Page 5174 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The basic premise of this legislation is that discrimination is not acceptable, and the exceptions provided in the Bill are kept to a minimum and made as specific as possible in order to detract as little as possible from the overall purpose of non-discrimination. The exceptions deal with real situations and provide specific exemptions.
To have a cover-all provision for exemption for each of these categories of belief and apply it across the board would broaden the level of allowable discrimination and, by allowing that sort of crossover, there is no logical reason why a religious body ought to be able to discriminate on the ground of political belief or a political body on the ground of religious belief. I would urge members to retain the existing structure. While we are debating an alternative to clause 44, it must be remembered that we are saying that we should retain clauses 43, 44 and 45 as discrete bases.
MR STEVENSON (10.05): I appreciate Mr Connolly's explanation; I just remain unconvinced. He said that that is his advice. Proposed new clause 44A that I have suggested does indicate, in paragraphs (a) and (b), that discrimination must be unreasonable in the circumstances and that the discrimination is unnecessary to the effective dissemination or development of such information, ideas or beliefs. I feel that the point still holds. I make the point once again that it is a very widespread discrimination allowance for political organisations, but that does not hold for other groups.
MR DUBY (10.05): I would just like to comment on these three clauses. I notice what Mr Stevenson has said. When looked at generally, it is not an unreasonable supposition; but I think Mr Stevenson deserves an explanation of why I shall not be supporting his proposed new clause 44A.
As Mr Connolly, the Attorney, has so adequately pointed out, the current arrangements under clauses 43 and 44, and indeed clause 45, meet the provisions that I think Mr Stevenson was trying to address with his new clause 44A. There is nothing unreasonable about it, frankly, in comparison with some of the things we have heard from him in relation to the rest of the Bill. In my view, there is nothing unreasonable in what he is trying to do.
I would like to let him know that I think we are better off leaving the waters unmuddied, as the Attorney said. I shall not be supporting your amendment, Mr Stevenson. But that is not on any philosophical basis. I just think it is cleaner law if it is left the way it is.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .