Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2000 Week 9 Hansard (6 September) . . Page.. 2941 ..

MS TUCKER (continuing):

and the way in which that disadvantage occurs. So, basically you can only discriminate positively if the disadvantage experienced by a particular group in comparison to the rest of the community is very extreme.

I asked Mr Humphries about the necessity of providing such assistance in order to achieve a level of advantage equal to mainstream groups; the intent of the special measures in the legislation to bring these groups to the same level of advantage as mainstream groups; the appropriateness and the effectiveness of these measures in achieving these advances; and the requirement to provide such special measures indefinitely in order to redress the disadvantage.

What this is saying is that to positively discriminate you have to show how that particular positive discrimination will address the issue and change the situation. The key arguments that have been put here are that other people are similarly disadvantaged through their work these days. That includes all sorts of people. It includes people who work in banks and in supermarket and people who drive buses. Unfortunately, it includes lots of people in our society at this point in time.

So the issue quite clearly is that we have not heard any strong arguments from Mr Humphries in respect of this legislation. He told me in his letter to ask Mr Rugendyke. In the debate today Mr Rugendyke talked only about costs and did not address the fundamental issues resulting from his amendments that we want to address in this debate. That is very unsatisfactory.

Mr Humphries and, I think, Mr Rugendyke said it is just the lawyers who are bleating here. Insultingly, Mr Humphries said that lawyers are vicariously complaining through victims of crime who come to see him and who do not understand the issues. It may well be the case that on some occasions some victims of crime do not understand the complexity of legislative change and the new system that exists. I am not saying that that has not occurred in some situations. But I also know that people who have been victims of crime are not the mouths of lawyers. They are intelligent, articulate people who are concerned about this law that we have in the ACT.

A number of groups in the ACT support the legislation that is before us today. These groups include two unions who are in a difficult situation in that unequal entitlements can apply to their members. Members of the Transport Workers Union have different entitlements. This union covers ambulance drivers, who have an entitlement to greater financial compensation for pain and suffering, and it also covers bus drivers, who have a lesser entitlement. Interestingly, apparently 15 per cent of bus drivers are actually victims of physical assault. The Financial Services Union is very concerned because a growing number of their members are being exposed to violent crime in the workplace as a result of hold-ups.

We met with the Australian Federal Police Association last week and they also were supportive of what we are doing. They said, "As long as you are making it equal." They want to keep the entitlements that Mr Rugendyke has produced through his amendment but they understand that it is unjust and they are supportive of legislation which gives everybody equal entitlements. And why wouldn't they? It is good PR to have entitlements for police officers but it is hardly good PR for police to be able to say,

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .