Page 3027 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 23 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (11.59): I seek leave to move amendments Nos 10 and 11 circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
DR FOSKEY: I move amendments Nos 10 and 11 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 3105].
Amendments Nos 10 and 11 refer to individuals with more than one role. These clauses need to be attended to due to the success of an earlier amendment. Currently clause 34 (3) reinforces that the human rights commissioner and the discrimination commissioner are the same person. Amendment No 11 allows for these positions to be filled by the same person, but does not preclude there being two separate people in the roles.
MR STANHOPE (Ginninderra—Chief Minister, Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment and Minister for Arts, Heritage and Indigenous Affairs) (12.01): The government will support these amendments.
Amendments agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 35 to 44, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 45.
DR FOSKEY (Molonglo) (12.02): I move amendment No 12 circulated in my name [see schedule 1 at page 3105].
Amendment No 12 addresses the timeframe for initial complaint consideration. The amendment would insert a new requirement in clause 45 (2) imposing a time limit of 90 days for the conduct of an initial investigation into discrimination, health, disability or ageing services complaints that result in a decision regarding whether the complaint will be dealt with by one or more commissioners or should otherwise be declined.
The current obligation on the commission in part 5 of the bill that “the commission must deal with complaints promptly and efficiently” is too broad and does not give people certainty. It also fails to provide the commission with clear performance benchmarks and lets the government off the hook in relation to ensuring that the commission is adequately resourced to manage complaints in an appropriate way.
Groups, including ACTCOSS, Welfare Rights and Legal Centre, and the Women’s Legal Centre have all expressed concern about the removal of the 60-day time limit for investigating and reporting on discrimination complaints. It has been pointed out that the FEMAG report did not recommend that the time limit be removed but, rather, that the discrimination commissioner be better resourced to meet the time limit without compromising other activities.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .