Page 3014 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 23 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
is not declined. While this is a useful time limit in an administrative sense, not least because it lets parties know that the commissioner intends to move beyond the preliminary stage of investigation after 60 days, that effect can equally be achieved through timeframes set by the commission in the context of the nature of the complaint.
This bill gives the human rights commission significant powers to require people to provide it with information or documents or to attend for an interview. Those powers will support the imposition of appropriate timeframes set by the commission in relation to particular complaints in light of all the circumstances. For example, if a respondent appears reluctant to provide information about the circumstances surrounding a complaint, the commission will be able to write giving that respondent a time limit within which to produce the information and setting out how the information is to be provided. Penalties will apply for failure to comply with such a request.
Additionally, the flexible framework within which the commission will make decisions about when to conciliate a complaint or to close a complaint will allow it to make clear to parties that delay in responding will not prevent the matter moving towards a conclusion. Together with the power to require a party to attend an arranged conciliation, this will remove any incentive the respondent may have to attempt to stonewall on an issue.
This mechanism not only allows the human rights commission to set appropriate timeframes, rather than having inappropriate ones thrust upon it, but also allows real consequences to flow, in contrast to a statutory time limit that cannot be enforced in practice. The framework established by this bill includes broad and flexible powers to look into complaints about health services, disability services, services for older people and discriminatory behaviour.
Uniform procedures for consideration of complaints will make it easier for members of the commission to make decisions about allocation of the resources available to the office and will facilitate joint consideration of complaints that raise issues across boundaries between specialty areas. This bill does not make significant changes from the way current complaints are handled in practice, as its provisions are based on existing provisions about health service and discrimination complaints. However, the terms used are more modern, broader and more flexible in order to ensure that the human rights commission has the capacity to approach each matter in the most appropriate fashion.
There is significant support in the community for statutory oversight and complaints resolution services in a number of specialist areas. This new human rights commission will provide that service to the ACT community in an efficient, effective and accessible fashion. With expert and committed members, I believe it will provide excellent service to the people of Canberra.
It is important that we, in our debate today on the establishment of the human rights commission, do not allow ourselves to become distracted by a continuing opposition to a bill of rights or the Human Rights Act itself. This is about the establishment of an administrative structure that suits the needs of all of those within our community that would seek to access services to deal with a human rights issue, discrimination, disability or health services, rather than simply to regurgitate the fundamental opposition which some have to human rights per se.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .