Page 4471 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
child-care to its employees. The Melbourne electronics company, Ericsson, is building a child-care centre jointly with the Department of Education. And, locally, John James Memorial Hospital is introducing more flexible working arrangements, based on award provisions.
These are practical measures which benefit the community as a whole. That is why it is all the more astounding that Ms Follett introduces legislation to protect the rights of workers on the one hand and, on the other, considers cutting staff in the children's day care services area at a time when demand has hardly been higher. I think that this is a contradiction - and that is not to mention the rights of the children in those child-care centres who are entitled to the best possible care that we can offer them. So, while Ms Follett's Bill appears, on the surface, to be in line with national and international initiatives, in practice I am not quite sure that it is fully living up to those standards.
In conclusion, while I strongly support protection in law for workers with family responsibilities, I support equally initiatives to assist both employees and employers to find a balance between the demands of work and families. I have spoken on just one issue; we could go on and talk about many more. Discrimination against women is another big issue. This legislation will help prevent that from happening. A lot of amendments have been put before us this evening, and I feel that they need to be fully looked at in detail. It might be best to adjourn this debate.
MR KAINE (Leader of the Opposition) (10.22): Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, members of the Liberal Party have already made it clear that the party supports this legislation. It does so because there is no place in any modern and reasonable society for discrimination on any ground whatsoever. Clause 7 of this Bill talks about discrimination on a whole range of grounds - sex, sexuality, marital status, race, religion and the like. There is one major omission there, and that is discrimination on the basis of age.
Dr Kinloch: Hear, hear!
MR KAINE: I agree with Dr Kinloch. A lot of people in our community are going to ask us, "Why is it that this very comprehensive Bill says nothing about discrimination on the basis of age?". I think that people deserve an explanation.
Generally speaking, I suspect that, when one thinks of discrimination on the basis of age, one generally thinks of people who are older people. I refer to people who are discriminated against in employment because they are reaching an age of 50, 55 or 60 and are perhaps no longer considered to be competent at their job, or people of whom it is thought, "They are going to retire soon and we might as well get rid of them now".
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .