Mr WILTON (9:39 PM) —It is by no means simply a coincidence that this government has come under scrutiny from the United Nations for its human rights policies at the same time as, in my view, its arrogant policy making is starting to catch up with it. There is an endless list of demonstrations of arrogance in terms of its policy making. One need only allude to its clumsy attempt to include, in the preamble of the Constitution, proper mention of Aboriginal people and their rightful custodianship of our land. A more recent example is its abolition of defence service leave as an allowable matter, which is now coming back to haunt it in terms of the East Timor situation. And, of course, back to the Aboriginal situation, there is its heinous approach to the stolen generation when the Prime Minister refused to say that he was sorry.

It is an international disgrace that a developed country such as ours should come to the attention of the UN, again for all the wrong reasons. On the matter of the preamble, which I just alluded to, earlier this year the Prime Minister said:

Isn't it better for those who want the Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders recognised to have something rather than nothing at all? Because that is what will happen . . .

That is, what will happen if the preamble is rejected. This underpins much of the government's policy making in general. For it would seem that the government's proposed emasculation—which is all that it really can be called—of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in this bill is yet another case of: `It is better to have a degraded human rights body unable to properly perform its function rather than to have nothing at all.' In my view, this is tokenism at its worst.

The government, as the member for Chifley quite succinctly indicated, has missed the point of having an accessible and progressive Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. As the member for Chifley also said, citizens need not only legal rights but also the resources, facilities and the wherewithal to exercise those rights. Not only are cuts to legal aid a manifestation of the government's real agenda in this regard but also the fact that it has diminished the opportunities for people to exercise their rights through the commission is a further indication of its true intent.

As part of the government's restructure of the commission, five commissioners with discrete responsibilities will be reduced to three generalist deputy presidents. This includes the removal, as the member for Chifley said, of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, a position that was introduced in response to the Royal Commission into Aboriginals Deaths in Custody. We have seen something of a moderate decline in recent years in the rate of those deaths, but they still remain unacceptably high, as do the rates of incarceration.

Obviously, the least appropriate time to remove the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner would therefore be right now. Under the legislation before the House not only is this commissioner removed but also Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders do not even rate a mention in the new deputy president's responsibilities. This is, at best, insensitive government policy and, at worst, it is policy that jeopardises the increasing level of goodwill that has been developed and built up between the government and Australia's indigenous peoples, primarily by previous governments. It also no doubt further tarnishes Australia's previously excellent reputation and record in the whole realm of human rights.

The Attorney-General has argued in this House that these amendments will, by and large, improve the efficiency of the commission. One can but ask: how can this be when it has already lost a third of its staff and some $7 million from its funding? The actual savings from this restructure are far from clear even to the government, as plans for the new and separately administered Privacy Commissioner have not yet been properly costed.

The Attorney-General also claims that the commission's key focus will be on education and assisting business and the community to comply with human rights standards. But, as was posed also by the member for Chifley, how will the commission achieve this? It will be flat out handling complaints. It will have neither the time nor the money to educate or assist anybody. But the government does not stop there in trying to justify its actions. In response to these so-called efficiency measures, the commission now will have to prioritise—or perhaps we could use the word `discriminate'—in all of its discrimination cases rather than investigate each and every one. The absurdity of this situation is that Australia will become saddled with an embarrassingly and increasingly watered-down antidiscrimination body which will be forced to discriminate because of poor and inadequate government policy.

This brings me to the somewhat curious though seemingly innocuous proposed name change of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission. It is just a name, but a tale perhaps begins to unfold when we examine some of the guidelines for accessing the commission. In particular, these guidelines state that assistance may be granted for equal opportunity/discrimination cases where there are strong prospects of substantial benefits being gained. Moreover, these benefits should not be confined to the applicant but to the public and/or any section of the public. I repeat: applicants must show that they have strong prospects of success before being granted assistance. So not only will applicants more than likely be subjected to lengthy waiting times due to the decimation of staff and resources but also somewhere along the line a decision may be made that their case is not important enough to be heard at all.

Is it any wonder that the government wants to get rid of the term `equal opportunity'? Really there is very little that could reasonably be said to be equal about it. Those who need the commission's assistance most will be those who have the door slammed in their face. The phrase `equal opportunity' carries far more weight than this government realises.

In conclusion, I point out that Australia is the first Western developed country to fall under investigation by the United Nations for the direction of its human rights policies. This lumps Australia in with nations such as Burundi, Bosnia and Rwanda. What does this government do in response? As we all know, the Prime Minister makes a vague and insulting attempt at including Australia's indigenous people in the Constitution's preamble. But the government also removes the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, slashes the resources for the nation's peak human rights agency and, furthermore, ignores calls from the UN to reopen talks with indigenous people regarding native title. This has all been done under that vague notion of increasing efficiency. But for whom, might I ask? Certainly not for those trying to reasonably access justice.

If Australian society is to be judged by the world at large as to how it treats its vulnerable and disenfranchised citizens, then the government needs to be mindful of its treatment of agencies which protect the rights of these groups. As was alluded to by the member for Chifley, one need only look to the Victorian situation to see the embarrassing backflip that caretaker Premier Kennett has had to suffer with the whole state railing against his attempts to abolish the role of the Auditor-General.

This government should not undervalue the inherent and substantive benefits to be gained by promoting a proactive educative Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It should heed the warning put to it by the Australian Institute of Criminology that:

If we [Australia] do not make progress [on human rights issues] in the immediate future, attention on Australia in the year 2000 may not be focused on the Olympics alone.

If these amendments are passed, in my view, the rest of the world will scorn Australia for its insensitive approach both to race relations and human rights.

The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is not just about funding—again the member for Chifley put up a cogent argument that the commission was about far more than funding—neither is it about picking winners nor deciding whose case is more important, one over the other. It is about equal access to protection. It is about having a genuine opportunity to right wrongs. It is about recognising and assisting minorities—the sorts of people that we on this side of the House are pleased to protect and pleased to ensure will not be left behind. It is about proactive community education on human rights issues. All of these are severely compromised by this legislation. Overall, the commission has done some fine work in the past, some excellent work, but this legislation denies it of its funding, its independence and its opportunity to continue to pursue the sorts of causes that Australia has become known and respected for.