The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) is a statutory authority comprised of a President and six specialist Commissioners. HREOC's mandate is to promote respect for and observance of human rights and it is primarily responsible for administering the Commonwealth's anti-discrimination regime as set out in the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, the Privacy Act 1988 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The Native Title Act 1993 also confers responsibilities on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. Central aspects of HREOC's functions include the handling and conciliation of discrimination complaints, education and advocacy, research into systemic forms of discrimination, and advising government on legislation and policy affecting human rights and discrimination issues. In addition, HREOC is responsible for overseeing Australia's obligations under seven key international human rights instruments.
The Government's 1997-98 Budget Paper No. 1 states that the 1997-98 HREOC budget of $17.8million is a 7.8% decrease from the 1996-97 budget of $19.3 million and that the foreshadowed 1998-99 HREOC budget of $11.8million is a decrease of 33.7%.(1) According to these figures, HREOC's funding over the next two years will be decreased by a little over 40%. This funding reduction provides one of the most significant savings for the Attorney-General's portfolio.(2) The Attorney-General has stated that the reduction in HREOC's funding in the 1997-98 budget is 'in real terms only the 4% dividend efficiency saving applicable to all agencies within the Attorney-General's portfolio' and that the further reduction in HREOC's funding in subsequent years amounts in real terms to only about 27%.(3)
In a press release concerning the budget measures, the Attorney-General has stated that '[t]he Government remains firmly committed to a strong and independent federal human rights body. A reduction in funding to [the HREOC]...reflect[s] a need across Government to ensure that in difficult financial times funds are applied and directed in an efficient and streamlined manner.'(4) Specifically, the Attorney-General has justified HREOC's funding decrease, particularly the significant decrease in 1998-99, on two major efficiency grounds.
Firstly, the Attorney-General has stated that the HREOC's 'growth over the last decade has been disproportionate to that in other areas of government. Over the past nine years funding to HREOC has increased from about $4 million to more than $20 million-a 500% increase.'(5) HREOC has responded that additional funds have been provided only to handle new responsibilities given to it by the Government or Parliament.(6) For example, the new responsibilities granted by Parliament to HREOC during the past decade, include:
It is noteworthy that in the past year HREOC reports that there has been a significant increase in the amount of racial discrimination and racial vilification complaints, although complaints on other grounds have remained steady.
The second justification suggested for the reduction in HREOC's funding is that it reflects a re-structure of, and proposed reduction in, HREOC's functions.(7) For example, the Government's Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill proposes to abolish HREOC's inquiry/determination functions and implement a regime whereby unconciliated complaints may be pursued in the Federal Court if an enforceable determination is required (in response to the High Court's decision in Brandy)(8) and proposes to centralise complaint handling and conciliation procedures. HREOC has stated that the inquiry/determination function comprises only a small percentage of its complaint handling work and accounts for only 4% of its budget.(9)
It has been argued that the cuts in HREOC's budget from 1997 to 1999 will result in a need to shed one-third of HREOC's staff from December 1997.(10) Opposition parties and community groups throughout Australia have expressed deep concern for the future efficacy of HREOC as a public defender of human rights and focal point for anti-discrimination laws.
The National Native Title Tribunal is established under the Native Title Act 1993. Native title claimant applications as well as non-claimant and compensation applications are lodged with the Tribunal. As at 6 May 1997, the Tribunal had received 519 claimant applications, 123 non-claimant applications and 8 compensation applications. The Tribunal also deals with 'future act' applications and, as at 6 May 1997, had received 437 of these.
Among other things, the Tribunal assesses claimant applications and, if certain statutory criteria are met, it then accepts the application for mediation. Mediation involves helping indigenous people, governments, industry and others reach native title agreements.
Where an agreement is reached as a result of mediation, the agreement can be referred to the Federal Court for a decision about whether a native title determination should be made. Where a native title agreement cannot be reached by the parties, the matter is referred to the Federal Court for decision.
Amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 are currently before the Parliament. The Government proposes, among other things, new responsibilities for the Tribunal. These include applying a new, higher threshold registration test and assisting parties who seek to negotiate Indigenous Land Use Agreements. The Government also refers to the 'increased native title workload now flowing through under the existing regime.'(1)
The Budget also provides additional funding to the Federal Court for Native Title Act responsibilities. Under the proposed amendments to the Native Title Act 1993, native title and compensation applications will be lodged in the Federal Court, not the National Native Title Tribunal (as presently occurs), and applications which meet certain formal requirements will then be referred to the National Native Title Tribunal for notification and mediation. Among other things, the Federal Court will also be involved in deciding questions of law or fact referred to it by the Tribunal during mediation, and for hearing strike-out applications in respect of native title claims. The proposed changes to the functions of the National Native Title Tribunal and the Federal Court are a response to the High Court's decision in Brandy v. Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
The revenue to be raised from High Court fees, fines and costs is to rise over 300% in 1997-98 compared to the amount of revenue in the previous year. The vast majority of the increase will come from increases in High Court fees, which are estimated to raise an additional $1.8 million in 1997-98, $1.8 million in 1998-99, $1.9 million in 1999-2000 and $1.9 million in 2000-01.
The Attorney-General's Portfolio statement explains the cost increases as an increase in cost recovery for the High Court to a level consistent with other Commonwealth, State and Territory courts.
Increases in court fees and costs are often seen as mechanisms which deepen the inability of people to access the court system and so reduce the number of people who can afford to enforce their rights. However, while this argument may be of great importance in regard to lower level courts, its validity in relation to the High Court may be doubted. The cost of arguing a matter before the High Court and before lower courts if the matter is an appeal will greatly exceed the effect that an increase in court fees may have on dissuading people from taking a matter to the High Court.
The National Crime Authority (NCA) was established in 1984 with the main purpose of conducting investigations into organised crime, and was established after agreement with the relevant State and Territory Ministers. The Commonwealth, State and Territory Ministers comprise the Inter-Government Committee, which oversees the general operation of the NCA.
The NCA conducts two types of investigations, special and general. Special investigations are based on referrals from the Commonwealth, State or Territory Minister after consultation with the Inter-Governmental Committee. When undertaking special investigations, the NCA may use coercive powers to force people to appear before NCA hearings to give evidence and to produce documents. Since its establishment in 1984 the NCA has had 28 matters referred to it. The NCA may establish task forces in general investigations, but the NCA's coercive powers cannot be used in these circumstances.
The NCA's budget for the 1996-97 year was significantly reduced as part of the Howard Government's public sector program of cost reductions. Revenues from government totalled $45.8 million in 1994-95,(1) $45.1 million in 1995-96,(2) $37.3 million (estimate) in 1996-97 and $44.9 million (estimate) in 1997-98.(3)
The significant Budget measure proposed by the government relating to the NCA is an additional $20.4 million over three years to implement a program targeting fraud against the Commonwealth. The measure is estimated to increase recovery by the Australian Taxation Office by $60 million, and forfeiture under the Proceeds of Crime Act by $20 million.(4)
