Page 5289 - Week 16 - Thursday, 28 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
making unlawful those acts of discrimination which are unjustified, unwarranted and unfair. It is not about the finer art of discriminating. It is about making unjustified discrimination unlawful. I really fail to see how they can overlook that point. They are really indulging in sophistry in order to maintain their position, which is a position that has been rejected universally by the community in consultation.
I think it is worth noting that all of Mr Collaery's comments supported my position. Indeed, all of the discussion I have had on this issue also supports my position. I have not blinded myself to other argument; but, unfortunately, Mr Collaery and Dr Kinloch have. I think I know the reason for that. I think that reason lies in Mr Collaery's admission that, in fact, it is in the drafting that the term "discrimination" has assumed its prominence and that it is at the drafter's behest that the word "discrimination" is now intended to be in the title. I do not accept that at all, and I am surprised that Mr Collaery has allowed himself to be bamboozled by a bureaucratic or technical argument when, in fact, the community that he has consulted disagrees.
Although everybody consulted said, "We want it called 'Human Rights' or 'Equal Opportunity' because that is what we understand and that is how we think this Bill should be perceived in the community", Mr Collaery and Dr Kinloch have turned around and said, "We think the draftsmen probably know best; we will go along with what our bureaucracy has advised us". They are quite determined upon this course of action. I fail to see a reason, other than that they have quite simply set their face against the logic of the position put to them by the community and the position continually put to them by me in this debate.
I really believe that they have adopted a thoroughly pig-headed attitude on this, a pig-headed attitude that does not do justice to all of those groups that have written in, taken the trouble to respond to the call for comments and consultation, and genuinely put their views, only to be rebuffed totally, illogically and quite insultingly by Mr Collaery and Dr Kinloch. It is just not good enough and I hope that the rest of the Assembly sees the error of their ways.
MR COLLAERY (5.21): The Chief Minister referred to comment by "all those groups". I mentioned only three or four groups. Submissions were received from more than 40 groups. I will just run through a few of them. They included the Australian Democrats, the Conflict Resolution Service, the law societies, AIDS councils, various federations, universities and consultative councils, councils on intellectual disability, anti-discrimination boards, the Catholic Education Commission and so on.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .