Page 3033 - Week 10 - Tuesday, 23 August 2005
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It seems to me that we are going to have a model—we will wait and see—that is cobbled together, I am told, along the lines of the model of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. I am aware that there are problems with the way that commission operates. I have no idea of the details. I am sure there are frustrations for individuals working within it. Therefore I would like some commitment from the government that they will review the model they are setting up.
It has to be understood that, whichever model is chosen, there are going to be problems. It would be so much better to identify those, say, 12 months down the track and act to rectify them. I see this Human Rights Commission as absolutely integral to the whole system that we have in this place. We have got the whole world watching the way that we oversee human rights. We have the Bill of Rights. We have a Human Rights Act. We have academics coming from all over the world. We need to do it properly. At some point I would like to hear a commitment that, down the track, there will be an independent review of the structure that is set up.
Amendments negatived.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clauses 52 to 77, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 78.
MR STEFANIAK (Ginninderra) (12.25): I seek leave to move amendments Nos 2 and 3 circulated in my name together.
Leave granted.
MR STEFANIAK: I move amendments Nos 2 and 3 circulated in my name [see schedule 2 at page 3108].
I appreciated the Chief Minister’s comments. Attorney, even if we disagree with legislation, we do think it is always important to ensure that, if it is going to pass, it should operate as well as possible in all of the circumstances. I make that point. Apropos of that, as I said earlier, one of the concerns that was expressed to us was the question of forum shopping. Again, when I was going through this with the parliamentary counsel, we detected here that this amendment would be an improvement on what we have.
At present clause 78 (1) (e) provides that the commission may close a complaint at any time, and it lists a number of reasons, including that the complaint has been referred to a health professional board. Clause 78 (2) states that the commission must close a complaint if certain things apply, including that it is frivolous or vexatious or has been dealt with by a court or a tribunal. It ensures that the matter is closed only if a court or tribunal has dealt it with. It does not necessarily rule out all other boards or, indeed, commissions.
So we could have a situation where a complaint has been referred to a health professionals board or a health services commission—basically forum shopping—and
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .