Page 378 - Week 02 - Wednesday, 2 March 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
Mr Lamont: I think you should withdraw journalists. To elevate them to that level is just wrong.
MR MOORE: Mr Lamont interjects, wondering why it is that we would elevate journalists in such a way. It pleases me that people accept the intent of this legislation. Madam Speaker, Mr Humphries said that one of the things that motivated this particular piece of legislation was that sex workers cannot get insurance. We do not know whether this legislation will enable them to get insurance, but it provides for a sensible process that they can pursue to determine whether something they are seeking is reasonable or discriminatory. I hope that it will allow for sensible and rational decisions to be made on commercial grounds - indeed, insurance companies need to make decisions on commercial grounds - rather than on some moral ground.
Mr Humphries said that he preferred this system to a broad ban. I must say that I agree wholeheartedly. I think the broad ban approach would in fact allow much more discretion in the hands of the judiciary. I think that both the judiciary itself and this Assembly would prefer less discretion. Such discretion would lead to a build-up of common-law practice. This would not be so with the type of approach that makes the opinion of the legislature clear. I think that was a worthwhile subject to raise. We can keep that in mind if any further amendments to the Discrimination Act are necessary.
I hope that there will not be a need for further amendments. It seems to me that we have to set the tone in the community that discrimination on all the grounds set out in the legislation is simply unacceptable. The further we get along that path, the more tolerant people become. Members may recall the debate we had in the First Assembly on the naming of the Act. What a shame it is that we could not have called it the "encouraging tolerance Act" or something positive along those lines.
Mr Connolly: It was almost the no-name Act. It was, for about an hour.
MR MOORE: Mr Connolly is quite right. I had forgotten that. It was the no-name Act for quite some time. What this legislation is really attempting to do is to give us a much more tolerant society. With a more tolerant society, we can accept that we have a far better society. Madam Speaker, I often hear people of the generation prior to mine talking about how standards have dropped and so on. I like nothing better than to get into a decent argument with them on how our standards have actually improved significantly.
Mr Connolly: You always like nothing better than an argument, Mr Moore.
MR MOORE: I do not like arguments. Mr Connolly says that I like arguments.
Mr Westende: You like nothing better.
MR MOORE: Mr Westende also says that I like nothing better than an argument. I will take him on later.
Mr Westende: I meant that you like nothing better than you like an argument.
Mr Connolly: It seems to me that you are out-interjected, Mr Moore.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .