Page 4473 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
and that, when the complexities of defining and legislating for discrimination on the basis of age have been sorted out and we reach a point where we can define what we mean by discrimination on the basis of age, at all ages, there will be incorporated in this Act a provision against such discrimination. I believe that that needs to be made clear. We are not discriminating against the ageing when we exclude them from this discrimination Bill, and I would like that to be on the record.
MR JENSEN (10.27): In commencing my remarks I will make some brief comments on the parentage of this Bill, and who has had the responsibility for its preparation. As has already been said in debate tonight, the legislative counsel's office has prepared this Bill; but, of course, on the instructions of a responsible Minister, following agreement by a Cabinet. There is no doubt that both those things happened. The Alliance Government approved the preparation of a Discrimination Bill, as it was then called, and it would appear that, since the change of government, Ms Follett's Government has also approved a Bill on this particular subject.
My understanding is that, in fact, it was not drafting instructions that were prepared under the instructions of the Follett Cabinet; it was a discussion paper. I think we have been down this path before in relation to other legislation. There is, I would suggest, a major difference between drafting instructions and discussion papers. I do not think anyone would doubt that. So, let us call a spade a spade, when it is a spade and not a shovel, and let us stop beating around the bush. The clear fact of the matter is that the drafting instructions for the legislation that we are discussing tonight were produced under the direction of my colleague Mr Collaery, via and with the approval of the Alliance Cabinet.
It is most unfortunate that the debate on a Bill as important as this has had to include these sorts of comments. It would have been quite appropriate, I would suggest, for Ms Follett to very graciously admit and accept the fact that this Bill has been the result of a process spanning three governments. She should not have claimed this Bill as her own, as she did on ABC radio. Let the record show, Ms Follett, that that is what you did, and I think you will be judged accordingly.
As one who carefully helped check the Bill tabled by Ms Follett against the draft Bill produced on the instructions of my colleague Mr Collaery, I can assure you that I found very, very few changes in that legislation - and any that were there were marginal. I will therefore wait with interest to see how Ms Follett comments on these suggestions concerning who was actually responsible for the Bill, and on her comments made on ABC radio not that long ago.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .