Page 5275 - Week 16 - Thursday, 28 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
include it there so that there would be no doubt? It is not a matter of the commissioner making a decision as to whether they could or not; a person with an impairment would have the right.
MR DUBY (4.28): I, too, would like to hear why the Government would not support that amendment. I notice that the amendment that Mr Stevenson is moving has a subclause (b) which he has not mentioned. It mentions a legal representative. I think that should be struck out because that matter has already been debated at length. But it is quite obvious that some persons appearing before the commissioner could well have an impairment of some kind which would render assistance likely. However, I also remember reading in the Bill that the representation, I think, is at the discretion of the commissioner.
I guess that in a circumspect way, Mr Speaker, I have answered my own question. Mr Stevenson, if someone is sufficiently impaired to require assistance at a commission hearing, it would be obvious that the commissioner would recognise that, particularly if the nature of the complaint was discrimination against the person's impairment. On that basis, I guess, it should be apparent that that particular amendment would not be required. I think the arguments, as I said, about subclause (b) relating to a legal representative have already been discussed in this chamber. The need for that was dispensed with.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (4.29): Yes, the bottom line is that there is that discretion and it is widely exercised where there are people with disabilities. I draw, also, to Mr Stevenson's attention - but Mr Duby will probably be more interested and actually read it - the fact that in clause 66, which is the provision that initiates complaints, there is a provision that, if you are incapable of launching a complaint yourself due to disability, the agent can have the carriage of the whole matter. So, it ranges from a specific provision to allow another person to have the carriage of the whole matter, to simply coming along as an agent to assist.
Mr Duby: So, it means that this amendment is superfluous.
MR CONNOLLY: It is superfluous. This is the practice in all commissions across Australia. The discretion of the commissioner to allow any agent, whether they be a legal representative or a next friend, is invariably exercised in a sensible manner. The purpose is that people should be able to do this themselves. If they have any reason why they cannot, the commissioner will exercise the discretion accordingly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .