Page 5177 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR COLLAERY: Mr Jensen interrupts and says that it does not say it; but the Attorney can correct me if I am wrong. I would presume that it is a disallowable instrument.
Mr Connolly: Mr Collaery is right.
Mr Jensen: Where does it say that?
MR COLLAERY: We have the benefit of an amendment drawn by Mr Connolly, in fact, to the subordinate law.
Mr Connolly: Yes, the Subordinate Laws Act gives a general cover.
MR COLLAERY: Again, and we should know, there was a great deal of comment about these exceptions from various groups - the Women's Electoral Lobby, the AIDS Action Group and a number of others. The upshot of it all is that adjustments were made to the Bill.
But we need to be vigilant to make sure that these will not be used in workshop-type situations, where people with disabilities are taken on to put things together for a commercial operator. Often those functions are profitable to the operator of that exercise; nevertheless, occupational health and safety regulations and laws should, of course, be relevant here in terms of the employment of people with impairments in sweatshop-type situations, in repetitive working types of situations, and the like. I think the Government is aware of the need for a level of attention to how these exceptions will work, and I am sure all members in the chamber agree with that.
Mr Speaker, finally, the discrimination by qualifying bodies provision states:
Nothing ... renders unlawful discrimination by an authority or body against a person on the ground of impairment if the authority or body believes on reasonable grounds that, because of an impairment, the person is, or would be, unable to carry out work that is essential to the position concerned.
One could imagine someone in a trade or profession that required a standard of occupational skill for safety reasons, such as an eye surgeon, or a precision worker, where there could be dangers to other people working. These are work person-like provisions and, of course, they are acceptable. That is the reason why we are doing it, despite the fact that a number of groups were concerned about it.
The overall issue here is that these exceptions should not reach a level such that we are not assisting people with impairment to integrate with the type of groups they would want to. All of those who have been petitioned by the Down's syndrome parents know what I am talking about in this area. The right of intellectually impaired children
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .