Page 5168 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991

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

---

because it is a kind of provision that has not really moved with the times, either in employment terms or in human relationship terms. We will not be opposing it, but we will be keeping a careful eye on it.

MR COLLAERY (9.44): I would just put on the record that the Women's Electoral Lobby, during the discussion stage, wanted the de facto or two single persons capacity there, and we have met, I believe, that requirement. I guess, implicitly, in asking for that, that they accepted the exemption; but I am sure that they would endorse the Chief Minister's comments.

Proposed new clause agreed to.

Clause 35 agreed to.

Clauses 36 to 38 taken together

Question put:

That the clauses be agreed to.

The Assembly voted -

AYES, 15  NOES, 1 

Mr Berry Mr Stevenson
Mr Collaery
Mr Connolly
Mr Duby
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.

Clause 39 agreed to.

Clause 40

MR COLLAERY (9.47): Mr Speaker, this provision renders otherwise unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sex acceptable in sporting activities. The Women's Electoral Lobby thought the sweeping exemption was unacceptable and it was redrafted to put in some grounds. The Women's Electoral Lobby also had concerns with the fact that there was no mention of sporting activities by children who had not yet attained the age of 12 years, but it was considered that that issue might be covered within the implied terms of the provision.

---

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