Page 5094 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
language to be developed. Having worked for seven or eight years as head of an English department in a school, I am delighted that I never had anybody with Mr Stevenson's ideas working for me.
MR DUBY (4.12): A rose by any other name still smells as sweet. We are arguing over a matter of semantics here. I give notice that I support the Act being known as the Discrimination Act. Secondly, I support the amendment moved by Mr Collaery that the commissioner be known as the Discrimination Commissioner. We have just passed clause 3 of this Bill. Clause 3 says that the objects of the Act are to eliminate discrimination. In Part II, clause 7 states:
This Act applies to discrimination ...
It does not mention equal opportunity; it does not mention human rights, which is a totally different issue from the one this Bill addresses. Some members have commented that the word "discrimination" has negative connotations. What is wrong with that? Discrimination is a very negative thing, and people should be able to acknowledge that. The concept that we should have a user-friendly title simply does not make much sense to me. According to that argument, the Taxation Commissioner would soon become the public revenue collector, or whatever.
Mr Jensen: The rebate agency.
MR DUBY: Precisely. The fact is that discrimination is not a very nice thing, and the average man or woman in the street, when they wish to complain about being discriminated against, whether it be for sexual matters or for physical matters or whatever, will want to know where to go. The logical place to go when they want to complain about these matters that are adversely affecting their lives will be the discrimination commissioner.
I am happy to support the amendment, and I look forward to seeing in place a discrimination commissioner.
Motion (by Mr Berry) put:
That the question be now put.
A vote having been called for -
MR SPEAKER: Mr Stevenson, I overrule you there. Let us be fair dinkum about this.
Mr Stevenson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is it not within my power to call a division?
MR SPEAKER: It is not within your power to call a division. It is in your power to ask for one. I have ruled that in this circumstance you are clearly outnumbered and I think it is wasting time. If you insist upon it, you certainly can have a division.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .