Page 373 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 2 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
is that it is not discriminatory to take into account a person's trade, occupation or calling if that trade, occupation or calling is relevant to and reasonable in the circumstances. For example, if one was to be treated by a brain surgeon and the person coming to do the treatment was in fact a garbage collector, it would not be discriminatory to say, "I do not want the brain surgery performed by the garbage collector". It would be quite - - -
Mr Humphries: What is wrong with garbage collectors?
MR CONNOLLY: If anything, the aspersion would be cast on the brain surgeon rather than the garbage collector. It is a very long time since garbage collectors have gone on strike in Canberra. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for surgeons. Madam Speaker, without going onto an excursion into the relative industrial responsibilities of garbage collectors and surgeons, I give that brief example to illustrate the sort of thing that we have in mind.
I think members who support the need for Mr Moore's amendment would recognise the need for the Government's slight refinement of the amendment, which entirely endorses the principle that Mr Moore is advocating. The Government welcomes this addition to the discrimination legislation but suggests that there needs to be a slight refinement to ensure that what we are dealing with is irrelevant or unreasonable discrimination on the basis of occupation or calling. That would clearly apply to the sex worker seeking workers compensation or seeking accommodation. It would not be discriminatory to refuse to rent premises in residential areas of Canberra if the premises were to be used as a brothel because that, of course, is not a legal activity. But if a person wants to simply live quietly in a flat it is totally irrelevant whether their occupation is a sex worker or a member of the Assembly - - -
Mr Moore: Or a journalist.
MR CONNOLLY: Or a journalist, indeed. We will not say whether they are three callings that might be perceived by the public to have some similarities. Madam Speaker, I hope that members who are prepared to support Mr Moore's sensible addition to the legislation will also be prepared to support the Government's slight refinement to it.
MR HUMPHRIES (11.17): Madam Speaker, the Opposition will be supporting this amendment Bill and also supporting the amendment which Mr Connolly has foreshadowed. I must say that I find the comments of the Attorney-General extremely ironic, possibly even hypocritical. He has talked about how we should be using this legislation to ensure that there is no discrimination against sex workers. He said that if these people apply for jobs or apply for accommodation there should not be any basis for treating them differently from anybody else. Yet I seem to recall a great hullabaloo by members opposite when in the not too distant past a member on this side of the chamber went to the extent of actually supporting important steps taken to protect the health of sex workers by physically going out and being present in a brothel during an open day. Then, Government members were very happy to make great play of the fact that a member of the Assembly was associating with sex workers. Apparently we are all very concerned about how we should not discriminate against sex workers, but if a member of the Assembly wants to be seen supporting the health of those people it is a different matter altogether.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .