Page 4840 - Week 12 - Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
(a) whether the person has a medical condition that may cause the person to be incapable of being responsible for providing an education and care service in accordance with this Law.”
This is problematic, and the issue is not raised in the explanatory statement that discrimination on the basis of disability is prohibited under the Human Rights Act and the Discrimination Act. After careful consideration, the Greens accept that, on balance, this is okay as there may well be medical conditions that genuinely limit a person’s ability to provide these services. We will be monitoring the application of the criteria and would certainly encourage anyone who feels they have been discriminated against to make a complaint to the discrimination commissioner.
Also in relation to human rights, on a number of occasions throughout the explanatory statement, limitations on rights are said to be reasonable and therefore proportionate under section 28 of the Human Rights Act. Section 28 provides that human rights may be subject only to reasonable limits set by territory laws that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. It then sets out five criteria which must be evaluated to assist in the determination of whether or not the limitation meets this test.
Whilst I agree that, in this case, it is consistent with the Human Rights Act to limit a person’s right to privacy to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children in the care of these providers, it is not sufficient to simply assert that the limitations are proportionate and to leave it at that. We need to be very proactive in ensuring that in our negotiations in these national processes we are cognisant of the human rights impacts, aware that we work in a better framework than many other states and territories, and ensure that we hold proposals to the same high standards that our internal work would be held to rather than falling into the lowest common denominator trap.
There will be some transitional problems, issues and difficulties, and I know some centres are concerned that they will not be able to comply. There are provisions that allow for this, and we will discuss this matter more extensively when we consider Mrs Dunne’s amendment in the detail stage. But I do not believe this is a reason not to pass the law. We have to simply recognise that particular assistance, which may be financial or some other form of assistance, may be required for certain operators. We should be doing our best to ensure that all centres can meet the new requirements rather than giving up on them before they have even started. I note that money was handed out to those operating out of government buildings to make the adjustments to those buildings. I still think more can be done for the very small number of community-based providers who own their own buildings. In fact, I think we are only talking about two cases.
To finish, I thank the department staff who provided me with a number of briefings on this bill and who were very helpful in answering the questions that I had. Again, I reiterate that the most important question to ask is: will these changes provide better childcare provision for our children? I believe they will. It is on that basis that the Greens will support the bill today. But to go back to the issue of costs, as I said, it has always been the case for those who have had children in childcare that it has been a
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video