Page 4482 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In my introduction of the legislation we have before us I did acknowledge the work done by the Alliance. I know that they do not feel that I grovelled sufficiently, but I certainly did acknowledge it. I should also point out that during our period in opposition we also introduced a Human Rights Bill as a private members' Bill in May of 1990. I find it very ironical that it was members opposite who used section 65 to deny any debate on that Bill. So, you cannot say that we have not kept trying to make progress on this Bill.
I would also like to point out, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the 1989 budget and the 1990 budget both contained provision for a human rights office in Canberra. We lost office before that could be provided in 1989 and the Alliance did not do that. The Alliance funded such an office in its 1990 budget and did not do it. So, I am afraid that the remarks that I have made about the apparent lack of action - I accept that there may have been a lot going on behind the scenes, but nothing came up front - during the period of the Alliance are true.
I would like finally, on the question of ownership of this Bill, to ask: If members of the former Alliance wish to claim it as theirs, then what on earth are these? There are pages and pages of proposed amendments to this Bill, circulated for the most part by Mr Stefaniak and Mr Collaery. How can you claim it as your own and then amend major sections, practically every clause? It just does not make sense. It simply does not make sense. You cannot have it both ways.
I would like to go through some of the changes that have occurred in this Bill. There has been considerable work done on the Bill since Labor took office again. Some of these changes were made following consultation with the Commonwealth Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, and others were made to bring the Bill more into line with our own Government's policy. I will outline some of those changes.
Firstly, the name of the Bill was changed, and that was changed for a very good reason. We believe that the Bill should emphasise the positive concepts which lie at the base of this kind of legislation, for example, the promotion of equal opportunity.
Also in this Bill we have expanded and clarified the definition of "transsexual", and the provision which required a complainant to choose whether to proceed under the Commonwealth legislation or the Territory legislation has been removed. There was concern that this provision may cut off a complainant's right of redress if the wrong choice was made. Instead, Mr Deputy Speaker, the commissioner has been given the power to decide not to investigate a complaint where the matter has already been dealt with adequately. It is a much more flexible approach which will not disadvantage complainants.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .