Page 4831 - Week 16 - Thursday, 29 November 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Formal court hearings can be intimidating, even for those who are familiar with the process and etiquette. For this reason, inquiries and hearings by the commissioner will be conducted with the minimum of formality and this, I hope, will encourage people who think they have a real complaint to bring it forward and resolve it.
The complaint process in the Discrimination Bill will, on the whole, function without the involvement of lawyers. After a written complaint has been received by the commissioner, and he or she believes that the complaint should be further investigated, it will be the parties themselves who meet with the commissioner to explain what has happened and attempt to resolve the matter. When a complaint is investigated, the commissioner must try to resolve it by conciliation, that is, reach a solution that is acceptable to all parties.
Of course, it will not always be possible to settle complaints by conciliation. In those circumstances the commissioner has the power to give directions to the person against whom the complaint has been made and, if that person does not comply with the direction, such a breach will attract a $2,000 penalty. Directions may be to not repeat or continue the conduct complained about, or to perform an act or a series of acts to make up for the loss or damage suffered. Alternatively, the commissioner may decide that the most appropriate remedy is a direction to the party complained of to pay a specified amount of money to compensate the person who made the complaint.
The Discrimination Bill does not leave parties dissatisfied with the way a complaint has been resolved without recourse. When the commissioner makes a decision of the kind I have outlined, or if the commissioner decides a complaint should not be investigated, notice of the rights of review must also be given. In this legislation, review of the commissioner's decisions will be the responsibility of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The AAT has been chosen for this function because it offers a cheap and speedy review process.
Members, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, will be pleased to note that the Discrimination Bill which I table today provides that the ACT may enter into an arrangement with the Commonwealth under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 for performance of functions under the Commonwealth discrimination legislation. Such an arrangement will limit the possibility for the wasteful duplication of functions. The Opposition has previously expressed concern about the lack of such an arrangement for HREOC representation in the ACT. Such an arrangement between the ACT and the Commonwealth could not be made until very recently because until last week the corresponding Commonwealth legislation did not permit it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .