Page 1081 - Week 04 - Thursday, 29 March 1990
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
discrimination. That recent discussion paper put to rest a few myths. They were that older people cannot be educated or re-educated; that older people withdraw and disengage from interests and activities; that the elderly have the same interests and needs and that they are an homogeneous group; that the aged suffer senility, whereas only 5 per cent of those over 65 are so affected; and that the aged inevitably end up in an institutionalised setting. These are the sorts of myths, only a few of them, that lead us to institutionalised discrimination.
An aspect of that response by this Government is the fact that we have added to the antidiscrimination package that was proposed by the former Government. We have taken the initiative to add questions of discrimination affecting the aged. For example, I particularly refer - and it is something that I was aware of in private law practice - to the discrimination in the workers compensation area, where the entitlements of an injured worker in the public sector cease when the worker turns 65 years of age. Similar agreements in the workers compensation area operate in the private sector. It is argued, and justified, that the working life ends with the retirement age and that compensation by insurance companies or governments should not be paid after that mythical retirement age. This means that society assumes that, despite the faults and negligence of the employer that injured you, you go on to the aged pension at that retirement age. That is a legal fiction, a discriminatory fiction, and one that we must look at and address as part of our overall examination of the workers compensation law.
In a similar area there exists the question of legislation concerning the compulsory retirement age, when that compulsory retirement is not related to capacity or ability. Superannuation schemes follow that on by creating differentials between retiring ages for men and women. There is further discrimination for women because they are, in effect, forced to retire at 60. Therefore, they have a shorter contribution period in super schemes. I believe we need competent advice to examine the actuarial bases for some of the calculations of superannuation schemes, particularly for retiring women. The data often contains hidden lurks for those people and there have been some quite interesting inconsistencies thrown up when companions have retired together, in similar circumstances. It has been quite interesting to see the differing benefits drawn. I believe that these are issues that we need to address in a broad context.
This excellent report also referred to other topics, almost no-nos, such as euthanasia. Were the Assembly or the community so minded, we could refer this issue to the new Law Reform Commission that the Government has established. (Extension of time granted) My colleague, Mr Stefaniak - - -
Mr Berry: It is not obligatory to take up the full five minutes.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .