Page 4483 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The definition of "associate" was modified to explicitly include relatives, to ensure that people who are discriminated against because they are related to someone in one of the protective classes are protected. A clause which exempted requests for medical information was removed. Now only requests for information where that information will not be used for discriminatory purposes are allowed.
The definition of what constitutes sexual harassment was broadened. The Alliance Bill definition included statements of a sexual nature which were made to a person about that person. This was considered too narrow as statements of a general sexual nature may be quite harassing, although not specifically about the complainant. The new definition includes statements of a sexual nature to, or in the presence of, a person, whether or not the statements are about that person.
Another change is that the breach of a direction of the commissioner is a criminal offence under the Bill. In the Alliance version such an offence carried the maximum penalty of $2,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a body corporate. This was not considered tough enough; so, the new penalty is $500 for every day that the commission's direction is not followed. A final change is that the definition of "employment" has been expanded so that unpaid workers are also protected from discrimination in employment.
Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Humphries drew attention to the difficulties that have been had in some jurisdictions over the definition of what constitutes discrimination. He quite rightly pointed out that it has been the subject of many hours of court time. I would like to say that the definition that is contained in this Bill is in plain English. That it has been taken out of that very legalistic sphere is quite a change.
Under the Bill that we have before us, direct discrimination is to treat someone unfavourably because of his or her sex, sexuality, marital status, religious or political conviction, and so on. Indirect discrimination is to impose a condition or requirement which will or is likely to disadvantage people because they have one of the protected attributes. So, I take Mr Humphries' point on that, and I would like to say that I think it has been addressed in a quite practical way in the Bill.
Mr Kaine raised the issue of protection against discrimination on the grounds of age. Mr Kaine is quite correct in saying that this is a very difficult issue. In fact, at this point, I think it is probably a little bit too difficult. I have been advised that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has had a look at the issue and has agreed that it would be up to the Commonwealth to do further work on it. In fact, the Standing Committee of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .