Page 3008 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 23 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
references to the new human rights commission and to change references to the Community and Health Services Complaints Commissioner to the health services commissioner.
This bill does not alter any rights created by any other act, nor does it change the way in which boards that help regulate certain health professionals under the act work together. It provides transitional provisions to ensure that complaints already being considered are taken over by the new commission and that existing rights to make complaints are not lost. Accordingly it is a consequential bill to the main bill and, of course, it flows from that main bill. The opposition will be opposing this bill, just as we oppose the government’s perceived need for a human rights act in the ACT. We do not think it is necessary. Nothing that has happened in the past 13 or 14 months has indicated that it is, overall, in the sum total of things, a plus for ordinary people in the ACT.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (10.48): The ACT Greens support the establishment of a human rights commission. We believe it is sensible to co-locate the commissioners who share responsibility for upholding human rights and responding to complaints regarding human services. There are a number of benefits, including the opportunity to establish shared administrative functions, undertake joint work on areas of cross-sector importance and identify systemic issues across government and non-government service sectors. We therefore support the broad intention behind this bill. Having said that, we believe it is important to get the legislation right and to ensure that the commission has the support and confidence of the community from the beginning.
In response to Mr Stefaniak’s speech on the bill, the Greens are not only concerned with the “ordinary punter” as he puts it, but also for the people who are overlooked and who need the protection of the human rights commission, those who are often unable to speak for themselves. All our amendments are geared towards strengthening the ability of the human rights commission and its commissioners to respond to the needs of these people.
There have been a number of suggestions for improving the legislation from community groups including, but not limited to, ACTCOSS, Welfare Rights and Legal Service and the Women’s Legal Centre, as well as individuals who have extensive experience working with people who use such services as health, disability and services for young people, particularly vulnerable groups who are most at risk of discrimination and breaches against their human rights. Those with firsthand experience with the complaints mechanism currently in place are in a good position to anticipate the impact of the changes proposed by the bill.
The ACT Greens agree with those community groups and individuals who have argued that the bill goes too far in transferring responsibilities and decision-making from individual commissioners to the commission. Individual commissioners will lose considerable autonomy, which may compromise their capacity to set priorities or make decisions regarding commission-initiated investigations and provide reports to government. These decisions will be made by the commission as a whole, with the casting vote belonging to the president. Given the power vested in the president, it is of concern that the role is currently ambiguous. What is not clear is the skills and qualifications they will have, and whether the emphasis will be on leadership, administration or experience of individual commissioners across their key areas of responsibility.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .