Page 205 - Week 02 - Thursday, 25 May 1989
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
out on top. I was very pleased when I went up to my room about an hour ago to see that signs had been put up on the doors. Although Mrs Nolan and I share a room, I noted that her sign was above mine, so there is further equality there too.
I do stress, however, that we should not indulge in tokenism and that this process should be based on merit. That is very important. There are some areas, as people have mentioned, where there are a large number of women employed; other jobs where there are a large number of men employed. I can recall an EEO representative coming to my department when I was a prosecutor, and commenting on the fact that we only had one female prosecutor. It was something to do with the nature of the job, and shortly after that the young lady in question left. However, it was also true to say that the one female prosecutor before her was highly regarded by the courts, and indeed was probably the best operator we had in the office. Some jobs seem to attract people of one sex rather than the other, but that is just a fact of life and I think it is artificial to try to legislate against that.
We must make sure that there is promotion only on merit, and that we do not go overboard to the situation where there has to be a certain number of persons of one sex in a particular job whether they like it or not.
A few friends of mine who are teachers, both males and females, complain that in attempts at fairness in that field there seems now to be almost a bias towards the need to put women in certain positions, which makes it very difficult for men to get into some of those positions. I think that is going a little bit too far. Therefore, I stress that merit should be the only real criterion.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) ( 4.18): I have spoken on this subject, but I would like to make a comment in accordance with standing order 47. A couple of members have implied that in my remarks I was making some kind of value judgment. In fact, I thought I was traversing the subject quite objectively and not making value judgments about the subject matter. I refer specifically to a comment by Mr Berry that I had criticised the affirmative action program in the public service. I did not do that and had no intention of doing so. I simply noted that the affirmative action program had been in place for many years and had not, as far as I could see, achieved the objectives that were intended for it. It was a quite objective statement and, I believe, a fact.
Ms Maher also made a comment that I had implied that women, whether in employment or in the home or wherever, were happy with their lot and did not feel disadvantaged. Ms Maher said that perhaps - and she referred to me specifically - if they had more information they might change their mind. They well might, and I was not making any judgment about that either, but I think it is still
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .