Page 5167 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Page 18, line 14, after clause 34, insert the following new clause:
Employment of couple.
"34A. Nothing in Part III renders unlawful discrimination against a person on the grounds of marital status in relation to a job which is one of two to be held by a couple in a bona fide domestic relationship.".
MR SPEAKER: Are all members aware of what is proposed?
DR KINLOCH (9.41): I seek some help. I do not quite know how to go about this, but could I give an example. There is a Quaker house in Melbourne and they have advertised for a married couple. This is not even in the ACT; but, if there were similar circumstances here, does this mean that it is illegal to advertise for a married couple? I need some help.
MR COLLAERY (9.41): The reason for inserting this is for the very situation that Dr Kinloch refers to. It is to preserve the right, in certain circumstances, to advertise in a discriminatory fashion for people in a different marital status, that is, for single persons or married couples, because one of the grounds for discrimination is marital status. It is intended more for child-care and pastoral situations. The situation Dr Kinloch referred to, I assume, would not affect the intent behind the provision; but, once again, one would want to review that provision if it were used widely to ensure, for example, the employment of only married couples in milk bars. That would not meet the spirit and purposes of this provision. I am not sure why the Government dropped it out of our draft. I commend it to the house.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (9.42): Mr Speaker, we in the Government have no particular objection to Mr Collaery's amendment. I suspect that it was dropped out in the drafting because of its rather quaint nature. Mr Collaery referred, in particular, to circumstances in rural employment where there might be call for a married couple. To my knowledge, that is not a common occurrence in the ACT, and I am not aware that it is a common occurrence in other rural areas. I know that it has occurred, particularly, I suspect, in domestic employment, and particularly in the diplomatic corps where they often have a housekeeper and a chauffeur and usually require that they are in some sort of domestic relationship. So, we have no real objection to it.
I think it does need to be carefully watched, though, because it is a clause that could be used to discriminate. It could be used, in particular, to turn away single people who are otherwise perfectly qualified for the job. I think it is something that we would want to watch very carefully,
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .