Page 5173 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON: As I said, I well understand that you have got it and you have read it. You will have an opportunity to answer the points, and I look forward to hearing you. But it does seem, without any shadow of a doubt, that under the Bill people who have political organisations, in other words, members of parliament usually, are able to discriminate fairly widely; yet those same rights of discrimination are not allowed for beliefs other than political beliefs. Where is the fairness in that? As Mr Connolly and other people say that they have read it all, I will leave it to Mr Connolly to let us know the particular point he wishes to make.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (10.01): Mr Speaker, as was apparent as I was reading one word in front on Mr Stevenson's speech, Mr Stevenson's views just expressed are precisely the submissions of a gentleman who has, I think, just finished a course at the ANU in human rights and has kindly offered to rewrite the Bill for us, giving us the benefit of his recently completed course. I have asked the law officers, the people who have been involved in drafting this legislation for some years, to have a look at this. Their basic premise is that what is proposed here is far too wide.
At the outset it must be said that Mr Stevenson's proposed clause 44A must be taken together with a proposal to delete clauses 43 and 45. He is having a catch-all provision as an exception for what he is describing as political, education or religious beliefs, rather than three specific provisions relating to specific circumstances.
The Bill says that for religious workers it is appropriate to discriminate on the grounds of religious belief - that is, a church that wishes to instruct in a particular faith may discriminate and employ only persons of that faith. For political workers, a political party may discriminate on the grounds of political belief, and so forth.
The problem with the catch-all provision is that it is so wide that it would, in effect, allow a religious organisation to discriminate on the grounds of political belief, and a political organisation to discriminate on the grounds of religious belief. He is muddying the waters by being far too broad. It is far safer, on the considered advice of my advisers, to keep the separate grounds of exemptions.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .