Recommendation
1
The Senate should not
support the proposal to remove specialist
Commissioners and instead identify other means
of broadening the Commission that do not come at
the expense of people with
disability.
Recommendation
2
In recognition of the
relative success of each approach in achieving
an end to systemic discrimination, the Senate
should reject the Government's attempts to
prioritise community education over complaints
handling.
Recommendation
3
The Senate should not
accept any move to expand the duties of the
Commission without an accompanying increase in
resources.
Recommendation
4
The Senate should reject
the proposal that the Commission be required to
seek the permission of the Attorney-General
before intervening in court
proceedings.
Recommendation
5
The Senate should
institute amendments to ensure that the
outsourcing of complaints investigations to
State or Territory bodies does not lead to a
decline in the standard of service provided by
the Commission.
Introduction
On 27 March 2003, the
Attorney-General introduced the Australian Human
Rights Commission Legislation Bill 2003 (the
Bill) which proposes substantial reform of the
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission,
including:
- the removal of
specialist Commissioners;
- an increased emphasis
on community education;
- the requirement that
the Commission obtain the permission of the
Attorney-General before intervening in court
proceedings; and,
- the subcontracting of
complaints investigations to State and
Territory complaints bodies.
Each of these proposals is
addressed below.
1. The Removal of
Specialist Commissioners
Overview
The Executive of the
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
consists of a President and five
Commissioners - the Human Rights
Commissioner, the Race Discrimination
Commissioner, the Sex Discrimination
Commissioner, the Disability Discrimination
Commissioner, and the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner.
In recent years the Race Discrimination and
Disability Discrimination Commissioner
positions have remained unfilled.
The Bill proposes to
replace the specialist Commissioners with
three generalist Human Rights Commissioners.
Between them, these Commissioners would
consider all complaints. The Government
argues that this will allow the Commission to
consider a broader range of
complaints.
Response
PDCN does not support
the proposal to remove the specialist
Commissioners. The issues involved in direct,
indirect and systemic discrimination against
people with disability are complex.
Specialist knowledge and expertise is
required to accurately assess complaints.
Moreover, a Commissioner with specialist
knowledge of the impact of the discrimination
experienced by people with disability is
essential if the systemic policy work
undertaken by the Commission is to be
effective and well targeted.
Recommendation
1
The Senate not support
the proposal to remove specialist
Commissioners and instead identify other
means of broadening the Commission that do
not come at the expense of people with
disability.
2. An Increased Emphasis
on Community Education
Overview
The Bill proposes to
make the primary role of the Commission to
educate the community about discrimination
and human rights. Accordingly, it proposes
that the Commission be given a new
responsibility to disseminate relevant
information to the community. The
Attorney-General has claimed that the
Commission's responsibilities in terms of
complaints would remain.
The Bill also alters
the structure of the Commission to replace
the five specialised Commissioners (currently
responsible for the specified areas of Human
Rights, Sex Discrimination, Race
Discrimination, Disability Discrimination and
the Rights of Indigenous people) with three
"Human Rights Commissioners".
Response
The proposal is
predicated on the assumption that community
education about human rights can achieve
systemic change. Unfortunately however, this
is not the experience of PDCN and it's
members. Without agreed and enforceable
Standards in areas such as education,
employment, access and transport, the lodging
of individual complaints has continued to be
the most effective way for people with
physical disability to protect their
rights.
In addition, PDCN
cannot give credence to the claim that the
proposed change in focus will not impact on
the Commission's ability to address
complaints. The Bill proposes a substantial
increase in the responsibilities of the
Commission without an accompanying increase
in resources.
Since 1996, the
Commission's budget has been reduced by 55%
and as a consequence waiting times for the
processing of complaints have already become
unacceptably long. The proposal would simply
further stretch the Commission's already
inadequate resources.
Recommendation
2
In recognition of the
relative success of each approach in
achieving an end to systemic discrimination,
the Senate should reject the Government's
attempts to prioritise community education
over complaints handling.
Recommendation
3
Further, that the
Senate should not accept any move to expand
the duties of the Commission without an
accompanying increase in
resources.
3. Intervention in Court
Proceedings
Overview
The Bill would require
the reformed Commission to seek leave from
the Federal Attorney- General to intervene in
court proceedings that raise human rights
issues, unless the Commission President is a
Federal Court judge.
Response
This proposal is viewed
as an attack on the independence of the
Commission. A significant proportion of the
people with disability experience
discrimination by Commonwealth agencies. It
is obvious that the potential exists, as a
result of this proposal, for the
Attorney-General to refuse permission for the
Commission to intervene in such cases in
order to avoid embarrassment for the
Government.
While the nature of
Commonwealth legislation is obviously a
matter for Federal Parliament, there are many
organisations and advocates nationally that
are concerned that these amendments will
seriously impede the advocacy and
intervention powers of the
Commission.
Recommendation
4
The Senate should
reject the proposal that the Commission be
required to seek the permission of the
Attorney-General before intervening in court
proceedings.
4. Subcontracting
Complaints Investigation
Overview
The Bill would allow
the Commission to subcontract complaints
investigation to State and Territory
complaints handling bodies.
Response
Past attempts by HREOC
to subcontract complaints investigation work
to State and Territory complaints handling
agencies have met with mixed success. The
services provided in some States were
substandard, with the result that the
Commission was forced to resume control of
the work.
PDCN has found the work
of the Commission complaints investigators to
be of the highest quality. We would seek
assurances that subcontracting would not
occur unless this level of quality of service
could be assured.
Recommendation
5
The Senate should
institute amendments to ensure that the
outsourcing of complaints investigations to
State or Territory bodies does not lead to a
decline in the standard of service provided
by the Commission.
Conclusion
There are many within the
community who believe the Bill will
significantly undermine the independence of the
Commission in the exercise of its "intervention
powers". The Commission has used these powers on
thirty five occasions in the Australian courts
and tribunals during cases which involved human
rights abuses and/or discrimination. The
Commission was able to present written and oral
argument to the legal proceedings.
Furthermore, it is the
concern of PDCN that the removal of the five
specialist portfolio Commissioners will result
in the erosion of knowledge, skills and
credibility. It is this specialist knowledge and
commitment which is desperately required in
order to bring about real and lasting systemic
change for people with disability. The five
specialist portfolio Commissioners (such as the
Human Rights and Acting Disability
Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Sev Ozdowski)
have had the opportunity to consult and engage
within their areas of responsibility and have
been empowered through that process. Three
generic Commissioners simply will not have the
same opportunity to develop the current degree
of knowledge, community engagement and
commitment.
PDCN calls upon the
Commonwealth Parliament to reconsider this
proposal and maintain the independence of the
HREOC and the specialist portfolio
Commissioners.
PDCN also offers to appear
before the Committee in order to provide further
comment on this vitally important
issue.
Yours sincerely
David Brice
President - PDCN
Thursday, April 24th, 2003
