Page 5155 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

---

not okay and some action could be taken over it. This had to do with the number of women he had on his staff. He said that employees in his restaurants, as I recall, were 85 per cent women. One of his daughters was responsible for putting in a fairly lengthy report on what was being done in that business. She had been away and the report had not been put in and - - -

Mrs Grassby: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is irrelevant. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bill. I know exactly what this paper is, and it has nothing to do with human rights.

MR SPEAKER: Stick to the point, please, Mr Stevenson.

MR STEVENSON: I firmly believe that it is to the point because it talks about the sex of people you hire, as does the Bill that we have before us. One can be charged - or whatever you wish to call it - with discrimination if one supposedly discriminates against a woman or a man. I think it has a relevance. We see people in Australia being discriminated against.

A fellow had no other problem than that paperwork that he had to put in was put in late. This well-known fellow employs many staff, yet to some degree he felt victimised. There was no doubt about that. I heard him on the radio this morning. He was quite indignant that this should happen to him. I think we need to be careful about these things.

Question put:

That the clauses be agreed to.

The Assembly voted -

AYES, 14  NOES, 2 

Mr Berry Mr Stevenson
Mr Collaery Mr Duby
Mr Connolly
Ms Follett
Mrs Grassby
Mr Humphries
Mr Jensen
Mr Kaine
Dr Kinloch
Ms Maher
Mrs Nolan
Mr Prowse
Mr Stefaniak
Mr Wood

Question so resolved in the affirmative.

Clauses 15 and 16 taken together

---

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .