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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 05 Hansard (Thursday, 13 May 2004) . . Page.. 1868 ..

don’t we hire 45 per cent males and 55 per cent females?” I was told, “No. That will be difficult. You will probably go against the Discrimination Act and there will be all sorts of problems there.” Of those we hired, 41 per cent were males and 59 per cent were females. It might have been that 40.5 per cent were males and 59.5 per cent were females. That is the percentage of the number of people who applied.

Given that all these people were suitable to employ and that there was a real need at that time—there is still certainly a need, even more so now, to get more men into the profession and to hire them—why on earth should we be restricted by this act? If there are the right checks and balances, why would it not be possible for the department of education to say, “We have got 300 jobs and 900 applicants, of which 350 are men and 550 women. We need a lot more men. Let us hire 200 men.” Of the 350 men who applied, 200 got a guernsey. If it is important, if it is going to help the system and if it is desirable and in the public interest it should not be restricted artificially by any act, but this is what the Discrimination Act will do. Accordingly, I have introduced this bill.

As I said, the classic example at present is the teaching profession, but there may well be other examples. For example, there may be a time in the future when we will need more female police officers. For example, they may be needed to ensure that there is a balance in interview rooms or for more sensitive cases. A lot of female police officers might, for some reason, have left the police force and we might desperately need to hire more. Again, this bill would assist there. It might be the same down the track for plumbers. It could apply to any trade or profession where there is a need for a better balance. As I said, this bill introduces a new section 34A, which states:

Section 10 (1) (a) or (b), section 12 (1) (a) or (b) or section 13 (b), does not make it unlawful for a person to discriminate against someone else on the ground of sex if—

A number of conditions apply, such as:

(a) statistical data on which it is reasonable to rely show a gender imbalance in a particular profession, trade, occupation or calling; and

The department of education records—good statistical data—show that a certain percentage of teachers are men and a certain percentage are women. Also:

(b) the discrimination is—

(i) to assist in overcoming the imbalance; and

(ii) reasonable having regard to the data and any other relevant factors; and

(iii) in the public interest.

There is very much a check in there: it has to be in the public interest; the data has to be reasonable to rely on; there has to be a real need, and this will assist in overcoming the imbalance; and it has to be reasonable having regard to the data and any other relevant factors. It is important that departments and other bodies are able to do these things where it is very much in the public interest. Going back to the example of teachers, quite clearly there is ample evidence that it is very much in the public interest and in the interests of our young people, our most nation’s most precious resource, to have more men in this most critical and important profession. This bill will assist in enabling that to occur and in redressing other imbalances that we might see down the track from time to time. I commend the bill to the Assembly.

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