Page 5160 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
note here that we have given ourselves just two years to do it. We are sorry, Mr Berry, but this is one of the best and most important pieces of legislation that will go through this chamber. It deserves some explanations so that the people will know what it is about.
Ms Sawer, who is a member of the Women's Consultative Council, or was at the time, also referred to a then section which exempted industrial awards from the Act. She wrote:
... a strange thing for an Act which sets out to prohibit discrimination in employment. Current equal-opportunity legislation in South Australia and Western Australia contains no such exemption, nor does the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act, and the Victorian Law Reform Commission has recommended its removal.
So, there is a view on the exemptions of industrial awards which we considered in another context earlier on. The other views of Ms Sawer are interesting and were taken into effect. This will create pressures on the Government to bring legislation up to scratch.
On the subject of superannuation, there is an exemption there, and that is mostly at the request of the Federal Government under its age discrimination moratorium. There are long-term implications for some of the provident superannuation funds because women and men have had different retirement ages. This clause 29 has been changed from the Alliance Bill. The Alliance Bill put in a 12-month sunset clause. In other words, we put in a clause to force the Government to finalise its age discrimination provisions, and that has been removed in this draft. I assume that the Government is going to explain why and how it is going to set about solving the issue of age discrimination. Presumably, there are ongoing discussions with the Commonwealth to bring that matter together. The South Australian Government, of course, has already legislated in part in that area. Mr Speaker, again, in insurance there are further challenges for us to reach.
MR SPEAKER: Your time has expired, Mr Collaery.
MR STEVENSON (9.19): My amendments included deleting clauses 24, 25 and 26. The reason for that was that they were consequential. They basically refer to clause 10 or others that I would have already deleted. There is one point with clause 26, which is to do with domestic accommodation. Subparagraph (a)(ii) says:
... accommodation provided in those premises is for no more than 6 persons ...
I wonder why there is the arbitrary six. I stayed in a home at one time where there were 11 people - well, it was someone's home, but obviously not one family - and I wonder why we have an arbitrary six. If you have seven it means
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .