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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2001 Week 3 Hansard (6 March) . . Page.. 556 ..

MR SMYTH (continuing):

The bill does represent the culmination of a lot of work. I thank all those who had a part in it and in all the consultation, and for all the letters that I have received and I know that others have received. I offer thanks to all those who participated in the processing of this bill, including the Law Society's property law subcommittee. I also thank the Assembly for supporting this bill today.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.

Bill agreed to.

Unit Titles Consequential Amendments Bill 2000

Debate resumed from 1 March 2001, on motion by Mr Smyth:

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill agreed to in principle.

Leave granted to dispense with the detail stage.

Bill agreed to.

Discrimination Amendment Bill 2000

Debate resumed from 30 March 2000, on motion by Mr Humphries:

MR STANHOPE (Leader of the Opposition) (10.54): Mr Speaker, I will speak only relatively briefly to this bill. This bill makes it lawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of age in relation to the provision of credit or the terms under which credit is given if the criteria for refusal or the terms imposed are based on actuarial statistical data on which it is reasonable for the credit provider to rely, or, if there is no such data, on other data on which it is reasonable to rely, and reasonable having regard to the data and any other relevant factors, and the credit provider tells the commissioner or tribunal the sources on which the data is based and the relevant factors if so required.

Mr Speaker, in relation to this bill: I do wonder whether or not the government or the former Attorney-General who introduced the bill have been as open as they might about exactly what, for instance, the Discrimination Commissioner thinks about amendments of this sort. I find it very difficult to believe that the Discrimination Commissioner, for instance, would support any further diminution of the philosophy or

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