information in a way that allows the committee to undertake its scrutiny task efficiently. The committee expects statements of compatibility to be able to be read as standalone documents. If the rulemaker considers that no rights are engaged, the committee expects that reasons should be given, if possible, to support that conclusion. This is particularly important where such a conclusion may not be selfevident from the description of the instrument’s objective. If human rights are limited by a legislative instrument, the committee prefers statements of compatibility to follow the sequence of steps set out in the assessment tool and associated guidance developed by AGD. Statements should provide information on: whether and how the limitation is aimed at achieving a legitimate objective; and whether and how there is a rational connection between the limitation and the objective; and whether and how the limitation is reasonable, necessary, and proportionate. Further guidance on issues and instruments of concern to the committee is available on the website. committee’s Previous ministerial or parliamentary undertakings A Minister or rulemaker may, on occasion, give an undertaking to the Parliament or a committee of the Parliament to review or change how an instrument operates, or to change drafting, consultation or other practices before making a similar instrument. If such an undertaking is relevant to a new instrument, the undertaking should be acknowledged and its implementation discussed in the explanatory statement for the new instrument. If an instrument or provision is very similar in substance to one made recently The imposes significant restrictions on remaking an instrument or provision before, and for a period after, tabling. Consequently, if an instrument or provision is being remade while restrictions apply or shortly after they end, the explanatory statement should acknowledge the restrictions and explain why they do not apply (see paragraphs 288 to 296 for more detail). Consequences of failure to provide explanatory statements on time An explanatory statement for a legislative instrument must be lodged with OPC for registration at the same time as, or as soon as practicable after, the legislative instrument that it explains (s 15G(4)(a)). Although a failure to lodge the explanatory statement as required does not affect the validity or enforceability of the registered instrument (s 15K(2)), the rulemaker: remains under a statutory obligation to lodge the explanatory statement with OPC for registration; and
information in a way that allows the committee to undertake its scrutiny task efficiently. The committee expects statements of compatibility to be able to be read as standalone documents. If the rulemaker considers that no rights are engaged, the committee expects that reasons should be given, if possible, to support that conclusion. This is particularly important where such a conclusion may not be selfevident from the description of the instrument’s objective. If human rights are limited by a legislative instrument, the committee prefers statements of compatibility to follow the sequence of steps set out in the assessment tool and associated guidance developed by AGD. Statements should provide information on: whether and how the limitation is aimed at achieving a legitimate objective; and whether and how there is a rational connection between the limitation and the objective; and whether and how the limitation is reasonable, necessary, and proportionate. Further guidance on issues and instruments of concern to the committee is available on the committee’s website. Previous ministerial or parliamentary undertakings A Minister or rulemaker may, on occasion, give an undertaking to the Parliament or a committee of the Parliament to review or change how an instrument operates, or to change drafting, consultation or other practices before making a similar instrument. If such an undertaking is relevant to a new instrument, the undertaking should be acknowledged and its implementation discussed in the explanatory statement for the new instrument. If an instrument or provision is very similar in substance to one made recently The imposes significant restrictions on remaking an instrument or provision before, and for a period after, tabling. Consequently, if an instrument or provision is being remade while restrictions apply or shortly after they end, the explanatory statement should acknowledge the restrictions and explain why they do not apply (see paragraphs 288 to 296 for more detail). Consequences of failure to provide explanatory statements on time An explanatory statement for a legislative instrument must be lodged with OPC for registration at the same time as, or as soon as practicable after, the legislative instrument that it explains (s 15G(4)(a)). Although a failure to lodge the explanatory statement as required does not affect the validity or enforceability of the registered instrument (s 15K(2)), the rulemaker: remains under a statutory obligation to lodge the explanatory statement with OPC for registration; and