Page 561 - Week 03 - Tuesday, 19 May 1992
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
The Chief Minister quoted figures from the committee that Mr Lavarch heads in the Federal Parliament to indicate, apparently, that discrimination against women is still rife. Up to a point those figures may indicate that; but they may also indicate other structural things about the nature of the positions, the nature of the work force in those particular areas, and other factors which might not point to discrimination, or at least not to direct discrimination, but, rather, as I think the Chief Minister said, to indirect discrimination or other factors that are outside the control of the organisation that is being targeted in a particular exercise.
I have to say that this is a major problem. We need to identify exactly how far the problem goes before we can say whether there is a serious problem with EEO principles not being complied with in the ACT. I would say, Madam Speaker, from my own experience, that I think there is very good adherence to EEO principles within the ACT public service. When I was Minister, I did not see any evidence that there was no commitment to those principles in our public service. But if one argues that the figures speak for themselves one may not come to that conclusion.
Another point is that throughout these Bills we have reference to the notion of unjustified discrimination. The Milk Authority (Amendment) Bill, for example, states that the authority's powers in relation to employment matters shall be exercised "without patronage, favouritism or unjustified discrimination". The other side of that coin is that there are occasions of justified discrimination, and Mr Kaine made ample reference to that fact. One has to ask oneself: What forms can justified discrimination take?
Let us take an example out of the air. I would argue, Madam Speaker, that perhaps favouring ACT trained professionals who are without positions in the public sector over overseas trained, perhaps non-paid, public servants would be a form of justified discrimination. We do not really know, because we have not got to the bottom of some examples of that; but there are real questions about what constitutes justified discrimination and what is unjustified discrimination. As we have seen today, the issue is one of such sensitivity - it is so difficult to raise in any kind of rational form - that we may not be able to get any clear statement from this Government on exactly how it intends to differentiate between justified and unjustified discrimination, if indeed it intends to make that clear to this Assembly at all; and I have my doubts.
Madam Speaker, the touchstone of these provisions appears to be what is called in the Bills the equal employment opportunity program that is developed in relation to each individual authority that is being regulated here. It seems to me that the arrangements vary from Bill to Bill, to some extent. Mr Kaine quoted the Fire Brigade Bill, referring to an EEO program mentioned there, which potentially is different from other programs potentially. That Bill refers to a program which is drawn up by the authority or which is a prescribed program. In the Milk Authority (Amendment) Bill, for example, and possibly in others, I cannot see any reference to a prescribed program.
What makes all this tick? The element that delivers in this whole package is this EEO program, and that is not actually part of the legislative package; it is only what the package is built around. It is a kind of philosopher's stone which turns words on a piece of paper into positive EEO action by our Government. It disturbs me slightly that this crucial element in the package is not subject to
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .