Page 2362 - Week 08 - Wednesday, 22 June 1994
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I do, however, recommend to the Assembly the alternative amendment to this definition, which I have circulated. It deletes paragraph (e) of the definition of "designated group". I propose this amendment because, although I think it is appropriate for us to consider designating groups and supporting positive discrimination in favour of those designated groups from time to time, I would not be comfortable with moving, effectively, delegation of this power to designate disadvantaged groups away from the Assembly and into the hands of the commissioner, as I understand subclause 25(1), in conjunction with the Chief Minister. I pose, for example, the situation where the commissioner, in conjunction with the Chief Minister, decided to designate members of trade unions as a designated group for this purpose. That would, I think, be a decision that should be taken by this Assembly, not by the commissioner. I therefore urge members to support my amendment in order that it is the Assembly that adds paragraphs to this clause, not anybody else.
MS FOLLETT (Chief Minister and Treasurer) (3.59): Madam Speaker, the Government will be opposing both Mr Stevenson's amendment and Mr Humphries's proposed amendment. The purpose of Mr Stevenson's amendment appears to be to narrow down the application of equal employment opportunity programs so that they apply to women only. I suspect that that was an oversight on Mr Stevenson's part. I suspect, from the comments he has made, that he would have liked it removed from women as well. As his amendment stands, it does leave women as the only designated EEO group. The effect of that would be to deny to some particularly disadvantaged groups in our community the opportunity that equal employment opportunity programs offer to them. EEO programs serve generally to remove unintended barriers to things such as promotions, appointments, opportunities for careers, access to training, and so on. The main purpose of EEO programs is to give people in those designated groups a level playing field. It has nothing to do with quotas and nothing to do with affirmative action. It is to remove barriers for those people within designated groups.
We should not be very surprised to hear Mr Stevenson putting forward this view. It was, after all, the case that in the debate in this Assembly on Aboriginal reconciliation and the vision for reconciliation Mr Stevenson opposed it. He was the only person who did. Clearly, Mr Stevenson's views, at least on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, are known. It is a pity, I think, that his views on people with disabilities and people from non-English-speaking backgrounds are apparently just as intolerant, just as discriminatory, as his views on the record on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. Madam Speaker, anybody with any commonsense would oppose this amendment, and I urge all members to do so.
MR STEVENSON (4.02): My intention is not to cause discrimination but to remove it. As I said, there are better ways of doing this. The simple truth of the matter is that within the public service there should be one criterion for employment. Can the person do the job? If they can do the job they should be entitled to the job. Anything less than that gives us a public service, or should I say a government service, that is less capable. I have already intimated how my solution would work. We know that there are many training programs in the ACT that help groups that have some disadvantage. That is a quite good idea. However, I am concerned about what some people call reverse discrimination. I believe that there is no such thing. There is only discrimination. No-one should be discriminated against if they can do a job. That is the simplicity of it.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .