Page 5162 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Some of the other matters that Mr Collaery has raised also deserve a short comment from the Government. For example, he mentioned that there had been some removal of sunset clauses relating to age discrimination. I notice that they simply do not appear in this Bill; in particular, in this Part IV. Like others, I too would like to hear from the Government as to why those sunset clauses have been removed. However, I disagree with Mr Stevenson's suggested amendment and look forward to seeing clauses 24 to 32 as part of the Act as passed.
MR COLLAERY (9.23): Mr Speaker, I omitted to record that one of the first exercises for the discrimination commissioner will be to review all the laws of the Territory to ascertain consistency with this discrimination legislation. At some stage, no doubt, the Chief Minister will, I trust, consult the Assembly about her intentions with regard to the provision of that office, and the aims and objectives to be pursued outside those enumerated in the legislation.
I should put on the record that, although I mentioned Ms Sawer's comments about industrial awards being exempted, the Victorian Law Reform Commission did recommend that the exception be retained in so far as it related to agreements and arrangements about union membership. I still, nevertheless, believe that that issue needs to be kept under active review and should be on the list of catch-up review when we look at this Act again, hopefully after it has been operating for an appropriate period, say, of one year.
MR STEVENSON (9.25): Just a brief point, Mr Speaker. Clause 32 gives religious bodies, which certainly need to be defined, certain exemptions. I do not believe that anywhere in the Bill it allows a religious body to choose the person they buy certain services from. Obviously enough, if they went out and bought a service in the marketplace, there is no discrimination there. However, they could well decide whom they buy from or whom they spend their money with. If that service was perhaps a service that came into their area, it then may be discriminatory if they choose to select the particular service or service man or woman that they want to deal with. This is something that the Bill has not addressed. There could be many organisations that may not want to give their money, as it were, to someone they feel may have moral values or some other values they do not wish to support. I do not believe that they are covered under this Bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .