Mr McCLELLAND (11:30 AM) —I will respond to the government's amendments to the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 . The true colours have been shown by the government with respect to the amendments to require the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to give notice to the Attorney-General before intervening in the proceedings. The Attorney-General expressed concern that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission appeared in several Federal Court cases and one in particular—

Mr Williams —The Family Court.

Mr McCLELLAND —The Family Court, as the Attorney-General notes, and put submissions directly contrary to the government.

Mr Williams —Contrary to the children's interests.

Mr McCLELLAND —Indeed, he argued contrary to the children's interests. That may or may not have been the case, depending on the interpretation of the court. But the more important principle is that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission should be putting submissions irrespective of what submissions the government may be making. Indeed, we have to remember that in many societies, and certainly in our society, the body most likely to infringe and impinge upon human rights is the government of the day. These agencies and the independence of these agencies to take on the government are vitally important to preserving the fundamental freedoms of civilians in society.

Whatever particular argument was put in that Family Court case does not detract from the general principle that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission should be separate and distinct and operate fearlessly and independently from whatever pressure the government may put on it. So we see as a fundamental problem this legislative prescription that the commission must first notify the Attorney-General within a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time? What is the penalty for failing to notify the government? Is the ability to intervene in proceedings negated or taken away as a result of that failure? As we see it, this provision is impractical and unworkable.

Certainly any responsible advocate appearing on behalf of any party in the proceedings would consult with their opponents or other parties in those proceedings before appearing. They would responsibly give an outline of the arguments that they intended to make, but the requirement that they do so should not be there as a prescription simply to, if you like, put the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission under the spotlight of interrogation as to why it is intending to intervene in proceedings. Reading through these amendments and, with respect, having regard to the Attorney-General's comments in his last contribution, that clearly is the government's motive for moving these amendments.

We accept that it is a significant improvement on the wording of the bill in that the Attorney had complete discretion as to whether or not he would permit the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to intervene. That discretion has been removed and there is this mandatory obligation to notify and be subject to, one presumes, interrogation and pressure. The opposition trusts that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will have the integrity and the fortitude to withstand that pressure, that if it forms the view that an issue needs pursuing it will, irrespective of any pressure brought on it by the government, pursue that issue.

In the other area where the government is proposing to give continuity for the three commissioners, we repeat what we have previously said: we are very concerned about the abolition of those specialist commissioners. While the Attorney criticised the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, CERD, with respect to findings generally, the finding with respect to this abolition of specialist commissioners was specific. It cannot be dismissed so readily by the government. The committee quite unambiguously said that to remove specialist commissioners, particularly in the racial discrimination area, detracted from the nation's ability to protect the interests of those who are most vulnerable.

The government's amendments are certainly an improvement on the bill. They are not what the opposition wants. The opposition should indicate formally that it does not approve of the direction the government is going in but, insofar as these amendments do improve some significant defects, the opposition will not oppose them. (Time expired)

Amendments agreed to.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.