Page 29 - Week 01 - Tuesday, 9 February 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
of the Human Rights Commission. Commissioners will retain their existing titles and roles. This will, I think, enhance accountability and governance in the commission, centralising complaints under a consistent process, simplifying the interface with the public and centralising organisational and reporting responsibilities in the commission.
I note that originally the government had suggested using a regulation to set out the portfolio responsibilities of the commissioners. The executive would have had the final decision on the scope of the functions and outputs of the commission. I am pleased this has been removed. I think stakeholders were right in their feedback that such an approach challenged the independence of the commission. The revised approach set out in the bill requires the commission to work in a collegiate fashion with the Justice and Community Safety Directorate, the responsible directorate for the purposes of the legislation.
Section 18A of the bill requires the new president of the Human Rights Commission to develop a governance and corporate support protocol between JACS and the commission every three years. The protocol sets out several details about the operation of the commission over the next three years, including how JACS and the commission will work together, a strategic plan for the three-year period, processes for allocating funding within the commission, a budget for each commissioner, performance criteria to be met by the commission, financial and performance reporting and processes for requesting funding.
This is an approach that balances the commission’s independence with the need to maximise governance, accountability and transparency in government entities. The protocol is similar to the obligations set out for commonwealth entities in the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act, which also apply to the Australian Human Rights Commission. The purpose of these kinds of arrangements is to ensure high standards of governance, accountability, performance, use of resources and the like.
Removing the aspect of the bill that meant the executive would regulate the commission’s portfolio responsibilities was a good move and one that came about through the government’s consultation process. A consultant initially undertook a review of the statutory office holders. This led the government to propose changes, which it released for consultation. Based on submissions and feedback from stakeholders, further changes were made to the proposals, addressing several of the stakeholders’ concerns.
It has not necessarily been an easy process and I am aware that not all stakeholders agree on what is the ideal model to structure these organisations. I acknowledge their high level of interest and care and commitment to their roles and their desire to see the best possible outcome for their organisations. I have listened to their feedback closely and considered the options carefully. In the end, it is necessary to make a decision about the structure to go forward and not everyone will think it is perfect.
I am supportive of the bill’s proposal to transfer the functions of the Victims of Crime Commissioner to the Human Rights Commission. As the current commissioner said of the proposal, it presents an opportunity to improve service delivery to victims of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video