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

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 08 Hansard (Thursday, 5 August 2004) . . Page.. 3563 ..

Would the proposed change have prevented the appeal, or it being upheld? If not, then there is no real change. Until we actually see some decisions come down, we are not sure how we can predict whether or not it has achieved the desired result.

In closing, the Greens are happy to support this amendment. I believe it is an improvement on a very unfortunate interpretation—based on vigorous argument from the department at the time, no doubt—but I also make the point that in the future the Assembly must keep an eye on how this is going. It is very important that government is committed to making it work in its role as service provider.

Mr Stefaniak’s Discrimination Amendment Bill amends the Discrimination Act to make it lawful for a person to discriminate against someone else on the ground of sex in order to overcome gender imbalance in a profession, trade, occupation or calling. It makes sex discrimination lawful if reasonably reliable statistical data show a gender imbalance in employment and the discrimination is reasonable, having regard to any other relevant practice and the public interest. The object of the bill is similar to but broader than the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Amendment (Teaching Profession) Bill 2004, which was not passed in the Senate.

First, I will address the underlying discriminatory nature of the bill. The ACT Human Rights and Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Helen Watchirs, commented:

This bill is directly contrary to the objectives of the ACT Discrimination Act 1991, including the promotion of equality between men and women. It weakens and undermines the Act by giving employers an open-ended discretion to simply discriminate on the basis of sex, when the causes of gender imbalance in a workplace can be due to complex factors other that discrimination …

Such as historic causes and labour market forces. She also notes:

The bill may also be inconsistent with section 8 (3) of the Human Rights Act 2004—“Everyone has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination.” The criteria in the bill are not reasonable, objective or proportional to achieve a legitimate purpose—that is, to correct past discrimination. The bill does not satisfy the requirement in section 28 of the Human Rights Act that the limitation on human rights must be reasonable and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

In the tabling speech the Liberals specifically mentioned the need for more male teachers. It is interesting to look at the teaching profession and the male and female experience of life as a teacher. The Greens realise that there are widely recognised disincentives to enter the teaching profession: poor pay and low status, comparatively low salaries and career opportunities and, particularly for male teachers, concerns about child protection.

We also recognise that the lack of male teachers, particularly in our primary classrooms, is worthy of concern. However, this legislative response, to make it lawful to discriminate, does not redress substantive discrimination and is not the answer. Governments should address the factors that underlie graduates turning away from teaching as a career and the failure to retain beginning teachers in education systems.

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