Page 5290 - Week 16 - Thursday, 28 November 1991
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
It is just not accurate to say that the balance of those who were consulted on the Bill was against the title "Discrimination Bill". I do not know what you can glean from the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, perhaps six of those groups commented on the title. I do not think it is decisive. I think the Chief Minister illustrated in her speech that which is confusing. We were not saying that we wanted the title to make light of the important objects of the Bill.
The Bill deals with unlawful discrimination, and it sets out in extensive provisions that level of discrimination which is acceptable. I say again: Look at the headings in the Bill - "Discrimination by qualifying bodies etc", "Discrimination by educational institutions", "Discrimination concerning access to premises", "Discrimination in the provision of goods, services or facilities", "Discrimination concerning accommodation", "Discrimination by clubs". They are the headings for the exceptions. They are not the headings for offences.
It is a mixed bag. It is a toss-up between using the term "discrimination" and the term "anti-discrimination". "Anti-discrimination" is a negative way to name an Act. It does not work well in terms of referencing; it gets listed everywhere under "A". "Discrimination" is surely the generic term for the conduct we are dealing with. We are dealing with the conduct of discrimination. In other Bills we deal with criminal conduct. They are called crimes Bills. This is about discrimination. The heading is "Discrimination". It is the appropriate title.
MR MOORE (5.24): I have watched this part of the debate with some interest. I am glad that we have revisited it, because it seems to me that there are a number of members who, for some reason, feel that this Bill ought not to be called a human rights Bill and the commissioner ought not to be called a human rights commissioner. It seems to me that the Chief Minister has accepted that. She said that she is prepared to compromise. It was a compromise that I certainly tried to organise the other day when we were debating clause 4 - although I would not, of course, reflect on that vote, unless I wanted to negative it.
The point that has been made by the Chief Minister is that to call it the "Discrimination Bill" really takes away the tone of the legislation and the tone of the commissioner appointed under the legislation. I think that is very important in terms of what we are trying to achieve by this Bill. I spoke earlier - on clause 76, which provides that the commissioner shall try to resolve complaints by conciliation.
The Chief Minister has attempted a conciliatory approach that has been met with a brick wall by many members opposite. It seems to me that somebody involved in conciliation ought not to be called the "Discrimination Commissioner". It would be better for that person to be
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .