Page 4477 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Bill would also remove for its purposes many of our common law rights. As an example I will take some of the clauses. Clause 8 of this Bill goes close to creating thought offences and is actually an attack on freedom of speech. It makes it an offence to even voice certain proposals. It could prevent people from discussing certain things. For example, if someone proposed to another that it was appropriate for them to hire a woman receptionist for their doctors' surgery, upon making that proposal, under clauses 8 and 10, they may have broken the law because discrimination within the Bill includes a proposal to discriminate.
Under clause 10 the Bill discriminates against employers, both small and large, by forcing them to pay for the biases or viewpoints of other people. I think this is a very important point that we need to look at. If the marketplace discriminates, the employer would be forced to bear the cost of government policy. In this current economic climate small businesses cannot really afford to pay any more than they already pay.
Let me take an example of a receptionist in a beauty salon. A woman of equal ability will always be a better receptionist than a man. Why? Some women are embarrassed to talk to a man on the phone about certain beauty treatments - specifically, bikini lines and others. Inside the salon a woman client may be reluctant to discuss with a male receptionist certain matters relating to women. For these reasons she may take her business elsewhere. Under this legislation a business which is forced to hire a man may well be placed at a disadvantage over one who happened to have a woman receptionist. In other words, it would be discriminated against. The exception clause, clause 34, does not apply to this or other examples that I raise. It is certainly possible that similar situations may exist in many other industries.
Clause 11 could compel business owners to pay for the time that staff spend on what are called "reasonable religious practices". This in itself, I feel, is unjust. The Bill also fails to define what is reasonable or what is a religious practice. Who could determine what such a definition could be held to include now or in the future? It could actually force business owners to accept someone practising a religion, regardless of how much such a practice may go against the spiritual or moral values of the owner of the business. If an employee had a sincerely held religious belief or practice that required him or her to pray twice during the working day or evening, as it may be, for about 15 minutes each time, while the Bill does not require the employer to pay, it is open to the suggestion that docking the worker's pay for the time spent could constitute discrimination on the grounds of religion.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .