Australian Capital Territory Bills Explanatory Statements
[Index]
[Search]
[Download]
[Bill]
[Help]
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION BILL 2005
Explanatory
Statement
Proposed Amendments
from Dr Deb Foskey, MLA
Human Rights Commission Bill
2005;
Human Rights Commission
(Children and Young People’s Commissioner) Amendment Bill 2005;
and
Public Advocate Act
2005
August 18,
2005
Amendments to the Human Rights Commission Bill
2005
Amendment 1 - Clause 6 – Objects of the
Act
This amendment inserts a new function for the Human
Rights Commission (HRC) under the objects of the Act. The objects proposed in
Clause 6 of the Act focus on the role of the Commission in 1) promoting the
rights of individuals within service systems and 2) complaints handling. This
amendment articulates a role for the commission in promoting human rights in the
community; identifying and examining issues that affect the human rights and
welfare of vulnerable groups in the community; and making recommendations to
government and non-government agencies on legislation, policies, practices and
services that affect vulnerable groups in the community. While this broader
role is not precluded under the Act, it is given little emphasis. We believe
that the community expects that the Commission will be proactive in promoting
human rights but that this is not articulated well in the Bill. In developing
the amendment we looked at consultation feedback on the proposed Human Rights
Commission and drew on examples of functions from comparable statutory agencies
interstate. Similar amendments are proposed in relation to the functions of the
Disability and Community Services Commissioner, Health Services Commissioner and
Children and Young People’s Commissioner.
Amendment 2 – Clause 8(2) - New note regarding
definition of disability
This amendment inserts a note under the definition of
disability in the HRC Bill clarifying that disability is defined differently in
the Discrimination Act 1991. It is appropriate that the definition of
disability in the Discrimination Act remain much broader than the one in this
Act. However, given that some people accessing the Commission will be making
discrimination complaints, it is important that the difference in the
definitions is highlighted in order to avoid confusion.
Amendment 3 & 6 – Clause 21(1)(aa) &
25(1)(aa) – Additional functions for the Disability and Community Services
Commissioner and the Health Services Commissioner
In line with the amendment to the functions of the HRC
overall (amendment 1), amendments 3 & 4 insert additional functions for the
Disability and Community Services Commissioner and the Health Services
Commissioner. A similar amendment is proposed relating to the Children and
Young People’s Commissioner. The amendments expand the functions of
individual commissioners to encompass the provision of education, information
and advice; public awareness, research into issues affecting people with a
disability, older people and carers, making recommendations to government and
non-government agencies (beyond the context of service delivery) and promoting
the participation of individuals in decisions that affect their own lives. The
intent is to provide Commissioners with a clear statutory basis for being
proactive and engaging with the community.
Amendment 4, 5, 7 & 9 – Clause 21(2),
23(3) & 25(2) – Changes to the Authority of
Commissioners
There has been some concern from community groups
regarding Commissioners losing individual autonomy and the capacity to make
decisions as a result of parallel clauses in the Bill which subordinate the
decisions of individual Commissioners to the collective decisions of the
Commission overall. These amendments change the parallel clauses to retain the
authority of individual commissioners in exercising the functions of their
office while remaining subject to decisions of the Commission in relation to
administrative matters. This also makes the restrictions that apply to the
function of Commissioners consistent with the restriction of the
President’s functions in Clause 19(2).
Amendments 8, 10 & 11 – Clause 26, 34(1)
& 34(3) – Human Rights Commissioner and Discrimination
Commissioner
Amendment 8 removes the requirement in Clause 26 of the
Bill that one person fills the two positions of the Human Rights Commission and
the Discrimination Bill. Amendments 10 and 11 are consequential changes to
related examples in Clauses 34(1) & 34(3). While it is the current
situation that the Human Rights Commissioner and the Discrimination Commissioner
are the same person there does not appear necessary to enshrine this in
legislation. At some time in the future it might be preferable to have two
separate positions, each of which could be part-time or full-time dependant on
work load. The amendment does not change the status quo, the Human Rights
Commissioner and the Discrimination Commissioner can continue to be filled by
one person. The amendment simply provides greater flexibility so that this can
change in the future without changing requiring legislative
amendment.
Amendment 12 - Clause 45(2) – Introducing a
time limit for the initial consideration of a complaint.
Various community groups have expressed concern
regarding the removal of the 60-day time limit for an initial investigation of
discrimination complaints, arguing that this time limit has worked well and
should be retained. According to experts in the field, delays in any initial
consideration of a complaint can result in respondents to a complaint attempting
to stifle the complaint; pressure being applied to people making complaints;
parties becoming increasingly entrenched and inflexible as time passes and
memories fading; all of which can impact on the potential for a satisfactory
resolution of the complaint. Our amendment proposes a 90-day time limit to apply
to the initial investigation of all complaints to determine whether the
complaint can be dealt with by the Commission, or should otherwise be declined.
This would allow 30 days for the complaint to be allocated to a commissioner or
commissioners and 60 days for an initial investigation to be conducted and a
decision made with regard to whether the complaint will be taken further or
declined. It is important to note that the time limit applies only to an
initial consideration, not to the full investigation or resolution of the
complaint. The obligation on the Commission in Clause 45 of the Bill to
‘deal with complaints promptly and efficiently’ continues to apply
to the investigation and resolution of complaints.
Amendments 13 & 14 - Clauses 51(1) & 51(2)
– Autonomy of Commissioners to refer a Complaint to
Conciliation
Clause 51 of the Bill places the authority to refer a
complaint to conciliation with the Commission rather than individual
Commissioners. The amendments change this to give individual Commissioners the
authority to refer a complaint that they are investigating for conciliation,
without reference back to a meeting of the Commission. We believe that it is
important that Commissioners have decision-making authority in matters that have
been delegated to them and that there are no unnecessary delays in referring
matters to conciliation.
Amendments 15
& 16 - Clauses 87(1) & 87(2) – Autonomy of Commissioners to Report
to the Minister
Similar to the discussion
above, Clause 87 of the Bill places the authority to make a report to the
Minister with the Commission rather than individual Commissioners. The
amendments change this to give individual Commissioners the authority to make a
report to the Minister, without reference back to a meeting of the Commission.
We believe that it is important that Commissioners have decision-making
authority in matters that have been delegated to them and that Commissioners can
act promptly in providing reports on matters of public importance.
Amendments to the Human Rights
Commission (Children and Young People’s Commissioner) Amendment Bill
2005
Amendment 1 - Clause 13 – Additional Functions
for the Children and Young People’s Commissioner
Consistent with our amendments (1, 3 & 6) to the
functions of the HRC overall, the functions of the Disability and Community
Services Commissioner and the functions of the Health Services Commissioner;
this amendment proposes additional functions for the Children and Young
People’s Commissioner. Broadening the role of this Commissioner is
particularly important because supporting the rights and welfare of children and
young has unique challenges that extend beyond service delivery settings. It is
worth noting that in community consultations conducted by the Government,
stakeholders identified the proactive promotion of rights and community
education as primary roles of the Children and Young People’s Commissioner
ahead of the complaint handling function. We believe that stakeholders got it
right and that this facet of the Commissioners work needs to be given clear
emphasis in the legislation.
Amendment 2 - Clause 13 – Decision-making
authority of the Children and Young People’s
Commissioner
Consistent with amendments (4, 5, 7 & 9) to the HRC
Bill, this amendment narrows the range of decisions by the Children and Young
People’s Commissioner that are subject to decisions of the Commission as a
whole. The Bill states that exercising the functions of the Children &
Young People’s Commissioner is subject to decisions by the Commission.
This could mean that any decisions of the Children and Young People’s
commissioner are subject to decisions made by a meeting of all the Commissioners
and the President of the Human Rights Commission. The amendment changes the
clause to make the Commissioner subject to decisions of the Commission only in
relation the administrative arrangements, giving the Commissioner more autonomy
to fulfil the responsibilities of their role. This also makes the restrictions
that apply to the function of the commissioner consistent with the restriction
of the President’s functions in Clause 19(2).
Amendments 3 & 4 - Clause 14 - Functions and
decision-making authority of the Disability and Community Services
Commissioner
These amendments repeat amendments 3 & 4 to the HRC
Bill and will only be moved if they have been agreed to in that debate. Because
of changes to the same clauses contained in this Bill these amendments need to
be moved again in order not to be lost.
Amendment 5 - Schedule 1, Changes to Section 5(2)(n)
of the Ombudsman Act 1989 – Jurisdiction of the
Ombudsman
Amendments to Section 5(2)(n) of the Ombudsman Act 1989
contained in this Bill would restrict the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman in
relation to complaints about services provided to children and young people,
with similar restrictions to complaints about health services, disability
services and services to older people introduced in the HRC Bill. The Scrutiny
of Bills Report (No. 14) raised concerns regarding the potential for
jurisdiction disputes arising as a result of this, which could result in some
complaints not being handled by either the Ombudsman or the Human Rights
Commission. We believe that it is important to avoid this and our amendment
would omit Clause 5(2)(n) in the Ombudsman leaving that office with jurisdiction
over any complaint that is not dealt with by the Human Rights Commission. Clause
6(B) of the Ombudsman Act 1989 requires the Ombudsman to refer any complaints
more appropriately dealt with by the Human Rights Commission to the Commission,
thus avoiding duplication or confusion without limiting the jurisdiction of the
Ombudsman.
Amendments to the Public
Advocate Bill 2005
Amendment 1- Schedule 1, Changes to Section 6B of
the Ombudsman Act 1989 – Mandatory Referral to the Public
Advocate
Section 6B of the Ombudsman Act 1989 contains an
obligation of mandatory referral of complaints by the Ombudsman to another
statutory agency if one of the listed agencies is the more appropriate agency to
investigate the complaint. The amendment adds the Public Advocate to the list
of agencies that the Ombudsman can refer complaints to.
[Index]
[Search]
[Download]
[Bill]
[[Help]]