WARNING:
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Bill.
CONTENTS
Passage History
Purpose
Background
Main Provisions
Concluding Comments
Endnotes
Contact Officer and Copyright Details
Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill
(No.2) 1999
Date Introduced: 17 February 1999
House: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Attorney-General
Commencement: The Act will commence on a day
to be fixed by Proclamation, which is to be after the first day on
which all of the items of Schedule 1 of the Human Rights
Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 1999 have commenced. If the
Act has not commenced within the period of 6 months after receiving
Royal Assent or six months after the Human Rights Legislation
Amendment Act (No. 1) 1999 receives Royal Assent, it commences
on the second day after the end of that 6 months.
Items 13, 16, 90, 95 and 96 and Part 4 of
Schedule 1 and item 20 of Schedule 2 do not commence if the
Privacy Amendment (Office of the Privacy Commissioner) Act
1999 has already commenced. If that Act has not already
commenced, items 17 and Part 4 of Schedule 1 commence immediately
after that Act commences.
The purpose of
the Bill is to:
-
- rename the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission the
Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission
-
- restructure the new Commission by abolishing the five specific
commissioners responsible for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
social justice, human rights, disability, racial and sex
discrimination and replacing these commissioners with three Deputy
Presidents with responsibility for:
-
-
- human rights and disability discrimination
-
- racial discrimination and social justice and
-
- sex discrimination and equal opportunity
- create a requirement that the Attorney-General must grant
approval before the Commission can seek leave of a court to
intervene in a court proceeding related to human rights and
discrimination.
History of the Bill
The majority of the provisions of this Bill were
originally introduced into the House of Representatives on 8 April
1998 as the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998
(hereafter 'the 1998 Bill'). Parliamentary debate on the original
Bill was not completed before the 38th Parliament was
prorogued.
Following a recommendation by the Selection of
Bills Committee, the Senate referred the 1998 Bill to the Senate
Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee on 14 May 1998, for
inquiry and report by 10 August 1998. An interim report was
presented on 10 August 1998, however before the final report of the
Committee could be tabled, the 1998 Federal election was called.
After the election, the provisions of the 1998 Bill were referred
to the re-constituted Committee on 12 November 1998, for report by
1 December 1998. This reporting date was delayed and the
Committee's report was tabled on 17 February 1999.(1) The Majority
Report of the Committee generally recommended passage of the Bill,
although it also recommended several significant changes. The
Minority Reports of the Opposition and the Australian Democrats
recommended against passage of the Bill. These findings are
detailed in the Concluding Comments section of this Digest.
Overview of the Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission (HREOC) is a statutory authority comprised of a
President and six specialist Commissioners. HREOC's broad objective
is to promote respect for and observance of human rights and it is
primarily responsible for administering the Commonwealth's
anti-discrimination regime as enacted in the Racial
Discrimination Act 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act
1984, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act
1986, the Privacy Act 1988 and the Disability
Discrimination Act 1992. The Native Title Act 1993
also confers additional functions on the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. Central aspects of
HREOC's current functions include the handling and conciliation of
complaints made to HREOC, research into systemic forms of
discrimination, educative and advocacy roles 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 human rights
instruments.
This wide ranging human rights and
anti-discrimination regime has been developing for over two decades
and represents a legislative attempt to ensure that the democratic
aspiration of equality for all is substantively realised. The reach
of Australia's human rights laws has been significantly influenced
by the United Nations' codification of human rights norms. The
institutional mechanisms to handle human rights and discrimination
complaints have incrementally broadened as a way of securing an
effective legal framework to respond to this increasing range of
actionable human rights issues. The past few years have seen
Government proposals for a contraction and streamlining of the
operation and structure of the HREOC and this Bill is an important
part of this policy direction. In order to place the Bill in
context, an historical overview of Commonwealth human rights
legislation is provided below.
History of
Commonwealth human rights laws
Human Rights Bill 1973
In 1973, the first Human Rights Bill was
introduced into the Commonwealth Parliament. The Bill was based on
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
and provided for a Human Rights Commissioner who would settle
complaints under the Bill. This Bill was not passed prior to the
1974 double dissolution and was not reintroduced.
Racial Discrimination Act 1975
The Racial Discrimination Act 1975
(RDA) was the first piece of Commonwealth human rights legislation
and was implemented as a condition precedent for Australia's
ratification of the United Nations Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The RDA
established a Community Relations Commissioner, who was empowered
to receive, and attempt conciliation of, complaints of racial
discrimination in specified situations (for example, employment,
education, provision of goods and services). If conciliation
failed, the aggrieved person could initiate proceedings in a court.
The RDA also provided that all persons had the right of equality
before the law, thereby empowering a person aggrieved to make a
complaint to a civil court directly.
Human Rights Commission Act 1981
After the constitutional crisis of 1975, the
Liberal Government made two attempts in 1977 and 1979 to introduce
and pass a Bill for a Human Rights Commission. These both failed
due to the calling of a snap election and Senate opposition.
Following an election commitment by the Liberal Government to
continue with the 1979 Bill, the Parliament passed the Human
Rights Commission Act 1981. During the Second Reading Speech,
the then Attorney-General Senator Durack highlighted the dual
aspects of the Commission's role in protecting human rights through
complaint mechanisms and promoting human rights through research
and educative programs, noting that:
In an era ... in which governments exercise wide
powers and corporations and large institutions greatly influence
the lives of individuals, it is important to have an agency that is
active in the protection and promotion of rights of the
individual.(2)
This Act established the Human Rights
Commission, comprised of seven part time Commissioners and one
full-time Commissioner, which had inquiry and conciliation powers
and research responsibilities in relation to the rights outlined in
the international conventions scheduled to the Act
(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons,
Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons,
Declaration on the Rights of the Child). Where
appropriate, the Commission was to endeavour to effect a settlement
of a complaint and was empowered to serve a notice on a person of
its findings. However, these findings had no binding status.
The RDA was also amended so that the
Commissioner for Community Relations was transferred to the new
Commission and was subject to the directions of the Commission.
Sex Discrimination Act 1984
In 1984, after prolonged and controversial
debate, the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (SDA) was enacted.
The SDA sought to implement to some degree Australia's obligations
under the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All
Forms of Discrimination Against Women. It prohibited
discrimination on certain grounds (for example, sex, marital
status, pregnancy, sexual harassment) in specified areas (for
example employment, education, housing).
Reflecting the RDA, the SDA provided a right of
complaint to the Human Rights Commission, and established a Sex
Discrimination Commissioner, who was subject to the directions of
the Commission. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner was empowered
to attempt conciliation of complaints, and if conciliation failed,
the Commission was empowered to conduct an inquiry into the
complaint and make relevant declarations as to the status of the
complaint. However, these declarations had no binding status and if
an enforceable determination was required, the Commission or
complainant could initiate proceedings de novo in the
Federal Court.
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act
1986
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Act
1986 (HREOCA) reflected the Commission's increasing role in
the protection of human rights. HREOCA extended the name of the
Human Rights Commission and restructured the operation of the
Commission, establishing a Human Rights Commissioner responsible
for, among other things, complaints in relation to the scheduled
human rights instruments (see above).
The Community Relations Commissioner was
re-named the Race Discrimination Commissioner, in order to align
the title with the Sex Discrimination Commissioner and the HREOC
was empowered to make determinations and declarations in relation
to race discrimination consistent with its powers concerning sex
discrimination. Finally, all three Commissioners were made members
of the HREOC, rather than being subject to directions from the
HREOC. This shift in status was implemented to strengthen the HREOC
by ensuring the 'new Commission will have an effective and cohesive
leadership.'(3) The focus of the HREOC's work continued to be the
dual role of protecting human rights via complaint handling and
conducting research and educative programs into discrimination.
Privacy Act 1988
The Privacy Act 1988 gives effect to
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
Guidelines on the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of
Personal Data, as well as Article 17 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (scheduled to HREOCA).
The Act established a Privacy Commissioner, who is a member of
HREOC, and who has responsibility for investigation into complaints
that an act or practice of an agency has breached information
privacy principles, to examine proposed enactments which may
require acts which breach privacy principles and to conduct
research and education concerning privacy matters.
Disability Discrimination Act 1992
In 1992, the Disability Discrimination Act (DDA)
was enacted. Although no international convention exists in
relation to disability, the DDA reflected principles found in the
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded
Persons and the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled
Persons, both of which were scheduled to the Human Rights
Commission Act 1981 and HREOCA. The DDA generally mirrors the
structure and principles of the RDA and the SDA, and provides for a
Disability Discrimination Commissioner to administer the Act and
conciliate complaints, empowers the Commission to inquire into
unconciliated matters and provides for a focus on research and
education. Unlike the RDA and the SDA, the DDA also provides for
the Minister to develop disability discrimination standards, which
are legally enforceable once tabled in Parliament.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
Commissioner
In 1993, as part of the Federal Government's
response to the Inquiry into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner
was established as a full time member of the Commission. Unlike the
other four Commissioners, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Social Justice Commissioner was not empowered to investigate and
determine complaints (as this remained the role of the Race
Discrimination Commissioner). His or her role was to report
annually to the relevant Minister regarding the enjoyment and
exercise of human rights by Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait
Islanders. Section 209 of the Native Title Act 1993 also
placed specific reporting requirements on the Commissioner in
relation to the operation of native title laws.
Enforcement of HREOC determinations
Finally, another notable Commonwealth human
rights law was the Sex Discrimination and Other Legislation
Amendment Act 1992. This Act sought to rectify the
inefficiency of the tripartite structure which then existed for
resolving discrimination complaints, which comprised attempted
conciliation; if conciliation failed, a Commission inquiry with the
power to make unenforceable determinations; and finally possible
de novo Federal Court proceedings if an enforceable
determination was required. The Act provided for registration in
the Federal Court of a determination by the Commission in relation
to a complaint of race, sex or disability discrimination. Once
registered, the Commission's determination would have effect as if
it were an order of the Federal Court unless the respondent applied
to the Court with 28 days for review of the determination.
In Brandy v Human Rights and Equal
Opportunity Commission,(4) the High Court decided that this
scheme of registering determinations granted a non-judicial body
the power to enforce its decisions, a power reserved only for
judicial bodies. Accordingly, the scheme breached the doctrine of
the separation of powers and was invalidated as unconstitutional.
As an interim response, the Government resuscitated the pre-1992
tripartite scheme, and a more detailed response has been proposed
in the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998, discussed
further below.
Recent
budget changes to HREOC
Between 1997-99, HREOC's budget was decreased
from $19.3m to $12.3m,(5) a two year decrease of over 36%. This
funding reduction provides one of the most significant savings for
the Attorney-General's portfolio in the past two budgets. 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%.(6) The Attorney-General has further stated that 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.'(7)
Specifically, the Attorney-General 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.'(8) HREOC has responded that
additional funds have been provided only to handle new
responsibilities given to it by the Government or Parliament.(9)
These new responsibilities granted by Parliament include the
conciliation, inquiry, educative and advocacy functions established
by the Privacy Act 1988, the Disability Discrimination
Act 1992 and the Racial Hatred Act 1995; and the
research, educative and advocacy functions of the Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, established in
1993.
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 as set out in the
Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998. 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.(10)
Public
discussion of abolition of specialist Commissioners
Prior to the introduction of the Bill,
considerable public debate occurred concerning the importance of
maintaining specific HREOC Commissioners, as the Attorney-General
had on a number of occasions indicated his view that specialist
commissioners would be abolished in favour of general
commissioners.
This debate took place primarily in relation to
the status of the Sex Discrimination Commissioner. The former Sex
Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Sue Walpole, resigned in February
1997, 11 months prior to the expiration of her term. Ms Walpole
cited personal reasons for her resignation, however in a press
interview several weeks later she warned that a policy vacuum was
developing in the Government's approach to women's human rights and
sex discrimination.(11) Between February and June 1997, no-one was
appointed to the position of acting Sex Discrimination
Commissioner. Instead, the HREOC delegated some of the
Commissioner's complaint handling powers to the Privacy
Commissioner and the Race Discrimination Commissioner. On 3 June
1997, the Privacy Commissioner was appointed as the Acting Sex
Discrimination Commissioner for a period of 3 months, which was
extended until 8 March 1988, when the new Commissioner, Ms Susan
Halliday, was announced.
Concern that the delay in appointment of a Sex
Discrimination Commissioner indicated a firm Government intention
to abolish specialist Commissioners was widespread and included
criticism by Liberal party women(12) and non-government
organisations chosen to consult with the Government on women's
issues.(13) One Liberal woman lobbyist was quoted as saying 'I'm so
sick of fighting to keep the gains that we've got ... We're having
to fight so bloody hard to keep anything, let alone advance
anything.'(14) A typical criticism advanced by a former Sex
Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Quentin Bryce, stated that the loss
of a specific sex discrimination commissioner would result in a
loss of expertise on women's issues, a loss of validation of
specific forms of discrimination suffered by women and a possible
downgrading of women's issues within the Commission.(15)
In an unusual move, the United Nations Committee
on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (charged with
overseeing obligations under the Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) stated in an
assessment of Australia's current women's human rights record that
it 'was concerned about the delay in appointing a Sex
Discrimination Commissioner'.(16)
When the Government declined to extend the term
of the former President of HREOC Sir Ronald Wilson, (who was at
odds with the Government over key recommendations of the national
inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Children(17)) these concerns were widened to encompass the
opinion that abolition of specific commissioners partly resulted
from the Commissioner's critical approach to Government
action.(18)
In light of this significant debate, it was
reported that the Attorney-General's original cabinet submission
recommending replacement of specific commissioners by generic
commissioners was withdrawn in late July 1997.(19) In late
September, it was reported that Cabinet had made an 'in principle'
decision to retain the position of a Sex Discrimination
Commissioner,(20) a decision which was greeted as a victory by
Liberal women and non-government organisations.(21) On 23 September
1997, the Attorney-General issued a press release announcing the
Government's intention to establish the Human Rights and
Responsibilities Commission, comprised of a President and three
Deputy Presidents with general responsibilities for sex
discrimination and equal opportunity, human rights and disability
discrimination and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social
justice and racial discrimination.(22)
Status of
Current Commissioners
President of HREOC: Professor
Alice Tay, whose appointment was announced on 8 March 1998.
Professor Tay replaced Sir Ronald Wilson, whose term expired on 31
July 1997.
Human Rights Commissioner: Mr
Chris Sidoti, whose term expires in August 2000.
Sex Discrimination
Commissioner: Ms Susan Halliday, whose appointment was
announced on 8 March 1998. Ms Halliday replaced Ms Sue Walpole who
resigned in February 1997.
Race Discrimination
Commissioner: Ms Zita Antonios, whose term expires in
September 1999.
Disability Discrimination
Commissioner: vacant. The term of the former Commissioner,
Ms Elizabeth Hastings, expired in December 1997. The Human Rights
Commissioner, Mr Chris Sidoti, has been Acting Disability
Discrimination Commissioner since that time.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Social Justice Commissioner: The term of the first
Commissioner, Mr Michael Dodson, expired on 22 January 1998 and he
was not reappointed. The Race Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Zita
Antonios, was appointed as Acting Commissioner for a period of one
year. On 3 March 1999, Dr William Jonas AM was appointed as the new
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner
for a period of five years, starting from 6 April 1999.
Related Bills
Human Rights Legislation
Amendment Bill 1998
The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998
(originally introduced on 4 December 1996 as the Human Rights
Legislation Amendment Bill 1996), was introduced on 3 December
1998. It was passed by the House of Representatives on 11 March
1999, but at the time of writing has not yet been debated by the
Senate.
The Bill proposes several significant structural
changes to the operation of Commonwealth human rights
legislation.
-
- In response to the Brandy decision, the Bill repeals
HREOC's inquiry/determination functions and implements a scheme by
which complaints not resolved through conciliation may be continued
by way of an application to the Federal Court in order to obtain an
enforceable determination. This proposal reflects both the
Coalition's Law and Justice election policy and proposals by the
previous Government.
-
- A judge may delegate to a judicial registrar most of the
court's human rights powers, with a view to providing as informal
and accessible a court hearing as is constitutionally possible.
However all registrar decisions are reviewable by a judge on
application by one party.
-
- The Bill proposes to centralise all complaint investigations
and conciliation procedures that arise under the DDA, the RDA and
the SDA in the office of the President of HREOC, rather than
vesting those powers with specific Commissioners.
-
- The Bill also provides that specific Commissioners can apply to
the Federal Court to act as amicus curiae ('friend of the
Court') in relation to an unconciliated anti-discrimination matter.
This new power is seen as partly balancing specialist
Commissioners' loss of power in relation to conciliation.
See Bills Digest No. 115 1998-99 for a more
detailed discussion.
Privacy Amendment (Office of the Privacy Commissioner)
Bill 1998
The Privacy Amendment (Office of the Privacy
Commissioner) Bill 1998 was introduced on 9 December 1998. This
Bill is similar to provisions in the original Human Rights
Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 concerning creation of an
Office of the Privacy Commissioner independent of the Human Rights
and Equal Opportunity Commission. The Bill was passed by the House
of Representatives on 17 February 1999. For further discussion, see
Bills Digest No. 111 1998-99.
Schedule 1 -
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission Act
1986
Items 1 and 2 amend the title
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 to
the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission Act
1986.
Item 4 amends the definition of
'the Commission' from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission to the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission.
All references in the HREOCA, the DDA, the RDA
and the SDA to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission Act 1986 and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission are consequentially amended to reflect these name
changes.
Item 18 in effect repeals the
definition of the Human Rights Commissioner in HREOCA.
Items 6, 8 and 9 consecutively
repeal the definition in HREOCA of the Disability Discrimination
Commissioner, the Race Discrimination Commissioner and the Sex
Discrimination Commissioner. These repeals are mirrored in
amendments to the DDA, the RDA and the SDA.
Items 73 and 87 repeal the
definition and establishment of the Disability Discrimination
Commissioner in the DDA.
Items 106 and 126 repeal the
definition and establishment of the Race Discrimination
Commissioner.
Items 130 and 143 repeal the
definition and establishment of the Sex Discrimination
Commissioner.
Item 12 deals with the
composition of the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission. It
repeals the current list of:
-
- President
-
- Human Rights Commissioner
-
- Race Discrimination Commissioner
-
- Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
Commissioner
-
- Sex Discrimination Commissioner
-
- Privacy Commissioner
-
- Disability Discrimination Commissioner
and replaces it with:
-
- Deputy President responsible for human rights and disability
discrimination
-
- Deputy President responsible for racial discrimination and
social justice
-
- Deputy President responsible for sex discrimination and equal
opportunity.
Notably, the only specific title not retained is
the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
Commissioner. Item 13 provides that the Privacy
Commissioner is a member of the Commission until the Privacy
Act (Office of the Privacy Commission) Act 1999 commences.
Item 19 in effect provides that
to be qualified for appointment as a Deputy President, the
Governor-General must be satisfied that the person has 'appropriate
qualifications, knowledge or experience.' The terms and conditions
of appointment reflect those currently provided in HREOCA for the
Human Rights Commissioner.
Functions of the Human Rights and Responsibilities
Commission
Item 20 reorders the functions
of the Commission to provide a focus on the following:
-
- promoting understanding, acceptance and public discussion of
human rights and the responsibilities of persons and organisations
to respect those rights
-
- disseminating information on human rights and the
responsibility of persons and organisations to respect those
rights
-
- undertaking research, educational and other programs promoting
human rights on behalf of the Commonwealth
-
- preparing and publishing guidelines concerning human rights
which can be conciliated by the Commission.
Currently, these functions of the Commission are
provided for in HREOCA, except for the function of disseminating
information, although this is arguably covered by the Commission's
incidental power. These functions, however, have been 'upgraded' to
underline their new importance. The only proposed 'higher'
functions of the Commission are to:
-
- carry out those functions conferred by the RDA, the SDA and the
DDA (currently section 11(1)(a)) and
-
- inquire into and attempt conciliation of a complaint of
unlawful discrimination (proposed by the Human Rights Legislation
Amendment Bill 1998).
Item 34 mirrors the amendments
made in item 20 in relation to re-arranging the
existing functions of the Commission relating to equal opportunity
in employment. It provides that the functions of the Commission
shall be to:
-
- promote understanding, acceptance and public discussion of
equal opportunity in employment and the responsibility of persons
and organisations to respect that equality
-
- disseminate information on equality of opportunity in
employment and responsibilities of persons and organisations to
respect that equality
-
- undertake research and educational programs on behalf of the
Commonwealth promoting that equality
-
- prepare and publish guidelines for avoiding acts or practices
which transgress these rights and responsibilities.
All these functions are already specifically in
the Act, except for dissemination of information which is arguably
covered by the Commission's incidental function.
Consequential changes to the functions of the
Commission in relation to the DDA, the RDA, the SDA and the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
Commissioner
Disability Discrimination Act 1992
Item 80 amends the heading in
Part 4 of the DDA to 'Functions of Human Rights and
Responsibilities Commission'. Currently, that part of the Act is
titled 'Inquiries and Civil Proceedings' but the Human Rights
Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 proposes to amend it to 'Functions
of Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission'.
Item 81 provides that the first
four functions of the Commission in relation to disability
discrimination are:
-
- promoting an understanding of, acceptance of and compliance
with the DDA
-
- disseminating information on disability discrimination and on
the responsibility of persons and organisations to avoid such
discrimination
-
- undertaking research, educational and other programs promoting
the DDA on behalf of the Commonwealth
-
- preparing and publishing guidelines concerning avoidance of
disability discrimination.
Currently, all these functions are in the DDA
except for dissemination of information, although this could be
interpreted as covered by the Commission's current incidental
powers.
Racial Discrimination Act 1975
Item 115 amends the heading in
Part III of the RDA to 'Functions of Commission'. Currently the
heading is 'Inquiries and Civil Proceedings' but the Human Rights
Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 proposes to amend it to 'Race
Discrimination Commissioner and functions of Commission'.
Item 118 inserts a new function
as new paragraph 20(b) to disseminate information
on racial discrimination and on the responsibility of persons and
organisations to avoid such discrimination.
All other functions currently listed for the
Race Discrimination Commissioner remain, except for the power to
inquire into and attempt conciliation of complaints under the RDA,
as this function is proposed to be repealed by the Human Rights
Legislation Amendment Bill 1998.
Sex Discrimination Act 1984
Item 135 amends the title of
Part III of the SDA to 'Functions of Human Rights and
Responsibilities Commission'. Currently Part III is entitled
'Inquiries and Civil Proceedings'. The Human Rights Legislation
Amendment Bill 1998 proposes to amend the title to 'Functions of
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission'.
Item 136 rearranges the
functions of the Commission so that the first four functions are
to:
-
- promote an understanding and acceptance of, and compliance
with, the SDA
-
- disseminate information on relevant grounds and on the
responsibility of persons and organisations to avoid such
discrimination
-
- undertake research and educational programs on behalf of the
Commonwealth for promotion of the SDA
-
- prepare and publish guidelines for avoiding relevant forms of
discrimination under the SDA.
Currently, all these functions are in the SDA
except for dissemination of information, although this could be
interpreted as covered by the Commission's current incidental
powers.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
Commissioner
Item 48 repeals the heading
entitled 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
Commissioner' in HREOCA and replaces it with 'Functions relating to
Aboriginal persons and Torres Strait Islanders.'
Items 50, 51 and 57 repeal the
definition and establishment in HREOCA of the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner.
Item 51 also repeals subsection
46B(2) which requires that a person appointed as the Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner must have
'significant experience in community life of Aboriginal persons or
Torres Strait Islanders.' This specific requirement of experience
in community life of Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders
is not repeated in relation to the Deputy President proposed as
responsible for 'social justice' issues.
Power to
intervene in court proceedings
Currently, the HREOCA, the DDA, the RDA and the
SDA provide the Commission with the power to seek a court's leave
to intervene in court proceedings that involve relevant human
rights and discrimination issues.
Items 24 and 36 (HREOCA),
83 (DDA), 119 (RDA) and
138 (SDA) propose that any intervention by the
Commission in a court hearing involving human rights or
discrimination issues must now have leave of the Attorney-General
before seeking leave of the court.
Items 25 and 37 (HREOCA),
85 (DDA), 122 (RDA),
140 (SDA) provide that the Attorney-General may
have regard to the following matters (although is not limited by
these matters) when considering whether leave to seek leave of the
court to intervene should be granted:
-
- whether the Commonwealth has already intervened in the
proceedings
-
- whether, in the Attorney's view, the proceedings may, to a
significant extent, affect the human rights of, or involve issues
of discrimination against, persons not parties to the
proceedings
-
- whether, in the Attorney's view, the proceedings have
significant implications for the administration of the Commonwealth
disability, race and sex discrimination legislation
-
- whether, in the Attorney's view, there are special
circumstances for the Commission to intervene, such as intervention
being in the public interest.
Other
amendments concerning centralisation of conciliation powers in the
President
Item 28 redresses an anomaly in
the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998 and its
predecessor the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1996. The
1998 Bill in general prohibits the President from delegating her or
his powers in relation to complaint handling and the referral of
discriminatory awards to other bodies. However, it does provide for
delegation to the Human Rights Commissioner of the power to handle
a complaint made in respect of alleged breaches of internationally
recognised human rights and equal opportunity in employment or
occupation. Item 28 proposes to repeal this
delegation power in line with the general prohibition of delegation
proposed in the 1998 Bill. It is unclear why this oversight was not
dealt with in the 1998 Bill, given that the anomaly had been
already identified in the original 1996 Bill.
Item 29 clarifies that the
amendments do not limit the powers of the Commission or the
President to delegate powers to a member of the Commission which do
not concern inquiries or complaint handling.
Limiting the
Commission's powers concerning infringement of a human
right
Items 33 and 40 relates to the
Commission's ability to conciliate and report on transgressions of
human rights, other than those rights which are defined as unlawful
discrimination under the DDA, RDA or the SDA. Currently the
Commission is empowered to make recommendations to a person
concerning a breach of a human right, and those recommendations can
include payment of compensation to a person who has suffered loss
or damage as a result of an act of practice. These items removes
that power, limiting the Commission's role to recommending any
action other than the payment of compensation of damages.
Amicus
Curiae Role and Deputy Presidents
The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 1998
provides that specialist Commissioners to seek leave to appear as
amicus curiae ('friend of the Court') in Federal Court
proceedings which arise following a complaint to the Commission.
Items 61-64 seek to amend the proposed provisions
of this Bill, generally in relation to substituting all references
to Commissioners with references to Deputy Presidents. Item
64 provides that the Deputy Presidents must consult
amongst themselves before seeking leave to act as amicus
curiae.
Parts 3 and 4 -Amendments concerning the
Privacy Act 1998 and the proposed Privacy Amendment
(Office of the Privacy Commissioner) Act 1999
These Parts propose a series of amendments to
the Privacy Act 1998 and the proposed Privacy Amendment
(Office of the Privacy Commissioner) Act 1999 (see discussion in
Background).
Items 89-96 in relation to the
Privacy Act 1998 concern the proposals to change the name
of the Commission.
The proposals in relation to the proposed
Privacy Amendment (Office of the Privacy Commissioner) Act 1999
generally relate to ensuring that the staff of the Office of the
Privacy Commission will no longer be the staff of the Human Rights
and Equal Opportunity Commission, and to consequential amendments
to the name of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission.
The operation of these proposals is technically
complex. They will not commence if the proposed Privacy Amendment
(Office of the Privacy Commissioner) Act 1999 has already commenced
(clause 2(4)).
Abolition of Community Relations Council under
the Racial Discrimination Act 1975
The RDA establishes a Community Relations
Council charged with the task of advising the Minister and the
Commission concerning observance and implementation of the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (CERD) through promotion of educational
programs, research, publication and dissemination of materials,
promotion of understanding and tolerance and any other relevant
matter related to observance of the Convention.
Item 126 repeals, inter
alia, those parts (Part V and parts of Part VI) of the RDA
which established the Community Relations Council and the provision
of staff for the Council. Items 104, 107, 108 and
111 repeal the RDA's definition of Chairman, Deputy
Chairman and member of the Community Relations Council and the
Council.
The Explanatory Memorandum notes that no members
have ever been appointed to the Community Relations Council so that
it has never in fact come into being. The Explanatory Memorandum
states that, pursuant to section 15 of HREOCA, the new Commission
will retain the power to 'work with and consult appropriate
persons, governmental organisations and non-governmental
organisations'.
Transitional
provisions concerning continuity of Commission's legal
existence
Item 145 provides that the Bill
does not affect the continuity of the Commission's existence. This
will ensure that legal responsibilities of the current Commission
continue under the new structure.
Item 145 also provides that the
Bill does not affect the continuity of the President's
appointment.
There is no provision for the continuity of
current specialist Commissioners.
The Government has concluded after a detailed
review that HREOC as presently structured is inefficient and
top-heavy. The changes proposed arguably seek to retain the general
thrust of the present anti-discrimination regimen whilst
streamlining the mechanisms for protecting individual rights.
The following Concluding Comments reflect the
key issues raised in the Senate Legal and Constitutional
Legislation Committee's inquiry into the Bill. The Government
members of the Committee generally supported the Bill, with an
important exception in relation to the Commission's intervention in
Court proceedings and the continuity of current Commissioners in
the new structure. The Opposition and minor parties have opposed
the Bill. Their views are detailed at the end of each
discussion.
Amendment of
Name to Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission
The Government has provided limited explanation
for changing the name of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission to the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission. In
his Second Reading Speech, the Attorney-General links the change of
name to the Commission's new emphasis on educating business and the
community as to their responsibilities to respect human rights and
avoid discrimination, an emphasis which will 'be the catalyst for a
fundamental cultural change in the Commission.'(23) The
Attorney-General has noted that:
making people aware of their responsibilities to
protect and promote human rights is as important as protecting
those who are subject to discrimination.(24)
The change in name has attracted limited but
sceptical comment. Considering the concept of 'responsibilities' an
Age editorial commented that:
to those familiar with the government's tense
relationship with the Commission ... the new emphasis sounds like
an attempt to pull the commission's teeth ... Education in human
rights is important, but the Commission educates chiefly by example
- specifically by vigorous prosecution of rights violations. Its
pursuit of such violations has often irked the present
Government.(25)
Keith Suter, convenor of the Human Rights
Committee of the International Law Association, noted that the
inclusion of responsibilities is 'intriguing' but lacking in
substance and that the Attorney-General would 'need to be careful
that this is not seen as simply a gimmick'.(26) The Opposition was
more brusque, stating that the name change was:
no more than a pathetic ruse to cover the fact
that the Government had decided not to re-appoint the Disability
Discrimination Commissioner and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Social Justice Commissioner.(27)
It is notable that this change in name comes at
a time when significant media attention has been granted to
individuals and groups which characterise certain human rights and
anti-discrimination measures as 'special privileges' or 'special
favours', particularly measures aimed at ensuring equality for
indigenous peoples and women. In this context, it is possible that
linking the concept of 'rights' with 'responsibilities' could
unintentionally result in a cultural shift in which those subjected
to human rights violations are cast as prone to pursue such rights
irresponsibly.
It is possibly also worth noting that the
Government offers no link between the change of name and the
current project to develop a Universal Declaration on Human
Responsibilities by the Inter-Action Council, a non-Government
organisation comprised of elder statesmen including Mr Malcolm
Fraser, Mr Jimmy Carter, and Mr Lee Kuan Yew.(28) Malcolm Fraser
has noted that a key argument advanced by the Council for the
development of the Declaration is that:
A world dependent upon rights alone would be an
unhappy and discordant one. Rights are something that people
demand, that we all too often expect others to provide us ... None
of this is to suggest that the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights ... should in any way be diminished. The Inter-Action
Council, however, does quite firmly believe that the constant
demand for rights without recognising the need for responsibilities
at every level will not produce the best result.(29)
On one view, this characterisation of human
rights as something which one passively demands fails to capture
the experience of many people subjected to human rights violations
who not only suffer the indignity of discrimination but must
actively pursue a legal remedy in order to secure their right to
equality. Such a characterisation potentially lends itself to the
perception that human rights are privileges rather than rights
which must be tempered by responsible action on the part of those
discriminated against. As this project has attracted international
interest, it is foreseeable that the concepts it espouses will
inform future understandings of the role of the proposed Human
Rights and Responsibilities Commission.
Senate Inquiry
The Senate Inquiry noted that many submissions
raised the above concerns, including HREOC which saw the name
change as confusing the Commission's practice. Whilst acknowledging
these concerns the Government members of the Committee stated that
the naming of the Commission was a matter for Government and
supported the proposal.(30) The Opposition Report considered that
the name change was inconsistent with community opinion and
accordingly opposed it.(31)
Abolition of
specialist Commissioners
The Attorney-General has argued that the current
structure of six specialist commissioners is top heavy and
inefficient. By replacing specialist commissioners with three
Deputy Presidents with responsibility for particular subject areas,
it is argued the efficacy of the Commission will be enhanced
by:
-
- providing for a more streamlined and collegiate structure
-
- ensuring Commission members have a common responsibility to
protect and promote human rights for all Australians whilst
maintaining specific expertise
-
- removing the perception that the Commission seeks only to
protect sections of the community for whom a specific Commissioner
exists and
-
- enabling Deputy Presidents to develop expertise in other areas
without needing to consider appointing new specialist commissioners
as each new area develops.
The Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Chris Sidoti,
stated that the amalgam of generalist Deputy Presidents with
specific responsibilities is a 'welcome compromise' to the initial
proposal of simply establishing generalist commissioners.(32)
Supporting this proposal, a Canberra Times editorial noted
that 'discrimination is discrimination ... It should not be beyond
a commissioner to become expert in more than one field'(33) and Mr
Bret Walker of the Law Council of Australia has stated that reform
would correct some administrative deficiencies in HREOC.(34) More
strongly, a former Minister in the previous Government, the Hon.
Gary Johns, remarked that there had been:
incessant competition among the commissioners
for the public ear and the public purse ... specialist
commissioners who go about Balkanising the human rights agenda must
be replaced by generalists.(35)
Criticisms can be levied at both the necessity
and efficacy of this model in terms of its substantive protection
of those groups of Australians whose human rights are most
persistently undermined.
First, the proposal reduces only five and not
six specific commissioners to three Deputy Presidents, as the
Privacy Commissioner is not part of the Deputy President structure.
Therefore, only two specific commissioners have been 'streamlined'.
This represents a minimal financial saving and it is unclear how a
reduction from five to three will instil a significantly new
collegiate approach to discrimination issues.
Second, different forms of discrimination
operate in often radically different ways and although it is
possible for a Deputy President to come to grips with different
forms of discrimination, the depth of understanding developed and
the effectiveness of the Deputy President is reliant on the amount
of time and resources available. Given the significant budget cuts
to HREOC, it might be expected that the level of resources
allocated to each Deputy President may significantly impede their
substantive appreciation of the forms of discrimination they are
charged with ameliorating and hence significantly limit the
Government's goal of sustaining adequate expertise. This difficulty
may be compounded if, as suggested above, the Attorney-General
places additional responsibilities on a Deputy President rather
than appointing a specific Commissioner.
Third, it may be of concern to some that the
Attorney-General has emphasised that abolishing specific
commissioners will soothe a supposed perception that the Commission
only acts in the interests of those groups represented by a
specific Commissioner rather than all Australians. Presumably, the
emphasis on 'all Australians' is directed at the idea that the
Commission can only benefit the entire community if it
formalistically adheres to the assumption that all people are
equally capable of being subjected to discrimination. From a human
rights law perspective, this formalism is fundamentally misplaced.
Critics of the Government's position would argue that the
raison d'etre for the establishment of the
Commission and the development of specific international human
rights treaties is the fact that certain social groups, for example
women, indigenous peoples, peoples with a disability, are
systematically discriminated against in a way other groups are
not.
Specific concerns regarding the Disability and
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
Commissioners
The loss of specialist commissioners may not
only result in a loss of expertise but may undermine the symbolic
importance and visibility that specialist commissioners offer
particular forms of discrimination. This could be a particular
concern in relation to the merger of the disability discrimination
and human rights commissioners and the race discrimination and
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice
commissioners.
It is foreseeable that given both the categories
of 'race' and 'human rights' are more general than the categories
of 'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander' or 'disability', the
relevant Deputy President for these areas may neither be indigenous
nor have a disability. It is notable in this regard that the phrase
'Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander' does not even appear in the
specific responsibilities of the relevant Deputy President, despite
the fact that the Government stated on several occasions that such
a specific title would be granted.(36) As previously noted,
item 51 does not reiterate an appropriate version
of subsection 46B(2) of HREOCA that requires that a person
appointed as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social
Justice Commissioner must have 'significant experience in community
life of Aboriginal persons or Torres Strait Islanders.'
In August 1998, the Committee on the Elimination
of Racial Discrimination (which monitors compliance with the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination) issued an unprecedented early warning and
urgent action procedure notice against Australia in relation to
several matters, including the changes to the functions of the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner.
On 19 March 1999, the Committee issued a decision that included the
following statement:
the Committee also notes with concern the State
Party's proposed changes to the overall structure of the Commission
abolishing the position of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Social Justice Commission and assigning those functions to
a generalist Deputy President. The Committee strongly encourages
the State Party to consider all possible effects of such a
restructuring, including whether the new Deputy President would
have sufficient opportunity to address in an adequate manner the
full range of issues regarding indigenous peoples.(37)
The Committee's views are not binding. The
Attorney-General has stated that the Government considers the CERD
Committee's findings unbalanced and that the Government would not
be responding to the Committee's decision.(38)
Senate Inquiry
The Majority report, whilst recognising the
above concerns, stated that the Committee 'considers that this
change represents a justifiable move to improve the management
structure of the commission.'(39) The Opposition(40) and Australian
Democrats(41) noted that the replacement of specialist
Commissioners was widely criticised in the submissions, and in
light of the overwhelming evidence favouring their retention,
opposed the proposal.
Deputy
President's focus on education
The Bill provides that the key focus of the
Deputy Presidents will be on human rights education and assisting
business and the community to comply with human rights standards.
When combined with the changes proposed in the Human Rights
Legislation Amendment Bill 1998, the Deputy Presidents will have a
significantly reduced role as compared to the current
Commissioners.
Although the proposed focus on research,
education and information dissemination may assist in addressing
systemic discrimination matters, it is notable that these powers
are not new, but have always been a focus in anti-discrimination
legislation. More importantly, the significant budgetary decrease
to HREOC will affect the new focus on education. The
Attorney-General has stated that the Commission will now 'have to
prioritise the things they investigate' rather than investigate all
complaints of discrimination.(42) However, regardless of such
directions, there is a statutory obligation on HREOC to process
complaints and HREOC will be required to allocate a sufficient
budget to these responsibilities. Accordingly, the pool of money
left for Deputy President work on education, research and
information dissemination could be small, narrowing the scope and
effectiveness of this work.
When considering the compound effect of these
important changes on the role of commissioners, an Age
editorial stated that they:
amount to a sidelining of the commission by a
Government that does not want watchdog agencies to frustrate its
agenda. The fact is that commissioners have regularly crossed
swords with the government on key areas of policy... It is obvious
why the Government might be irked at being constantly reminded of
things that it should not do but that is what a body such as the
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is for. ... When ...
governments act to trim the commission's powers ... it is the
quality of Australia's democracy that suffers.(43)
Senate Inquiry
The Majority Report noted that the focus on
education was consistent with the proposed changes to the role of
the Commission in light of the Brandy decision, and that
it was therefore appropriate that the Commission have a greater
focus on education.(44) The Opposition Report strongly opposed the
proposal on the ground that it is a 'hypocritical sham ... to
justify [the Government's] attempts to emasculate an
agency.'(45)
Restriction
on Commission intervention in court matters
The Bill's proposals to require the
Attorney-General's permission before the Commission can seek leave
of a court to intervene in a matter raises several issues.
Firstly, a key policy which threads through both
this Bill and the Human Rights Amendment Bill 1998 is the emphasis
on the role of Commissioners/Deputy Presidents as human rights
educators. To this end, one of the main proposals in the 1998 Bill
was to facilitate the Commissioner's role in acting as amicus
curiae in anti-discrimination matters before the Federal
Court. The potential to intervene in a relevant Federal, Family or
High Court matter is similar to such an amicus role and
enhances the Commission's ability to have a systemic and educative
impact on the development of human rights law in Australia.
Consequently, it may seem contrary to this policy direction that
this Bill is providing a new hurdle for the Commission to clear
before it is able to seek leave of the court for such an
intervention.
Secondly, in the context of limited resources
for Commission's work, it may also appear curious that the
Attorney-General's resources may be designated to duplicate a basic
court process.
Thirdly, the intervention issue potentially
raises concerns in relation to conflict of interest and the
independence of the Commission. The Commonwealth is often a party
in matters in which it would be relevant for HREOC to intervene, or
the matter may widen the scope of discrimination law and hence have
financial or other resources implications for the Government.
For example, in recent times, HREOC has been
granted leave by the High Court, the Federal Court and the Family
Court to intervene in the Hindmarsh Island Bridge case(46); the
Teoh case(47) (the case concerning whether administrative
decision makers were required to take Australia's international
human rights obligations into consideration when making a
decision); and B and B(48) (a Family Court matter in which
the Attorney-General appeared and put a contrary view to the
submission of HREOC). In each instance, HREOC put a significantly
different submission to that of the Commonwealth.
The previous President of HREOC, Sir Ronald
Wilson stated that proposals to require the Attorney-General's
permission to seek leave to intervene in a court matter impinged on
the watchdog's ability to speak out on human rights.(49)
Senate Inquiry
The Majority Report recommended this proposal
not be pursued on the grounds that it impinges on an important
principle of the independence of the Commission from the Executive
and that there was no evidence that the Commission's power to
intervene had been abused.(50) The Opposition and Australian
Democrats Reports made similar recommendations.(51)
Limiting the
Commission's powers concerning infringement of a human
right
By way of explanation as to the removal of the
Commission's powers to recommend payment of compensation for a
particular human rights transgression, the Explanatory Memorandum
states that the recommendation to pay compensation of damages
cannot be enforced because it relates to acts which are not deemed
unlawful. However, this is the case with any recommendation made by
the Commission in these circumstances. It is not explained why
recommendations for compensation or damages have been targeted for
removal.
Senate Inquiry
The Majority Report considered it appropriate
that the Commission shed this quasi-judicial function in light of
the Brandy decision.(52) The Opposition Report stated that
this provision pre-empts debate on the Human Rights Legislation
Amendment Bill 1998 in relation to the power of the Commission to
make binding determinations affecting Commonwealth Departments and
agencies, and hence opposed the proposal.(53)
Transitional
provisions for continuity of current Commissioners in the new
Commission
Although the transitional provisions provide for
legal continuity of the President's appointment under the new Human
Rights and Responsibilities Commission, no such provision is made
for the continuity of the current specialist Commissioners.
Therefore those commissioners would legally have to seek
reappointment to the new Commission.
Senate Inquiry
The Majority Report was concerned about the
perception that the lack of transitional arrangements for all
Commissioners breached internationally recognised standards in
accordance with the Paris Principles on National Human Rights
Institutions.(54) Accordingly, the Majority Report recommended that
the Bill be amended to ensure all Commissioners were covered by
transitional arrangements. The Opposition and the Australian
Democrats made similar recommendations.(55)
-
- Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee,
Provisions of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No.
2) 1998 (as introduced in the 38th Parliament)
February 1999 (hereafter cited as the 'Senate Committee Report').
- Senate, Debates, vol. 82, 25/9/1979.
- Senate, Debates, vol. 105, 12/9/1984.
- (1995) EOC 2 - 662.
- 1997-1998 Portfolio Budget Statement of the
Attorney-General's Department, p. 116.
- Attorney-General (The Hon. Daryl Williams QC MP), 'Upholding
Human Rights', Press release no. 269, 15/5/1997.
- ibid.
- ibid.
- Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 'Human Rights
Commission Budget Cuts', Press release, 16/5/1997.
- ibid.
- The Age, 12/2/1997.
- The Sydney Morning Herald, 16/9/1997.
- Australian Women's Non-Government Organisations, 'Don't Shoot
the Sex Discrimination Commissioner!!', Press release,
28/7/1997.
- The Sydney Morning Herald, 16/9/1997.
- ibid.
- Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women,
Consideration of Third Periodic Report of Australia,
22/7/1997.
- Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Bringing
Them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their
Families, Commonwealth, Canberra, 1997.
- The Australian Financial Review, 31/7/1997.
- The Australian, 28/7/1997.
- The Australian Financial Review, 20/9/1997.
- The Sydney Morning Herald, 20/9/1997.
- Attorney-General (The Hon. Daryl Williams QC MP), 'Human Rights
and Responsibilities Commission', Press release no. 341,
23/9/1997.
- House of Representatives, Official Hansard, No. 5,
1998, 8/4/1998.
- Attorney-General (The Hon. Daryl Williams QC MP), 'Human Rights
and Responsibilities Commission', Press release no. 404,
8/4/1998.
- The Age, 29/9/1997.
- The Age, 29/9/1997.
- Senator the Hon Nick Bolkus, 'The New Human Rights and
Responsibilities Commission is a Sham', Press release no.
42/97, 23/9/1997.
- The Inter-Action Council has produced a draft Declaration which
it hopes will be adopted by the United Nations General Assembly to
stand on equal footing with the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
- The Australian, 12/9/1997.
- Senate Committee Report, op. cit., p. 22.
- ibid., p. 37.
- The Age, 24/9/1997.
- The Canberra Times, 25/9/1997.
- The Age, 24/9/1997.
- The Australian, 31/7/1997.
- Attorney-General (The Hon. Daryl Williams QC MP), 'Human Rights
and Responsibilities Commission', Press release no. 404,
8/4/1998.
- CERD/C/54/Misc.40/Rev.1.
- Attorney-General (The Hon. Daryl Williams QC MP), 'United
Nations Committee Misunderstands and Misrepresents Australia',
Press release no. 541, 19/3/1999.
- Senate Committee Report, op. cit., pp. 12-13.
- ibid., p. 33.
- ibid., pp. 43-44.
- The Sydney Morning Herald, 24/9/1997.
- The Age, 31/7/1997.
- ibid., pp. 17-18.
- ibid., pp. 31-32.
- Kartinyeri v The Commonwealth (1998) 152 ALR 540.
- Minister of State for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Ah
Hin Teoh (1995) 128 ALR 353.
- B and B: Family Law Reform Act 1995 (1998) 22 Fam LR
453.
- The Age, 12/5/1998.
- Senate Committee Report, op. cit., pp. 5-10.
- ibid., pp. 32-33.
- ibid., p. 24-25.
- ibid., p. 38.
- ibid., pp. 13-16.
- ibid., pp. 33-34.
Krysti Guest
30 March 19999
Bills Digest Service
Information and Research Services
This paper has been prepared for general distribution to
Senators and Members of the Australian Parliament. While great care
is taken to ensure that the paper is accurate and balanced, the
paper is written using information publicly available at the time
of production. The views expressed are those of the author and
should not be attributed to the Information and Research Services
(IRS). Advice on legislation or legal policy issues contained in
this paper is provided for use in parliamentary debate and for
related parliamentary purposes. This paper is not professional
legal opinion. Readers are reminded that the paper is not an
official parliamentary or Australian government document.
IRS staff are available to discuss the paper's contents with
Senators and Members
and their staff but not with members of the public.
ISSN 1328-8091
© Commonwealth of Australia 1999
Except to the extent of the uses permitted under the
Copyright Act 1968, no part of this publication may be
reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
information storage and retrieval systems, without the prior
written consent of the Parliamentary Library, other than by Members
of the Australian Parliament in the course of their official
duties.
Published by the Department of the Parliamentary Library,
1999.
Back to top