Page 255 - Week 01 - Thursday, 24 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Madam Speaker, there are a few other minor matters of concern. I suppose one could argue about what "authenticity" means - whether one can discriminate if one wants to employ somebody because the authentic rendition of a particular role in a play is that it be played by a person of a particular age; but, if you want to do a version of a play which might be revolutionary and might envisage some different non-authentic concept of that play, you cannot then discriminate on the basis of age, and that is a very complex matter.
Having said all that and having made those points, I am not arguing against the concept of outlawing age discrimination. Obviously it is a repugnant concept. It is repugnant to suggest that people should be shunted off into retirement, or denied access to accommodation or to educational services or whatever, merely because they happen to have a particular calendar year against their name. We must work against that. The quibble that I raise, and I raise this only as a matter that we should be alerted to, is that we need to make sure that this operates in a sensible fashion and in an efficient fashion; that it does not operate as a burden to our community rather than a benefit. Having said that, I commend the Bill to the Assembly.
MS SZUTY (12.03): Madam Speaker, it is pleasing for this Assembly to see that, in general, discrimination on the basis of age will be unlawful; but I would like to note the same point that Mr Humphries made in his remarks, fairly early on. The Bill we have before us is largely a list of exceptions to where age discrimination would be otherwise unlawful, and I think that is unfortunate in many respects. I understand the need for these issues to be fairly carefully thought through; but it is unfortunate that, in a Discrimination (Amendment) Bill which seeks to outlaw discrimination on the basis of age, we have a whole range of exceptions to those provisions.
Mr Humphries has been very carefully through most of those exceptions relating to age discrimination. I would like to comment on just a few of them, the first one being adoption. I note that the Director of Family Services still has the provision for discriminating against people on the basis of age in relation to adoptions. I know that we have been through these issues at great length at other times in this Assembly, and the point would need to be made that, of course, the Director of Family Services would discriminate against people on the basis of age in the best interests of the child in the adoption process. Mr Humphries also mentioned the section on youth wages. I noted, too, that the Minister's presentation speech and the provisions of this Bill fairly clearly state the Government's reluctance to see young people paid at a lower rate for work that can be done to the same capacity by older people. I note that these provisions will apply only where awards exist for young people to be paid less than would normally be paid.
The other exception that I would like to comment on, which Mr Humphries did not, relates to education and senior secondary colleges. I note that there has been some talk generally in the community that mature age students should have greater access to senior secondary colleges than they do at the moment. According to the legislation, it seems to be an issue that the Department of Education and Training is considering, but mature age students really will not be able to have access to senior secondary colleges until 1 January 1996. That is almost two years away. I guess that gives the Department of Education and Training substantial opportunities to review the whole question as to whether mature age students should have access to senior secondary colleges.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .