Mr PRICE (9:22 PM) —It is nice to speak after a happy message from the Senate. I must say that I am a bit puzzled as to why the government wanted to postpone their business without explanation, but I accept that that is what they want to do and I am pleased to speak on the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . It is entirely appropriate, Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis, that you as a former Chairman of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee should be in the chair. I know that, notwithstanding that illustrious background, you will maintain your normal dignified self and not intervene in this debate, which must be very painful for you.

Why is that so? No other organisation or no other department has suffered the way that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has suffered under the Howard government. Not only are they renaming it from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to the Human Rights and Responsibility Commission, but they have attacked its budget. For example, it has been cut by 55 per cent. This is an extraordinary cut to an organisation that, after all, is established to look after the interests of ordinary citizens.

You might wonder why this government has a fixation about responsibility. If anything, this really demonstrates the difference between the government and the opposition. The opposition believe that not all citizens are really equal—that is, there are more powerful citizens able to exercise their rights whilst there are less powerful people in our society who deserve the protection of organisations such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The government on the other hand believe that if they put the onus on the ordinary citizen then in a sense they can blame the victim. That is what it really is all about. That is one of the reasons why it is being attacked. The other thing is that no government particularly welcomes reports of bodies like the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, because they are there to investigate in a very impartial way deficiencies in the delivery of different services to, as I say, the disempowered in our society.

For example, under Labor Mick Dodson was the Aboriginal Social Justice Commissioner. It would be a miracle if the reports and matters that he deliberated upon were not critical of the federal government. If you keep on cutting out organisations which point out deficiencies to you, you eventually get to a position where answers or solutions are superfluous because you do not acknowledge the problem. If the problem is not being brought to your attention, how can you provide a solution? One thinks that this is part of the approach of the federal government.

This federal government has not only cut back legal aid but also ensured that all Commonwealth legal aid can only be spent on Commonwealth matters whereas in the past under the former Labor government some of that money went to non-federal matters—that is, to some criminal matters. The net result of these cutbacks has been that the states have been stretched in their budgets and increasingly individuals are going unrepresented in matters that are quite serious. I have said in this place before that it is all very well for this parliament to talk about the legal rights of citizens, but if they do not have the wherewithal to exercise those legal rights then they may as well not have the legal right at all. Legal aid was one way that the disadvantaged were able to afford to exercise their legal rights.

The chief justice has said recently that he does not want to get involved in the debate about cutbacks to legal aid, and I respect that point of view that the chief justice of the High Court does not want to get involved in political matters. But he has pointed out that there is a high cost of people being unrepresented and of people increasingly dropping out entirely—that is, not exercising their legal rights. But, if they do, the one means left to them is self-representation. The chief justice points out that there is a cost to the court in this in the extra time that is taken whilst the matter is argued. I believe that it is all very well for us as a democracy to say that we believe in the rule of law and that citizens have legal rights, but I am one who argues that they ought to be able to exercise their rights. The Howard government has diminished their ability to exercise their rights.

In commenting on the chief justice's comments over the weekend, I think one of the great tragedies of the federal system was the Brandy case, which itself involved the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. That decision virtually ruled out tribunals operating in the federal sphere. I am a great believer in the way tribunals have, in relatively minor matters, successfully allowed citizens to still have legal rights without having to have recourse to legal aid, solicitors, barristers and QCs. In our state, Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis, we know about the Guardianship Board, which is a tribunal. We know about the Tenancy and Residency Tribunal and the Small Claims Tribunal. All these successfully operate and allow ordinary citizens access to the law but, in the federal sphere, tribunals need to be presided over by a judge.

The interesting thing about state tribunals is that they operate on the smell of an oily rag. Once you have a judge presiding over a tribunal, of course you have to have all the staff who are associated with a judge. You do not keep lawyers—that is, solicitors and barristers—out of those tribunals. There is a real need not only to bolster legal aid but also to create the infrastructure that exists in our states, where ordinary citizens have access to tribunals.

I wanted to mention a couple of other things. The bill proposes that the specialist commissioners that we had under the existing Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission be replaced by a president and three deputy presidents. We are going to refocus the objectives of the commission away from trying to resolve matters—and even undertaking court cases, in appropriate cases—towards education, dissemination of information on human rights and assistance to the business and general community. We will focus on what the commission's functions are.

It is interesting that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, in relation to the Department of Defence and the employment of gay officers, was instrumental in finally getting the matter to cabinet. It kept reporting on and getting involved in the matter, raising cases with the Department of Defence and threatening to take legal action. It forced the hand of the Commonwealth to make a change in that regard. That change was made and caused a minimum of disruption. No-one would particularly argue against that change today. Within the armed forces and the wider community, it is generally accepted. But, given the proposed change of modus operandi of the commission, how successful would this general education brief be? I am bemused that anyone could think that it would be effective and that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission needed all the powers it had to engineer what some may say was a small change but what I think was a significant and necessary change.

One of the other changes that I wanted to comment on was that the commission now requires the leave of the Attorney-General before it engages in any litigation. Firstly, 55 per cent of its budget has been cut. I suppose I have not dwelt sufficiently on that. That means that the commission cannot do all the work that it would like to do. It has to say no to many ordinary citizens who ring up and may require the assistance of the commission. It will not have the personnel to be able to respond—and what a tragedy that is.

Let us assume that the commission gets a case that is so pressing it believes that it needs to mount a case in the courts. It needs to get the approval of the Attorney-General. What does this say for the independence of the commission? Here we are saying, `Isn't it marvellous that we have sent Mr Sidoti over to Burma—or Myanmar—to advise them on how to set up a human rights commission in that country? It will do a lot of good work.' He has been over there, and I certainly hope that his efforts bear fruit. But how can we suggest that this is a fearless independent body that will take action of its own volition without any pressure if it has to go cap in hand to an Attorney-General seeking permission to mount one case? If it wants to mount two cases, it has to get his permission. If it wanted to mount 20 cases—and, of course, it could not afford to do so—it would need to get 20 individual approvals.

I think it is unfortunate because the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has done a lot of good work in the past. Not only has this government damaged the commission's stature by its changes in composition and objectives and by its changes to its funding but the very thing that the commission would set the greatest store by—that is, its independence—is compromised by the need to seek the Attorney's approval.

Some have suggested that the Attorney may be compromised in making any decision. What if the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission wanted to take a federal department to court? Here you have the first law officer of the land, who is bound to defend and mount the case in defence of the department, agreeing or disagreeing about whether this body that acts on behalf of the poor and disempowered should be allowed to mount the case. I think it is very unfortunate.

It is quite clear that this government has learnt nothing from the Victorian election—it has learnt nothing about what happens when governments attack independent organs like the office of the Auditor-General or the independent Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissioner. I mentioned that the position of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner is to be abolished. What a tragedy. If there is one group in our society that is surely deserving of a voice it is our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community. It is as if the government believes that everything has been accomplished—that there is no particular need for this body to have such representation. I wish that day had arrived. But we are far from it, and I believe that there is a real need for the continuation of this commissioner.

This bill abolishes the position of Race Discrimination Commissioner and the Community Relations Council and establishes a separate Office of the Privacy Commission. I think these changes are really more ideological changes. They are establishing this body as the No. 1 target of the conservative government, and the real losers are not going to be you, Mr Deputy Speaker, or me. It is the poor, the disempowered and those citizens who cannot afford to exercise their legal rights—in fact, those who cannot even speak up about the rights that they are losing—that have the most to lose from this bill going through. This bill brings shame on this government, and I do not support it.