Page 4478 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is one thing for an Act to make discrimination unlawful; it is quite another for an Act to require, in effect, reverse discrimination or support for a particular attribute, specifically, attributes relating to homosexuality, transsexuality, religious or political conviction or impairment. In the example that I just mentioned, not only is it the case that the employer must permit such religious practices but also the employer is, by implication, forced to pay for, in this case, what would amount to three weeks' pay a year for each employee, in support of those activities. The Bill states that you must not discriminate; yet at the same time it effectively requires groups, such as employers, to positively support such attributes.
Under clause 12 a principal cannot hire commission agents of one sex only, even if the principal is convinced that a woman is better suited to market his product; for example, goods or services for a baby which are sold door to door. It is reasonable to think that a woman, perhaps even specifically a mother, may well be a better representative in this circumstance. Also, would not a woman at home alone in the day be more ready to admit another woman into her home, from a security aspect? Under this Bill it would not matter that the principal is certain that women agents make more sales; he would be breaking the law if he discriminated in that way. If the business owner abided by this law, he could well be financially disadvantaged or, in other words, discriminated against.
If a home owner had a flat at the rear of his home, clause 21 could compel him to let it out to, for example, two homosexuals, even though his children may regularly play in the yard and would come into contact with those homosexuals and the landlord believed that it is entirely inappropriate for his young children to be exposed to homosexuals or homosexual acts such as kissing. Clause 23 would make it unlawful for the landlord to ask another landlord whether the prospective tenants were homosexual, transsexual or political or religious extremists.
Some people work to maintain or change values in our society. Under clause 31 this Bill could force such people to hire and work with people who hold diametrically opposed values. It could place their very aims in danger of being broken down by people working within their own group. For example, a group that was dedicated to supporting the very values that this legislation seeks to introduce would have no right whatsoever to refuse to hire a telephonist or office manager who holds the view that this type of legislation is social engineering at its worst.
Under clause 44 the Bill allows politicians and political parties hiring employees to discriminate as to political values or convictions. The Bill, however, prevents others from discriminating in the same way as to religious values or convictions. Where is the justice in this attempt at discrimination by the Government that holds political
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .