Page 5181 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR SPEAKER: No, we have not, Mr Duby.
Mr Duby: I beg your pardon.
MR STEVENSON: I seek to remove the word "unjustifiable" from the term "unjustifiable hardship" in this clause that relates to discrimination concerning access to premises. Paragraph 1(b) relates to the alteration of premises to give access to someone who has some impairment and it says:
... such access would impose unjustifiable hardship on the person ...
Many would suggest that if it imposes hardship on the person that should not be allowed. "Unjustifiable", I feel, goes too far. Once again we are asking the employer, the business owner, to pay for the corrections. Even though it may place hardship on that person, that, unless we remove "unjustifiable", would be allowable.
MR COLLAERY (10.31): I am concerned about Mr Stevenson's approach. It is an affront to the sensibilities of so many people. I have never seen so comprehensive an affront to the values that this society should hold. I am astounded tonight. I just want to read something; let Mr Stevenson listen to this. It comes from a foreword to a consultant's report done for the Human Rights Commission of Brian Burdekin, who is setting about that great study of the human rights of people with disabilities, including intellectual disabilities.
This is principle 3 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons. I guess Mr Stevenson does not accept any of the UN documents, but I am going to put it on the record. It is old language, but it has to be used. It is from 1976. It states:
Disabled persons have the inherent right to respect for their human dignity. Disabled persons, whatever the origin, nature and seriousness of their handicaps and disabilities, have the same fundamental rights as their fellow-citizens of the same age, which implies first and foremost the right to enjoy a decent life, as normal and full as possible.
Mr Stevenson clearly does not accept that. It is extremely sad tonight to see this happening.
MR DUBY (10.33): I was just going to put something on the record about subclause 51(3). Two years seems to me to be a long time for the Government to set as a time for construction of buildings to meet the requirements of disabled persons. Whilst I am not about to move an amendment to that, I would like to imagine that the spirit of the legislation will be taken up by the Government and that the Minister will fix a date certainly prior to the end of 1993.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .