Equal Opportunity Tribunal

About this Item
Speakers - Burgmann The Hon Dr Meredith; Hannaford The Hon John
Business - Questions Without Notice

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TRIBUNAL

The Hon. Dr MEREDITH BURGMANN: My question without notice is to the Attorney General, Minister for Industrial Relations, and Vice-President of the Executive Council. Will the Equal Opportunity Tribunal be forced to close down and to put 200 cases on hold because of a lack of adequate funding? Has the tribunal told the women complainants in the long running Australian Iron and Steel case that it has no money to hear the case even though some of the women have been waiting for 10 years? Has the Attorney General stated that the case could be arbitrated before the Industrial Relations Commission? Under what section of the Industrial Relations Act does the Industrial Relations Commission have the power to hear such a case?

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: As to the first part of the question, the answer is no. As to the second part of the question, whether there is a lack of money to hear the case, I say quite clearly that that is also not correct. This year the Equal Opportunity Tribunal has been established as its own cost centre, and there has been a 43 per cent increase in the allocation of funds in this year's Budget to the Equal Opportunity Tribunal.

The Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti: State funds.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: As the Hon. Dr B. P. V. Pezzutti says, those funds will come from State moneys. That has to be emphasised because in the past two years the Commonwealth Government has cut its contribution to the funding of anti-discrimination programs in New South Wales. Two years ago the Federal Government provided $460,000 to New South Wales in order to assist in the operation of the Anti-Discrimination Board and the Equal Opportunity Tribunal. This year the Commonwealth will provide no moneys whatsoever. The New South Wales Government has maintained the level of funding and, therefore, has picked up the cut in funds made by the Commonwealth Government. That has been done by the reorganisation of funds within the Attorney General's portfolio. Rather than there being a reduction in funds, there has been a significant increase.

Page 7869

The Hon. Franca Arena: But also an increase in complaints.

The Hon. J. P. HANNAFORD: Naturally, and that is why there has been an increase in funds. I notice one of the issues of concern to the senior judicial member was salaries for members of the tribunal. Recently an increase to the salaries of judicial members was approved. The senior judicial member also raised the matter of not having a secretary. Yesterday, when that issue was raised, I asked the director-general of the department to get in touch immediately with the senior judicial member and find out what the problem was because specific approval had been given to allocate funds to employ an additional secretary. Apparently, they had not filled the position but were unaware that they could employ a permanent part-time person from an agency. That situation has been corrected. There are a number of other issues, with which I will not burden the House, as to why the senior judicial member had some problems. When I learned about those problems yesterday - they had not previously been raised with the director-general or myself - I spoke to the director-general who corrected those issues with the senior judicial member.

As to whether these matters could be arbitrated before the Industrial Relations Commission - people who report what I have said on the radio should obtain a full transcript - I did say on the radio this morning in Wollongong that I was looking at other ways in which to approve the efficient dealing with matters that come before the Anti-Discrimination Board and the Equal Opportunity Tribunal. I said one of the issues to which I would be adverting was a recommendation made in the Niland report, which had support from the industrial unions. That was a recognition that a large number of the matters that come before the Equal Opportunity Tribunal - in excess of 75 per cent, from recollection - are directly related employer-employee matters. A large number of those matters could be dealt with before the industrial tribunal as an industrial matter, as recommended in the Niland green paper. However, these particular matters are not matters that would be regarded as falling necessarily within that category.

Although the honourable member did not mention it, I also stated that I am encouraging parties to recognise the significant role that can be played by mediation as an alternative to the expense of litigation. I made some comment to the effect that I was concerned that these matters could become bogged down in legalisms and litigation and that the parties should look at alternative dispute resolution methods, as is encouraged in all other jurisdictions within the court. I was able to state that yesterday during a meeting with the executives of Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited. I expressed my view that it appeared that these matters would get bogged down in legalism and the people who might most benefit would be the lawyers and not the parties before the tribunal. I indicated that mediation measures were available and that perhaps they might address their minds to the question of whether alternative dispute resolution methods could be best adopted, thereby avoiding considerable legal costs to all parties, recognising that they are still matters that have to be determined by the parties. The role of the Attorney General in such major matters should be to remind parties that dispute resolution measures exist and they might address their minds to them, but if they still wish to avail themselves of the legalisms available through the tribunals, that finally is their decision.

Last modified 05/12/2007 16:27:56 : Update this page