Page 5146 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I think this has gone far enough. Lord only knows what we are going to do. I looked at the further list of amendments and they go, "Delete clauses 10 to 26", in numerical order, and then, for whatever reason, we have a break at clause 27. I am worried about clause 27. I would like to have a close look at it to see what it is that Mr Stevenson has not objected to, because obviously there must be some - - -
Mr Connolly: Perhaps there is something wrong with it.
MR DUBY: Exactly. There may be something wrong with it; perhaps it does not meet the spirit of the legislation. Mr Stevenson's amendment should be rejected out of hand.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (6.58): I endorse entirely what Mr Duby has just said. Briefly, for the record, the principal reason why the proposal to treat was added to the definition of discrimination in this legislation was that, in some of the other jurisdictions, under the earlier discrimination Acts, there have been cases where tribunals have held that a decision to do something is not itself an act of discrimination until you actually do it. The classic example of that is that it is discriminatory to build a public building and not provide wheelchair or disabled access.
MR SPEAKER: Order! I draw members' attention to what has happened. Mr Stevenson was asked by me to move the first amendment, but he spoke to the subsequent amendment. People are now following Mr Stevenson's speech; but we really should be speaking to the first amendment, which is the "without reasonable cause" amendment.
MR CONNOLLY: I seek leave to speak more generally to the raft of amendments, because I think these amendments - - -
Mr Jensen: If it will save time, yes.
MR CONNOLLY: Yes, it will. Members would have seen a document circulated by Mr Alan Walker, who I understand is a student at the ANU and who has proposed a lot of amendments. A lot of Mr Stevenson's seem to come from that. The reason why "proposes" was put in was that the act of designing a building was not held to be an act of discrimination. The absurd position was reached whereby you could not challenge the discrimination until the building had been built, and by then it was too late. Allowing a challenge at the point of proposal is obviously sensible.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding that permeates all of Mr Stevenson's approach to this legislation. I will point out the fundamental error to him, but I do not know whether it will do any good. He consistently uses rhetoric about offences and breaches of one's liberty and legislation that is draconian. What he fails to understand is that an act of discrimination, while rendered unlawful,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .