Page 5990 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 8 December 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
When I asked the commissioner about whether he felt that he had the right powers if there was a ministerial direction to conduct an inquiry, he said to me, “Mrs Dunne, I don’t honestly know.” I have subsequently received correspondence from the commissioner that says, “We’ve gone away and thought about it and, yes, we think we do have the power.” If you read enough of the provisions of the Human Rights Commission Act together, you probably find those powers. But what you are doing is asking the commissioner to review a systemic level failure through a mechanism which is usually referred to for particular failings in particular cases. We are shoehorning a very big inquiry into something which is usually not a very big inquiry.
When you look at all the mechanisms together, we still do not have complete satisfaction that the powers are there for the commissioner. I said to the commissioner, “I don’t have a problem with you being the inquirer.” It is probably not for the Assembly to tell the executive who they should appoint, especially under the Inquiries Act. But I would not have a problem with the commissioner undertaking those inquiries. “But I want to ensure, whether it is you or somebody else, that you have all the powers that you need.” And he said to me, “Mrs Dunne, so would I.”
Everyone is on the same page here. We are all saying that we need an inquiry. Only the Canberra Liberals are saying that we should have an inquiry where we are sure, we are guaranteed, that there are protections for people who give evidence and that there are enough powers to compel people. The commissioner himself is still in doubt and has not satisfied me. The advice I have received from my legal advisers does not satisfy me that the commissioner conducting a system-wide review would fit easily and comfortably inside his remit under the Human Rights Commission Act.
There are a whole lot of problems here about statutory protections for witnesses about which we are not satisfied. I therefore propose to move the amendment circulated in my name to Ms Hunter’s amendment, which keeps all of the other stuff that is in Ms Hunter’s amendment. I think that is good. There is no concern about a human rights commission audit, and her extension of the terms of reference enhances the inquiry. The only thing we are working on is whether we will have a good inquiry that has all the powers it needs or whether we do not. There is doubt over the path proposed by Ms Hunter. The challenge is: do we want a good inquiry or do we have to come back here later and extend the powers of the inquirer because he does not have the powers?
Ms Hunter said that she does not want to demonise Bimberi. If we have to drag this out because the commissioner, the inquirer, does not have enough powers, we will demonise Bimberi. The best way we can do this is to resolve it quickly, but not so quickly as to gloss over it.
The minister said that most of the inquiries under the Inquiries Act had taken something like six months and, in one case, a year. That delay was because of action by the Stanhope government that delayed the bringing down of that report and substantially increased the reporting time. My original motion gives the inquirer six months, and that is a reasonable time. No inquiry that would do a proper job and do justice to the young people and the people who work there would be done in anything
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video