Page 5285 - Week 16 - Thursday, 28 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
MR HUMPHRIES (5.04): It seems to me that Ms Follett is not prepared to accept the vote of the Assembly on this matter. We have had an extensive debate on it. We did consider the arguments that have been put by Ms Follett already. We did have extensive discussion on this the other night and - - -
Mr Duby: In clause 4, we have already changed the name of the commissioner.
MR HUMPHRIES: And we have already changed clause 4 in the expectation of following that theme throughout this legislation. I can repeat the arguments if you like - - -
Ms Follett: Women are appalled.
MR HUMPHRIES: Some women are appalled. I would suggest, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, that most people who will come to use a provision such as this, if dismayed by a particular act of discrimination, will not pull out the phone book and look under "Human rights", "Equal employment" or whatever. They will look up "Discrimination", because that is what they will feel they have been dealt. I think that this is a term which accords with what the ordinary person in the street would use and is therefore appropriate for this Bill.
I am afraid that I do not hold to the trend of necessarily giving legislation or bodies titles which seem to accord with the current popular euphemism for particular activities. That, it seems to me, is not always appropriate, because it does, in one sense, actually make the particular organisation, body, person or Act a little bit less user friendly than it ought to be - to use a modern term. I think that we ought to consider a title which actually reflects what this Bill is all about. This is a Bill which is not about human rights entirely because, in fact, not all human rights that we would acknowledge in this Assembly are listed in this Bill - not by a long shot. The Bill is not merely about equal opportunities. There are many other Acts of this parliament which deal with the provision of equal opportunities.
This is a Bill which specifically talks about outlawing discrimination. That is what is in the objects clause. It is clearly what the thrust of most of the major parts of the Bill is about. It ought, therefore, to be reflected in the title. I reject the idea that people will not turn to a discrimination commissioner. I suggest to the Assembly that that is the first place they will turn. They will look in the phone book under "Discrimination".
I also reject the Chief Minister's assertion that we ought to use the word "anti-discrimination". As others have said elsewhere, we do not have an anti-crimes Act; we have a Crimes Act. There must be other examples of that. This is a Bill which deals with discrimination, and therefore "Discrimination Bill" is an appropriate title to give this Bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .