Page 4490 - Week 15 - Tuesday, 19 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Coincidentally, it would give us a Bill that had the same title as equivalent legislation in Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. It would bring us into line with what seems to be the prevalent State practice.
It is significant, of course, that the only State that is out of line with that practice is New South Wales, which at least has the sense to call its legislation the Anti-Discrimination Act. We really would be standing on our own if we were to call our legislation the Discrimination Act. The community has expressed its view against that fairly strongly. We certainly oppose the amendment put up by Mr Stefaniak and supported by Mr Collaery to call it the Discrimination Act. We are offering in the amendment I have moved something of a compromise.
If we want to change the title, let us change it to something which is positive. Let us call it the Equal Opportunity Act, which coincidentally has the advantage, as I say, of bringing us into line with what seems to be the established practice in the State jurisdictions. The community has expressed the clear view, as the Chief Minister said and as Mr Collaery said, that women's groups do not want the title "Discrimination Act". For the Assembly to change it from "Human Rights and Equal Opportunity" back to "Discrimination" is really flying in the face of that clearly expressed community will.
The matter is obviously in the hands of the Assembly. As a minority government, we need to offer up this compromise. But I would stress to members that my proposal would at least give us a title which avoided the negativism of "Discrimination Act" and did not throw back in the face of groups their strong view about a title which they would find offensive. It seems pointless in this type of legislation, of all types of legislation, to pick a title which groups have said they find offensive.
MR DUBY (11.26): Mr Speaker, I guess a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. In a lot of ways, a few debating points are being made here in discussing the title of this Bill. As a matter of fact, it is almost like Middle Ages philosophers discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and how many cannot.
Mr Kaine: How many can?
MR DUBY: I do not know how many can. It is clear that there are political overtones in this discussion. The Government wished to call this Bill the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill. In my view, it is not a human rights Bill, in the general acceptance of the phrase as determined by the average person in the street. "Human rights" refers to life and liberty and the things along those lines - the rights that would be encompassed in a Bill of Rights which set out the rights of individuals within a state. On the other hand, the Bill before us aims to protect persons from discrimination for whatever purpose.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .