Page 5136 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
They are talking there about Down's syndrome and things like that, I presume. I need to be convinced that we are not going to get into unintended effects here.
I will pass from students for a moment, Mr Speaker, and talk about "a voluntary body". I can imagine that there are voluntary bodies - for example, a baby-sitting circle - where, unless you are a member of that circle, it could be asked: Why should you be able to demand services from that circle? Mr Humphries is troubled by this. I would be grateful if he would explain it to me.
Frankly, I will be swayed by arguments on the floor on this issue. I personally will advise my colleagues, since I am the lawyer and supposedly have an advantage in these statutory interpretation issues, that I am troubled that, after two years of working this one up, we are going to make it a ground of discrimination for there to be a preference to persons or a non-preference to persons who belong to a voluntary body. There is a hospice association in this town; there is a vast miscellany of voluntary bodies.
Mr Stefaniak has the call again. He needs to explain that we are not getting into difficulty with this one. If he can convince me that what he is referring to is a little gang of students at the ANU or anywhere else who want to discriminate against other students because they have not joined the Young Liberals or Young Labor or what have you, then I will vote with him on this.
Mr Stefaniak: That is exactly right.
MR COLLAERY: Mr Stefaniak says that that is his objective. That may be his objective; but the words of this may have a wider, unintended effect. It is 6.25 pm, after a very difficult day, and we need to be very careful that we do not mar this piece of legislation. I am at a loss to understand where we are going on it. The Attorney has the advantage of law officers. Perhaps we should hear from him next.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (6.25): I do not always say this in this chamber, but what Mr Collaery just said makes an awful lot of sense and I think it should guide all members in their deliberations on this.
Essentially, what Mr Collaery said was that this set of criteria for discrimination has been very carefully worked up over a number of years, many, many hours of consultation with the community, many, many pages of documentation prepared in the arguments to and fro from the community, and extensive consultation; and at the last minute the Liberal Party, for what I would say are ideological reasons, have come up with an amendment. Essentially, what Mr Collaery has said is that he would require a lot of convincing as to why we should adopt an off-the-cuff
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .