Page 5089 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Clause 4
MR COLLAERY (3.53): I move:
Page 2, line 24, subclause (1), omit "Human Rights", substitute "Discrimination".
This amendment relates to the definition of "Commissioner". The arguments of the Rally for this provision were advanced earlier in the debate. For economy of time, I do not propose to repeat them, other than to say that generically this Bill deals mostly with discrimination, as we argued. Ironically, it provides in textual terms greater space for the exemptions and discriminations that the law does allow. Society requires a balance and society does allow a certain level of discrimination, and we see all those provisions further on in the Bill.
MR STEFANIAK (3.54): Given that I have the same amendment, I am not going to reiterate the arguments I put last week in relation to the same point. This is a consequential amendment to what we hope will become the title of the Bill. I reiterate what I said earlier. The title should be the Discrimination Act, just as the Crimes Act is the Crimes Act. That is the rationale; if one looks up any sort of legal textbook one will see the rationale for this. This is what the Alliance Government was going to bring in and I think it should still be the case.
MR BERRY (Minister for Health and Minister for Sport) (3.55): The Labor Party will oppose this amendment. We would prefer the title "Equal Opportunity Commissioner". It is very clear from our point of view that "Discrimination" is not the appropriate title. This is a Bill about equal opportunity for all, and discrimination is a negative term, in our view. It would therefore be more appropriate for the title to be Equal Opportunity Commissioner instead of Discrimination Commissioner, as proposed in the amendment Mr Collaery has moved.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (3.56): I move as an amendment to Mr Collaery's amendment:
Omit "Discrimination", substitute "Equal Opportunity".
I believe that we can come to an agreed position on the title of this Bill. I am aware, of course, that members opposite believe that the term "human rights" is too broad and has a general application which is perhaps not reflected in this Bill. I understand their point of view there. I hope equally that they will understand my point of view and the point of view of many of the people consulted on this Bill. The term "discrimination", I believe, is negative and the title "Discrimination Commissioner" is also negative. It is a term that will put people off, and that is contrary to the intentions of the Bill; I know that it is contrary to the intentions of 16 of the 17 members of this Assembly.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .