Page 372 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 2 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I do not think the Bill should necessarily go to a committee of inquiry. I think it should simply be looked at briefly and a couple of amendments made. But we should agree to it in principle. If the matter is adjourned, and I think that is a good idea, then there will be an opportunity to gain agreement from the majority of the members at least, if not all the members - and one would wonder why if they did not all agree - on what can be done to improve the situation so that over the next three years there will not be just 109 people who have bought properties but perhaps hundreds and hundreds. Would that not be a good thing for them? Would that not be a good thing for Canberra as a community?
MR MOORE: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move the adjournment of this debate to allow further consideration of this Bill at the in-principle stage.
Leave granted.
MR MOORE: I move:
That the debate be adjourned to allow further consideration of this Bill at the in-principle stage.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
DISCRIMINATION (AMENDMENT) BILL (NO. 4) 1993
Debate resumed from 15 December 1993, on motion by Mr Moore:
That this Bill be agreed to in principle.
MR CONNOLLY (Attorney-General, Minister for Housing and Community Services and Minister for Urban Services) (11.13): Madam Speaker, Mr Moore foreshadowed some time ago that he would be introducing amendments to the discrimination legislation. At the time he did so, I indicated that the Government would probably look at them very favourably. The issue that Mr Moore raised was one that had been agitated in the media here and in other parts of Australia. It went to the question of persons being discriminated against because of their trade or calling. He was particularly concerned about discrimination against people working in the sex industry, which we in this Assembly of course have decided should be a legal industry, provided it operates within the very tight guidelines for public health control and planning and land use control in the designated commercial areas of Canberra. There were some concerns that persons who were engaged in an activity which had been made lawful by this Assembly were finding that they were discriminated against. Mr Moore's Bill makes a very sensible amendment, effectively to make it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the basis of occupation.
I had some discussions with Mr Moore after we saw the text of his legislation. It is rather the same story as we had with the age discrimination legislation that we debated in government business last week. Unfortunately, it is easy to put in the simple basis on which people may not be discriminated against, but it requires a little care in establishing some exemptions. Once again, we can all agree on a simple occupation that should not be discriminated against, but we need to have some exemptions. Essentially, the exemption that we are putting in
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .