Page 5284 - Week 16 - Thursday, 28 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (5.01): May I deal with Mr Stevenson's point, because other people have asked why we have the seven-year term rather than a three-year term. It is common for this type of senior independent statutory office holder to be appointed for a term that varies from State to State. In Western Australia and in the Commonwealth it is seven years; in South Australia it is five years; in Victoria it is five years.
It is always a term longer than the life of a government, given an expectation that a government will hold office for a three-year term, basically in order to show that the person stands apart from government and should remain in office over successive governments rather than be a partisan appointee of one particular government whose term of office expires when that government's term of office expires. It is a very senior appointment. Three years is too short a time. A seven-year to five-year term is standard.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (5.02): I would like to give the Assembly an opportunity once again to consider the issue of the title of the commissioner. I strongly believe that it is quite wrong and very regressive for this Assembly to name Australia's latest piece of human rights legislation the Discrimination Bill and to name the commissioner appointed under that legislation the Discrimination Commissioner. I am absolutely convinced that the term "discrimination" is a negative one and will be interpreted negatively by the community. It will not achieve the community educative function which this Bill should achieve. It seems to me that members have set their face against any compromise on this. I do not know why. I feel that they are just plain wrong, and they are about 10 years out of date.
I had an opportunity this morning to address the Non-English Speaking Background Women's Council. I can tell you that the women I raised this issue with were appalled that we should be proposing a piece of legislation called the Discrimination Act and that the commissioner should be called the Discrimination Commissioner. Most of those women represent groups that will need these services. I can only repeat what I have said before - that the name that has been imposed by the Assembly is quite wrong.
As I have said before, I am willing to compromise on this, and I do not see why others are not. I would be happy to accept "Equal Opportunity Act" and "Equal Opportunity Commissioner". I would even move as far as "Anti-Discrimination". But I think the terms "Discrimination Commissioner" and "Discrimination Act" give completely the wrong impression, completely the wrong message, about this very important and very progressive piece of legislation. So, I would again ask members to reconsider that issue. I am prepared to compromise. I really fail to see why the rest of you are not.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .