Page 2359 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
favour over groups not so designated. I thought the best way to bring it up was as an amendment. The Bill refers to the Discrimination Act 1991. In Part II, "Discrimination to which Act Applies", subsection 7(1) lists grounds from sexuality, transsexuality and marital status to race, impairment, and so on. I am not quite sure why some grounds that are mentioned in the Discrimination Act are listed in the Bill before the house and some are not. I do not see the logic there.
I think there is a better solution for people who may have some disability, impairment, disadvantage, et cetera - that is, that they be given or receive the necessary training. Whether they are given it or go out of their way to get it is a point that could be debated. In the Bill before us, paragraph (c) of the definition of "designated group" states:
persons who have migrated to Australia and whose first language is a language other than English, and the children of such persons;
Let us look at that. It is unfortunate that people who do not have a good command of English could be given a job over someone who does. That is discrimination and it is not okay. Some members might say, "That is nonsense; there would be no such discrimination"; but, to the logical listener, that would not succeed because we know full well that such discrimination has been implemented by the Labor Party within the ACT public service. I refer specifically to quotas for women. Whatever you want to call it, it is quotas. The Chief Minister looks rather mystified - - -
Ms Follett: "Appalled", I think is the word.
MR STEVENSON: Why? Are you appalled about the idea of quotas that you have within your party or are you appalled about the idea that that should also relate to the public service? Affirmative action may sound okay, but when you look at how these things are applied in practice there is a concern.
Ms Follett: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The clause Mr Stevenson purports to be amending concerns access and equity principles and programs and designated groups. There is no suggestion of affirmative action. I suggest that he is not remaining relevant.
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Stevenson, have you concluded your remarks?
MR STEVENSON: No.
MADAM SPEAKER: Would you please not talk about affirmative action or quotas; just talk about the clause.
MR STEVENSON: I am afraid that I cannot debate it unless I am allowed to talk about what the Bill talks about. Perhaps, Madam Speaker - - -
MADAM SPEAKER: Mr Stevenson, would you please desist from shouting at me and would you please listen to what I am saying.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .