Page 2347 - Week 07 - Thursday, 4 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Specifically the amendments contained in the bill include a new section 53CA to the Human Rights Commission Act which amends the onus of proof in a discrimination complaint in the ACAT. A new section 5AA substitutes a refined definition of disability for the Discrimination Act and this step is substantially equivalent to and based on definition of disability in the Disability Discrimination Act 1992. The new section that provides a definition of disability will also extend to cover behaviour that is a symptom or manifestation of the disability. The new section extends the definition of disability to include reliance on some support person such as an interpreter, a carer or an assistant who provides assistance to a person because of their disability. It also points to establishing a requirement for training of assistance animals and recognition of assistance animals in accreditations of other states and territories.
There is a new clause that substitutes a previous section setting out the meaning of discrimination and a revised clause regarding a victimisation provision which is being redrafted for clarity. And there a number of other amendments pertaining to the bill.
These are, in the main, supported across the community. They are logical and important when we are concerned, as I think we all are, to make sure people that are challenged by disability are not discriminated against.
Finally we hear that there are amendments that are going to be moved by Mr Rattenbury which I will deal with in detail then but I would express some concern that, when we are dealing with issues as complex as this, bringing amendments on at the 11th hour that have not been through scrutiny, that have had not had the opportunity for review and therefore consultation with the community, is problematic. I will speak in more detail when the amendments are moved.
MR RATTENBURY (Molonglo) (4.08): The ACT Greens support the Discrimination Amendment Bill. I would like to put on record my thanks to the Law Reform Advisory Council for their in-depth review of the territory’s discrimination law and their recommendations which have led to these reforms proposed in this bill. Their report is extensive and contains many recommendations for major reform. The bill before us today picks up a handful of those recommendations only. These are, however, good and positive changes and the Greens support them.
I want to emphasise that I believe there is an opportunity to make further important and necessary changes to our antidiscrimination and anti-vilification landscape. In particular I want to talk about religious vilification. As Mr Hanson has touched on, I will be moving amendments later in the debate today and I will take some time to talk about them now during the in-principle stage as well as comment on other facets of the bill.
Currently ACT laws do not protect against vilification on the basis of a person’s religion. The Law Reform Advisory Council review recommended remedying this. The human rights commissioner has written to the government and recommended remedying this. In 2012 the government said that urgent action was needed on the issue of religious vilification. Under our laws a person cannot vilify another on the grounds of their gender identity, HIV-AIDS status, their race, their sexuality and, with the passing of this bill, on the basis of a disability. Without this amendment today religion would not be addressed.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video