National Human Rights Institution, which is necessary for its international legitimacy and credibility. Most importantly, this bill reaffirms our commitment to restoring integrity to government.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 3 support
“The coalition doesn't oppose the Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill 2022. The bill requires that appointments to the commission are made through a merit based and transparent process that is publicly advertised. The bill amends the Australian Human Rights Commission Act, the Age Discrimination Act, the Disability Discrimination Act, the Racial Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act to clarify that the maximum term of appointment for the president and commissioners is seven years, including any reappointments. The bill makes consistent qualification requirements for all commissioners by inserting a provision requiring the person to have appropriate qualifications, knowledge or experience.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We in the opposition are supporting the passage of this bill. It has been outlined what the bill achieves through putting in place some statutory measures around appointments, a merit based system of appointments, in a structured and statutory way within the act, which we believe will restore an accreditation to the national human rights institutions body, as has been foreshadowed in previous contributions.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Notwithstanding the clear issues with the accreditation process, the opposition does not oppose this legislation that seeks to address these process matters. It will enjoy our support, and we look forward to continuing to work very, very closely with like-minded countries across the world supporting human rights and the institutions that deliver these outcomes.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 mixed
“I indicated that the Greens will be supporting but seeking to amend the Australian Human Rights Commission Legislation Amendment (Selection and Appointment) Bill. This bill adds new criteria for the process of appointing members of the Australian Human Rights Commission, including a requirement for at least some merit based processes and public advertising. It applies to the President of the Australian Human Rights Commission, under the Human Rights Commission Act 1986, and each of the commissioners under the Age Discrimination Act, the Disability Discrimination Act, the Racial Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 3 support
“This bill is a good first step, but there is a way to go. While I appreciate the urgency in passing this legislation to avoid a downgrade in the commission's international rankings, I hope we can keep our sights on a broader set of reforms to end the jobs-for-mates culture.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“We need to put an end to the jobs for mates, the cronyism. There should be transparent, merit based selection processes for all public appointments. This bill is a good start. I commend the government for their swift action in addressing the issue here, but we need to extend these provisions across the board to all public appointments. I support the call for a new public appointments commissioner, who could be appointed to oversee the transition process and maintain a watchful eye on developments in this space overall. We need to restore trust in the public for the appointments that come from this place and for appointments in institutions that underpin our way of life and support management and decision-making on the ground.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“I think the bill should be supported, but it also represents an opportunity to raise a key issue in relation to commissioners that we don't have, and specifically a commissioner that I think is well overdue and that's an LGBTQI+ human rights commissioner.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
House · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
House · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
House · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
House · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
House · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Second reading agreed to
Second reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at second reading, meaning it accepted the bill in principle and allowed it to continue.
Senate · Committee of the Whole debate
Committee of the Whole debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Third reading agreed to
Third reading agreed
The chamber agreed to the bill at third reading, which completed passage through that chamber.
Parliament · Finally passed both Houses
Passed both houses
Both houses passed the bill in the same form, completing parliamentary passage.
Assent · Assent
Assent
The Governor-General gave Royal AssentThe final step that turns a passed bill into an Act of Parliament., turning the bill into an Act.
