Page 1024 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I would simply draw to members’ attention the provisions of the Human Rights Commission Act itself. That does provide protections to people who give information, evidence or assist the commission in its functions, including this inquiry and the human rights audit being conducted by the human rights commissioner. I draw to members’ attention section 98 of the Human Rights Commission Act entitled “Victimisation”. Under that act, a person commits an offence if they seek to cause detriment to another person who has made a complaint under the act, who has given information or produced a document or other thing to a person exercising a function under the act or has given information, produced a document or other thing or answered a question as required under the act.
That is a very strong protection. It is a protection where someone convicted of victimising under this act can face a fine of 50 penalty units or a maximum of six months imprisonment. So this is a very serious provision designed to protect the commission in the exercise of its functions and designed to ensure that people can give evidence and information and assist the commission in the course of its inquiry.
For those opposite to suggest that this is a toothless inquiry, for those opposite to suggest there are no protections available—
Opposition members interjecting—
Mrs Dunne interjecting—
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Mr Hargreaves): Order, members! Mrs Dunne!
MR CORBELL: to people who make and assist the commission in its inquiry is just false. It is just false.
Mr Smyth: It has been corrupted.
MR ASSISTANT SPEAKER: Order!
MR CORBELL: There are protections, and the process should be allowed to run its course.
If the commission believes that it is being hindered in the course of its investigation, it has recourse. In particular, it can have regard to section 98 of its own act and refer matters as it believes appropriate. So let us put that issue to bed. This is not a toothless inquiry. This is an inquiry with protections.
Mr Smyth: No, no. I just said it has been corrupted.
Mrs Dunne: It has been corrupted by you—
MR CORBELL: Are those opposite suggesting that officers of government departments are deliberately putting forward approaches or suggesting courses of action that could potentially be in breach of the act? Is that what they are suggesting?
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video