Page 3299 - Week 10 - Thursday, 19 October 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
We agree that there should be consensus decisions made between the commissioners regarding the general shared administrative arrangements, but beyond that it is our view that the individual commissioners should retain responsibility for their respective areas of work and the resources they require, to enable them to balance their duties regarding receiving and conciliating complaints versus systemic investigation.
I wonder whether commissioners will be able to undertake the work they are required to undertake under this legislation, including receiving and attempting to resolve complaints; encouraging improvement in the delivery of services; promoting community discussion and providing community education and information; identifying, inquiring into and reviewing issues relating to the matters that may be complained about under this act; providing advice to the minister about inquiries, as well as undertaking work he has requested under a ministerial direction; and collecting information about the operation of human rights commission acts and related acts, and publishing that information. And let us not forget that they must collectively oversee the administration of the commission.
All I can say to the three commissioners is good luck, considering the wide range of tasks they are expected to undertake, the diminishing number of commissioners employed to do it and the limited resources they will be allocated. I wonder if the ACT government expects the commissioners to undertake in-depth analyses like the human rights audit of Quamby or to provide advice on antiterror legislation, or any other legislation that requires extensive human rights analysis, on top of their other duties.
I will be also interested to see if, once the individual commissioners begin work, there is strong evidence for their need to promote citizens’ rights and examine issues facing groups of people, beyond the current outline, which restricts their ability to respond to complaints and examine issues related to service provision. I would like to hear from the government that there is a commitment to increase resources if the need is evident.
I would like to make special mention of the Children and Young People Commissioner—an election promise of this government—whose function is to be amalgamated with the Disability and Community Services Commissioner. The government’s own report from extensive consultations with children was called Listening to kids, and that is exactly what a part-time commissioner will not have time to do.
On the subject of conciliation, my office received a briefing on this bill on Monday morning and, although I am glad that the minister saw fit to give his officials a chance to explain these amendments to us prior to his tabling of the bill, one day’s notice of significant changes to social services and accountability infrastructures is woefully inadequate. During this briefing, my staff raised an issue about apparent incongruities surrounding the conciliation processes outlined in the bill. To start with, I have trouble with the concept that a commission of three people can meet and decide that one of their number will conciliate a complaint being heard by another of their number and that this process will be perceived as procedurally fair, let alone withstand the test of a legal challenge on the grounds of an appearance of bias.
The bill provides that the commission will act as an impartial third party, but it is hard to see how a first party can become a third party. It also misses the point that a party is
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .