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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 7 Hansard (5 June) . . Page.. 1903 ..

MR STANHOPE (continuing):

that the Assembly does not intend that any other potential attributes would be covered by the act.

On that basis, discrimination on other grounds-for instance, on the basis of potential status as a parent or carer, discrimination on the basis of potential marital status, or discrimination on the basis of potential impairment-would be excluded from the operation of the act. It was never the intention, when the Discrimination Act was introduced, that the definition would not cover discrimination on the basis of other potential attributes. So there is a danger in legislating in this way.

Mrs Cross determined that it is important to clarify that potential pregnancy is included within pregnancy-all the legal advice suggests that is the case-so an amendment has been introduced to do what the legislation already does. The amendment in fact creates more harm than good. It creates a significant reading-down of the protections in the act, and we find that women would lose out quite significantly if Mrs Cross' bill is passed. That would be unfortunate. It is totally unnecessary because the legislation, from a legal point of view, is fine as it is.

I say that by way of ensuring that the bill as introduced does not receive the support-I hope-of the Assembly, and that Mrs Cross does go ahead with amendments that have been negotiated with the government as a result of advice which we have been able to give her about the real shortcomings and short-sightedness of her piece of legislation.

We have concerns in relation to proposed new sections 23 (2) and 33A. These amendments are entirely unnecessary because the matters these new provisions were intended to cover are already appropriately provided for in the act. Once again, we have a bill that is seriously ill conceived. In relation to provisions 23 (2) and 33A, I have been advised-I guess I am foreshadowing my hope that Mrs Cross does proceed to vote against her own amendments-that they are not only unnecessary but dangerous. I understand Mrs Cross will be voting against her own bill in that regard.

The Legal Affairs Committee, in its scrutiny report on the bill, has made suggestions in relation to using broader concepts of potential parenthood-of potential status as a parent or carer. As I noted earlier, there are a number of situations where an attribute may be only potential. A better approach may be to make an even broader amendment, to clarify that the act generally covers potential attributes insofar as extending the protection that attributes can, in fact, be potential. That is a significant question-a much bigger question.

Now that the issues have been raised through this amending bill of Mrs Cross, in relation to the clarification of personal attributes, the government will be looking at those issues around an amendment, even broader than that which has been suggested. It may be that, as a result of that review, further amendments to the Discrimination Act will be necessary. The government will be looking at that possibility.

Mr Speaker, the government supports what Mrs Cross is seeking to achieve-namely, an understanding within the community that discrimination on the grounds of potential pregnancy is completely unacceptable. None of us would gainsay that. The legislation already does that. These amendments, from a legal point of view, are totally

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