Page 2351 - Week 07 - Thursday, 4 August 2016
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Broad free-speech exceptions in the Discrimination Act ensure that there can continue to be academic, artistic, scientific or research activity in the public interest, including discussion or debate. Tasmania, Victoria and Queensland already have these laws, and they are operating fine. We already prevent vilification on the basis of race and other grounds. Why would it be unlawful to vilify someone based on those attributes but lawful to vilify someone because of their religion? That is a key question we need to reflect on as we consider these amendments. Free speech is not degraded by religious vilification laws, because all we are doing is protecting against damaging hate speech.
I do urge members to support the amendments when I move them later to add religion as a ground of unlawful vilification, and we can all move forward as a more inclusive and respectful multicultural community.
I will talk briefly about some of the other parts of this bill. As I said, the changes are good and I do support them. One of the changes I am pleased to see included is the ground of discrimination based on someone’s irrelevant criminal record. Discrimination on the basis of criminal record, particularly in employment, is I think an area that needs addressing. As was recognised in Victoria’s review of its equal opportunity laws, a person’s irrelevant criminal history can operate as a barrier to accessing opportunities and social inclusion, as well as noting the link between employment and reduced rates of reoffending.
I think this is a good law to have in the territory, and I have previously written to the Attorney-General encouraging its addition to the Discrimination Act. A person’s criminal conviction cannot hound them their whole life, keep them out of employment and cause them to be subject to discrimination. It does no good for that person or our society to disconnect them from employment, from the chance to learn skills, to earn money and to make social connections.
It is likely that this type of discrimination is occurring in the ACT. As the ACT Human Rights Commission said in its submission to the inquiry:
This is an important issue in the Territory. The commission has had inquiries from people with relatively minor or irrelevant unspent criminal convictions who have been discriminated against, particularly regarding employment opportunities.
To clarify, the relevant discrimination is when someone has a criminal conviction that is not related to the inherent requirements of the job they seek, yet they are denied that job or dismissed or otherwise discriminated against because of that criminal record. If the criminal record is relevant, it is of course acceptable for the employer to take it into consideration.
The Commonwealth human rights commission has done considerable work in this area and it hears many complaints of discrimination in employment based on irrelevant criminal record. To give an example, it found in favour of a woman whose application to work as a bar attendant at the Adelaide casino was rejected because of a conviction for stealing two bottles of alcohol from a shop when she was 15 years of
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video