Mr RANDALL (11:35 AM) —I will initially speak to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill 2002, but I am sure that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will give me the latitude of responding to some of the comments that the member for Barton has made in wide ranging discussions on this bill. I am pleased to see that the member for Barton has indicated that the Labor Party supports this amendment, so it should have very smooth passage through the House, and hopefully the Senate—as it should do, because it is a correction to a drafting oversight and is just a mechanical piece of legislation to correct an omission. As I and the member for Barton have already said, this bill addresses the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1999, where the omission was made. The omission was highlighted, as has already been said, in the case of Rainsford v. State of Victoria [2001] FMCA 115. It basically meant that the states technically remained out of bounds by prohibitions and discriminations in Commonwealth antidiscrimination law. Complaints of unlawful discrimination can no longer be made against a state. That certainly was not the intention. This bill will ensure that Commonwealth antidiscrimination laws continue to apply to the states and that the states are bound by the complaints and remedies provisions in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986.

The reforms in this bill will make sure that actions for unlawful discrimination under Commonwealth antidiscrimination law can be brought against the state in the same way that they could be brought before the Rainsford decision. The commencement of these reforms in the bill will be retrospective to 13 April 2000, when the act was amended and the problem identified in Rainsford was inadvertently created. Any retrospective legislation must always be of some concern, but in this case retrospective legislation is actually doing the right thing and correcting an anomaly. Given the fact that it has so much support, I am sure that retrospectivity in this case is a good thing.

The reforms will simply reinstate the situation that was believed to be the case prior to the Rainsford decision: that the states are bound by the relevant complaints and remedies provisions in the act. This will ensure that there is no gap in the coverage of our antidiscrimination legislation and that individuals who believe they have been discriminated against by the state since 13 April 2000 will be able to pursue their complaints after the commencement of the bill.

The Howard government's quick legislative response to this anomaly which was identified in the Rainsford case demonstrates its strong commitment to the effective operation of antidiscrimination law across Australia. In contrast to what the member for Barton said, this government does have a deep and abiding commitment to address issues of human rights and discrimination, and the quick action of the government to fix this anomaly demonstrates the government's commitment in this regard.

That august body the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission have, in their press release, welcomed the government's quick action and praised the government on its application of this action in the area of human rights and equal opportunities. Their press release says:

This is dated 21 February 2002, so it is not today. It says:

This was obviously wrong, hence the correction today. The press release continues:

This is as I have said. They continue

So that is very nice to know.

We again reiterate that there is no gap in the coverage of our antidiscrimination legislation and that individuals who believe that they have been discriminated against are covered by this amendment. Without the urgent amendments to the act which this bill proposes to make, the effect of the Rainsford decision would compromise the effectiveness of Australia's antidiscrimination legislation.

That again demonstrates this government's commitment to ensuring good legislation and good laws, as they involve the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Effective antidiscrimination laws are essential to ensure that Australia remains a just and equitable society—again, the government's further commitment. I know that the bill has received wide support from the community, including—as I have already indicated—from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and, in addition, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights.

I would like to continue in response to the member for Barton's discussion, or comments, regarding this government's attitude to human rights. Currently, in my electorate of Canning, I have been informed by the local media that a group of American lawyers have decided to take an action against the people operating the detention facilities in this country. It is amazing that you should have a group of American lawyers coming to this country who are deciding that they will take an action against the company running our detention centres.

I find it obnoxious that somebody from another country would decide to come and intervene in the business of this country. My question and my response to the local media was: if a group of American lawyers is so concerned about human rights, why aren't they doing something for the North American Indians in their own country? Why aren't they addressing the inequity that is faced by the indigenous people in their country? If they really wanted to do something on behalf of human rights, they would be going to Zimbabwe today to look at the actions of Mr Mugabe, and the horrendous human rights problems in that country. If they are so concerned about human rights around the world, they might want to consider the human rights of indigenous people in other countries and of the not-so-well-off people in their country, which are being decimated.

Coming to our country, wanting to preach to us on human rights, is just so out of whack. Let me point out that, when they come here and say the condition of the detention centres is so terrible, just remember what people from Afghanistan, for example, came from. They came from a war-torn country under the Taliban where they were being totally destroyed and torn apart, with women being beaten and brutalised by their own men and society. Where were these people when these sorts of human rights problems were going on in countries like Afghanistan?

And yet these Afghans that are in the detention centres at the moment are receiving incredible treatment. Just think of what they are getting: they have a roof over their heads; they are fed well—at least three meals a day; their children get to go to school; they receive some reimbursement. I would say that the regard for human rights shown by Australia in the treatment of the people that come to this country is world-class, and I reject the member for Barton's criticism of the human rights treatment of people in this country.