Page 4489 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
In the detail stage, I will point out that the Labor Party has had the Bill since I got it on 27 May and they have drawn up no substantive amendments to it. They have not changed it at all. If I had had another three months, I would have included social origin, because of socioeconomic discrimination. The Labor Party have not done it. I would have included a number of other areas as well.
The fact is that this Bill, on balance, deals with discrimination. It is far better to draw community attention to that generic term and that alone. The term "anti-discrimination" is judgmental; it is adversarial. You should know that HREOC, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, did conduct a poll. Respondents to that poll demonstrated a clearer understanding of what "anti-discrimination" meant than of what "human rights" meant. I will settle for "discrimination" or "anti-discrimination". But, on balance, looking at how we structure our Act so that it is more non-judgmental, more educative and simply allows categories of discrimination, I believe that it should remain the "Discrimination Bill".
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.22): Mr Speaker, I have circulated an amendment which at first sight appears somewhat cryptic. I move, as an amendment to Mr Stefaniak's proposed amendment:
Omit all words after "and".
The effect of this amendment, if carried, would be that Mr Stefaniak's amendment, as amended, would omit "Human Rights and", and thus, if his amendment, as amended, were carried, the title of the Bill would become "Equal Opportunity Bill".
The Labor Government, for the reasons stated very clearly by the Chief Minister, would prefer to keep the title "Human Rights and Equal Opportunity". Indeed, Mr Collaery made the case very well when he said in his speech, although he was arguing from a directly opposite perspective, that in the process of consultation over successive governments a very strong and uniform view emerged from women's groups in the community - from WEL in particular, from Marian Sawer at Canberra University and, as Mr Collaery said, from the Women's Consultative Council - that they did not like the title "Discrimination". They did not want this Bill to be called the Discrimination Bill, because that is a negative title.
We would prefer to call it the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill; but, if members of the Assembly do not want to stick with that title, for whatever reason, I offer up this amendment. This amendment allows the Assembly to change the title, if they want to do that, to "Equal Opportunity Bill", and hence "Equal Opportunity Act". That would accommodate the strong and clearly expressed concern of women's groups that they do not want a negative title.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .