Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 02 Hansard (Tuesday, 2 March 2004) . . Page.. 581 ..

ensures that the Assembly is alerted in a timely manner to problems raised by the commissioner, just as it will be made aware of problems raised by the court.

MS DUNDAS (11.39): The Assembly has an essential role in the process established in this bill, which is intended to minimise the instances where human rights are infringed by ACT law and to make everyone aware that this is the case and it does happen. The advice that the Human Rights Commissioner provides a protection of human rights in the ACT would be of great interest and benefit to the Assembly and the wider community. I thank Ms Tucker for putting forward this amendment that would improve our access to advice prepared by the commissioner for the Attorney-General.

Just as we have successfully had the amendment to ensure that Supreme Court determinations are seen by both the Attorney-General and the Human Rights Commissioner, it is important that reports from the Human Rights Commissioner are seen by the Attorney-General and the Assembly. I accept that the privacy of the individual should be respected through this process, and indeed privacy is one of the very human rights that this bill seeks to enshrine. I support the inclusion of clause 1(b) that is to protect individuals. I am also willing to accept public interest exception, though I hope it will not be abused. Political embarrassment should not be used as grounds to invoke the public interest exception.

MR STANHOPE (Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for Environment and Minister for Community Affairs) (11.40): The government will agree to these amendments.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.

Proposed new 6A.

MS DUNDAS (11.41): I move amendment No 6 circulated in my name, which inserts a new part 6A [see schedule 1 at page 596].

This amendment includes a series of new sections, 41A to 41S, which creates a process for the referral of a complaint to the Human Rights Commissioner where a person believes their human rights have been infringed. The commissioner must investigate the complaint and order conciliation if they think this would help resolve the complaint. If conciliation fails, or is seen as likely to fail, the commissioner must give a statement to the parties involved specifying whether she or he thinks that a human right may have been infringed. The commissioner’s annual report must state the number of complaints made and how many cases involved possible infringement of human rights.

The investigation process—in fact the whole complaints process that I am proposing be inserted here—mirrors the process under the Discrimination Act 1991 for discrimination complaints, excepting that the Discrimination Tribunal model has not been copied for the purpose of this amendment so that the finding of the Human Rights Commissioner has exclusively only moral force.

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .