Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (5:08 PM) —The Labor Party is again pleased to assist the government in cleaning up their mess. The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) is so important that they could not even get speakers on their side of the House who are scheduled to speak to actually turn up to speak on the bill.

I regard the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill that is before us today as another example of this government's fetish to undermine the security of ordinary Australians in their workplaces, suburbs, streets and homes. Australia has been a world leader in the creation of administrative tribunals which have provided, I suggest, quick, cheap, but quality defences of the basic rights of all Australians. I think that is exceptionally important, especially in this day and age. We have had a suggestion from some quarters of the political debate, such as those who associate themselves with One Nation, that we ought not be concerned with tribunals and appeal processes, such as those going to human rights in this great nation.

Since coming to government, the Howard coalition has been busy rolling back these world-beating standards. Our world-beating standards are processes that we as Australians ought to be exceptionally proud of. The Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1998 is just one more example of the rolling back of these basic rights, unfortunately. In that context, the government stands condemned yet again.

I rise this afternoon to plead our position, not just from the point of view of human rights with regard to the rights of immigrants, but also, as the shadow minister for employment, I am particularly concerned about the implications of this piece of legislation for working people and the unemployed who are concerned about discriminatory practices. I can assure the House that they are vitally concerned about discriminatory practices, especially at a time when they are confronting chaos with respect to delivery of employment services.

Despite what the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Dr Kemp) led the House to believe in question time today, the employment network is in utter chaos. Unemployed people are denied access to a free employment service. Throughout the suburbs and regions of Australia, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, where we previously had quality services in operation, those services have been withdrawn.

It is no wonder, unfortunately, that good Australians saw fit, at the recent Queensland election, to vote for a party that does not have solutions. One of the reasons they voted for a party that does not have solutions is that this government, the Howard government, actually withdrew services that were quality services, which assisted those people at a time of need.

I suggest that the proposed changes in this bill represent a further nail in the coffin of Australians who are crying out for assistance at the moment. It is about time that this government confronted the fact that the way to turn back One Nation is to accept that there is a role for government in Australia; to accept that there is a role for government to intervene and to assist—to assist the disadvantaged, to assist those who feel a sense of lack of security in their lives at the moment and, more importantly, to assist families, and the suburbs and regions that they live in.

I am also worried about the fact that this government has, between 1997 and 1999, cut the budget of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission from $19.3 million to $12.3 million. That effectively represents, over a two-year period, as the member for Brisbane (Mr Bevis) reminds me, a decrease of over 36 per cent. Yes, they might have a surplus to use in an election context, but it is about time that they confronted the fact that the so-called surplus, built on the back of Australia's disadvantaged, is creating the environment in which those associated with One Nation can rear their ugly head in Australia. That is what has occurred—services have been withdrawn, with the end result that the ugly head of One Nation is rearing not only in Australia but, unfortunately, internationally and, by doing so, is doing us as a great nation damage on the human rights front.

The cuts to discrimination standards represented by this mean piece of legislation and the cuts to funding of the human rights commission will obviously have an impact on the general efficiency and authority of the commission. My own view is that, at a time of need, we ought to be strengthening the human rights commission, not weakening it and undermining its capacity to do its job. That would represent a clear, black and white statement that we are going to take on One Nation supporters, stand up for what is fair and decent in Australia, properly resource the human rights commission and make sure that, at a time of need, Australians are looked after when they want to take their complaints to an independent and efficient organisation.

It would seem that, if the commission's authority is reduced in these ways, logically, its ability to properly respond to workplace discrimination issues or discrimination against the unemployed will also be significantly reduced. This is not about political correctness, as the Howard government would have you believe. This is about discrimination at work; it is about discrimination against workers with a disability; it is about discrimination against workers based on race; it is about discrimination against women; it is about discrimination against workers based on age, such as the growing and major problem in Australia at the moment about mature age unemployment. My friends, it is not about political correctness; it is about ordinary working Australians and the fact that, when they have a problem, they have a capacity to take a complaint and to have it heard and determined based on merit by a strong, independent organisation.

I would suggest that, by promoting this legislation, the Attorney-General (Mr Williams) will join the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) and the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs as one of the chief promoters of insecurity for workers, the unemployed and their families. I do not say that lightly. The real answer to One Nation is about security and workers' lives; it is not about reducing their sense of security, as embodied in the industrial relations system and the award system. It is not about attacking the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. It is not about sacking workers in the dead of night. It is about making sure that there are institutions in place that are defended and supported by all people who have a sense of decency in Australia.

Australians are sick and tired of governments who promote insecurity in their lives. That is what the Howard government has been responsible for in the short period it has been in government. It has been responsible for worsening the sense of insecurity that exists in people's lives. Australians rightly believe that governments have a role in defending the institutions which deliver security and certainty in their lives, not running away and hiding from their responsibilities. Australians quite rightly believe that governments have a role in providing a helping hand to deliver security and certainty in their lives. Politicians who tear down these institutions which deliver certainty and security will be rejected at the next federal election in the same way they were rejected at the recent Queensland election.

Let me turn for a moment to the issue of workers with a disability and the effect of these so-called reforms in Australia's disability community. I have a particular attachment to these types of workers. I am pleased to say that I was intimately involved in the open employment model, the first and only piece of industrial regulation that ever went before the Australian Industrial Relations Commission as a joint application by employers and unions with the support of the national government. A hell of a lot of work went into developing that open employment model which is about ensuring once and for all that we secure the right of workers with a disability to take their rightful place in all workplaces side by side with able workers.

At both my former union, the Miscellaneous Workers Union, and the Australian Council of Trade Unions I spent many hours, days, months and years trying to deliver dignity in the workplace for workers with a disability. I know it is not an easy fight to deliver dignity to workers with a disability in the face of some of the barriers that they have confronted in the employment situation in the past. There are barriers not only as to their capacity to perform work but also going to the many different prejudices to get decent jobs with decent pay.

The historic supported employment award I referred to that was won for workers with a disability in 1991 did not come without a struggle. The breakthrough was with the Flagstaff Group. All involved, including the parents, agreed it was an important milestone in the promotion of the rights of Australians with disabilities. But I am afraid that the changes to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission will have a negative impact on the disabled despite government claims to the contrary.

The Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Sidoti, who is now the Acting Disability Discrimination Commissioner as well, confirmed in evidence to a Senate estimates committee that the services provided by the Disability Discrimination Commissioner would be amongst those to be affected by the cuts. Half the staff who worked in the disability discrimination area have already been sacked because of the government's cuts to the commission. They are just one section of the many thousands of Australian public servants who have been sacked. There have been sackings in not only areas such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission but also regional Australia. Unfortunately, this has led to a sense of insecurity and lack of stability that operates in regional Australia at the moment in the current political environment.

The new structure in the commission for deputy presidents to be responsible for two areas will mean that the specific representatives for people with a disability will disappear. My own view is that the form of operation that currently exists represents a very clear and proper statement about the importance and significance of these areas that are currently under attack. Some may be discouraged from lodging complaints because of these changes to a deputy president with responsibility for both human rights and disability discrimination. They may also, with some justification, be concerned that the area of human rights is by itself so huge that disability issues will be pushed to the side. I hope not.

The government's continuing denials that the disabled will be worse off because of these changes is hurtful and deceitful. That is what it is—hurtful and deceitful. They ought to hang their heads in shame because of these changes. The community should roundly condemn the government for attacking the rights of some of the most disadvantaged in our community—proud Australians who expect decent governments not only to operate to assist them and their families but also to make a major statement both within Australia and internationally that we care about all sections of the Australian community.

Let me now turn to the legislation itself. The bill implements the government's so-called foreshadowed reforms to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. In particular, the bill renames the commission as the Human Rights and Responsibilities Commission. It restructures the commission to replace the specialist commissioners with a president and three deputy presidents. It allegedly, if you believe the government, refocuses the objectives of the commission to make education, dissemination of information on human rights and assistance to business and the general community the focus of the commission's functions.

The legislation requires the commission to seek the leave of the Attorney-General before engaging in litigation. It removes the advisory committees to the commission. It also prohibits the president from delegating the complaint handling function to the more specialist deputy commissioners. That is interesting when you consider some of the legislative changes on the immigration front at the moment giving senior officers more powers to intervene and assist.

The legislation removes the power of the commission to recommend damages. It removes the barrier to appointing a person as a member of the commission who is over 65 years of age. It abolishes the position of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner. I suppose they think there are votes in that. After all, as has become part and parcel of this government, it is about belting the less privileged in the Australian community. Votes, votes, votes—that is all that drives this government, to be seen to be associated with prejudice and undermining the disadvantaged in the community. Finally, it abolishes the position of the Race Discrimination Commissioner and the Community Relations Council and establishes the new separate office of the Privacy Commissioner.

Despite the government's claim that the new structure will make the commission more efficient, the explanatory memorandum to the bill states that it has no financial impact. Indeed, as the most recent round of estimates hearings indicates, the government still does not have any idea of how much it will cost to establish the new separate Office of the Privacy Commissioner.

The vast majority of these amendments implement an entirely new structure for the commission. In doing so, they remove the position of the specialist commissioners whose expertise is vital in the determination and investigation of human rights matters. They also reduce the flexibility of the commission to engage in the complaint handling function.

It follows from my comments that the Labor opposition strongly opposes these amendments to the human rights legislation. They are shown for what they are: yet another attack on the disadvantaged in the community, driven by push polling aimed at seeking to achieve a higher vote in the next federal election based on prejudice and attacking the disadvantaged in the community. All I can say is that the coalition got their just desserts in the recent Queensland election. It is about time they stood up for a sense of decency rather than sought to determine policy on push polling and attacking the less privileged in the Australian community.