Page 257 - Week 01 - Thursday, 24 February 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
to deal with people who are now approaching 65, who perhaps turn 65 in the next few months, and who may well be caught in this time warp. They could be assisted by the standard extension of, say, six months to their working life so that those who wish to continue and are fit to do so and are comfortable about it are not discriminated against. That is what it is about.
I think the tools are in your hands. I would ask you to give us a general response. I realise that without looking at a specific case you cannot give a specific answer, but what is the general attitude? This is very good legislation and you should be congratulated for getting it up, and getting it up in the manner that you have. I would appreciate your response as to how you are going to deal with it in terms of your own workers.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (12.11), in reply: I thank members for their general support. I was pleased that Ms Szuty and Mr Moore referred to the extensive consultation process on this Bill. There was a discussion paper and extensive debate before it came in. The point was made by a couple of members that there is a short clause stating "age" as the basis of discrimination and a long set of exemptions. If you examine the principal Act, there is a short section, sections 7 and 8, which creates discrimination, and a long section, sections 24 to 57, which deals with exemptions. The reason that age is one of the last grounds of discrimination to be inserted is that it was always acknowledged to be one of the more difficult ones, and issues like superannuation and the rest of it needed to be addressed.
The Government is supporting Mr Humphries's amendment, which brings the position of ACT employees into line with private sector employees. It was always our intention to do that. The provision in the Bill could be misconstrued to suggest that we were trying to have a separate exemption for ACT employees. It was really done in that way because the mechanism of ACT employment, when this Bill was first drafted, was less clear than it is now, and in the coming months the Assembly will debate the new ACT Public Sector Employment Act. It is our intention to apply to ourselves the same rule that we apply to the private sector, which is to give two years to work out issues like superannuation, work practices, education and the rest.
I am not in a position to say that there is a blanket exemption and from today onwards everybody who is 65 can have their employment extended indefinitely. There always have been provisions to say that we can look at specific circumstances. It is not the intention, in introducing this Bill, that the age of the work force will gradually increase because nobody will retire. Indeed, there are various provisions in place in ACT public employment to encourage people in some cases to take early retirement. We will certainly look at case-by-case exceptions. We agree with Mr Humphries that it should not appear that the Government is trying to be different from anybody else, with less rigid standards for us; but equally we are not going to say, "As of today, there will be no age discrimination".
Mr De Domenico was agitated about youth wages and asked whether this will apply to McDonald's. Yes, it will. If anybody sacks a person because they turn 18, that is unlawful, and it should be unlawful. It is the intention of this Bill to make it unlawful. I must say that I do not think that McDonald's do that.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .