Page 5182 - Week 16 - Wednesday, 27 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR STEVENSON (10.34): Mr Collaery's suggestion that I do not have any concern for those with impairment or those who are disabled is yet again false. The concern that I also have, though, is for people who run a business. They should not have to undergo hardship to accommodate someone with impairment. Unfortunately, that may be a problem. Why does somebody in a business have an obligation to employ people who might not be able to do the job correctly? No-one has explained that to me.
Mr Collaery mentions that people with impairment and so on should have a right to a good life and whatever, and who would disagree with that? But that was not the point; and that was not what I mentioned in the amendment. The amendment discriminates, or could be used to discriminate, against someone who runs a business. That is not fair. That is discriminatory. That is what you suggest this Bill is against. It could cause someone to hire somebody who may not be able to do the job as well. In this particular case it could cause someone hardship through having to make certain changes to premises.
MR DUBY (10.35): I must admit to the house that I misread subclause 51(3) in my earlier deliberations. I find this dating to be quite unacceptable. This legislation means just the opposite of what I hoped the Minister would do. This means that nobody shall be required to have a building constructed to meet the needs of disabled persons until at least two years after the commencement of this section. In other words, December 1993 is going to be the time. Subclause (1) talks about the design or construction of premises and the provision of access. The Minister is to fix a date for the operation of this clause and the Bill then specifies that that date cannot be for at least two years. This is, to me, quite inappropriate, and I would move, Mr Speaker, that subclause 51(3) be deleted from the Bill.
MR SPEAKER: You cannot move that yet. You are foreshadowing that amendment, Mr Duby.
MR DUBY: I foreshadow that I shall so move.
Amendment negatived.
MR DUBY (10.37): As foreshadowed, Mr Speaker, I move:
Clause 51, page 24, subclause (3), lines 4 and 5, omit the subclause.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (10.37): Mr Speaker, the Government does not object to Mr Duby's amendment. On a reading of that clause in the Bill, it can readily be seen that what it does impose is a mandatory period of two years before the commencement of these provisions of the Bill concerning access to premises. It is certainly acceptable to us to remove that mandatory period and to attempt perhaps an earlier commencement; but I am sure Mr Duby would agree that there does need to be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .