Independent MP Mr. Stuart Hayward said yesterday.

Mr. Hayward, who in a speech earlier this week advocated guaranteeing "length of life'' in the Human Rights Act, admitted he wasn't sure how it could be legislated.

"But if you find a class of people do not have the same life span as other people, you ought to explore why and find if there is some bias in employment, education, health care and so on,'' he said.

"It extends the notion of the standard human rights situation but it is a problem.'' In his speech to the Kiwanis of Hamilton, Mr. Hayward said the right to the same length of life as other groups in the community should be accorded to black males in the Human Rights Act.

The Pembroke West Central MP also said Government should be bound by the Human Rights Act and the Human Rights Commission's powers should be expanded.

"There are some among us who would accord the right-to-life to the unborn,'' he said. "Shouldn't black males have a right to life too -- at least a right to the same length of life as other groups in our community? "Yet nearly one quarter of the blacks who died in 1985 were snuffed out before they reached the age of 50 (the figure for white males was 11 percent).

"And nearly one half, 49 percent, of the black males who died that year never reached age 65 (the figure for white males was 31 percent).'' In an interview yesterday, he admitted that the "right'' might not be workable in legislation, but said he had included it to get people to stretch their thinking on human rights.

"In an affluent society, this ought not to be a problem,'' he said. "And in a caring society, you should do something about it.'' He said the early death rate of blacks was attributed to several diseases, including AIDS, hypertension, certain types of cancer and stress.

Mr. Hayward's speech also included a plea for Government, which he said placed human rights low on its agenda, to move quickly to amend the Act.

He said the 1969 Race Relations Act had given wide powers to the Race Relations Council to thwart racial discrimination, including binding Government and requiring an annual report to be tabled in Parliament.

"The major problem with the Race Relations Act of 1969 was that it prohibited only racial discrimination when, in fact, discrimination along the lines of age, gender and marital status were just as prevalent,'' he said.

"The Human Rights Act of 1981 was supposed to expand the scope of rights protection to encompass all manner of discrimination.

"The new Act covered more people but the coverage was decreased. It is clear that while one hand giveth, the other took away; in the process of being expanded, the Human Rights Act was de-fanged and emasculated.'' While the Act expanded the area of protection from race to include gender, marital status, place of origin, ancestry, religious beliefs and political opinions, it failed to protect people from discrimination on the basis of physical characteristics, age or ability, he claimed.

Nor did it allow the Commission to initiate complaints, properly carry a case to completion or bind Government.

Proposals debated by Parliament last year which would bind Government, give the commission "carriage at a board of inquiry'', and allow it to pursue oral complaints, were a step in the right direction, he said, but he questioned if they were enough.

"In 1989, people were actually threatened with the loss of their jobs if they did didn't vote the `right way','' he said. "Would the Human Rights legislation as it exists have protected such persons from losing their jobs or being put out of their houses if they dared stand up for their rights? I think not.'' He also claimed people in "the highest places'' proposed keeping a "hit list'' of anyone who campaigned against the UBP in 1989 and questioned whether the Human Rights Act could have stopped them.