Page 517 - Week 02 - Tuesday, 23 February 2010
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
I note the comments made by Mr Seselja in relation to the term “industrial activity”. I think the opposition can be reassured that the definition is one which, if we are successful in this process today, will be consistent with the commonwealth’s Fair Work Act and also with contemporary practice adopted in other jurisdictions. It is a term which has been recommended to us by the discrimination commissioner and we believe it is worthy of support.
I would like to thank members for their general support of the bill and I commend it to the Assembly.
Question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill agreed to in principle.
Detail stage
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.
MR SESELJA (Molonglo—Leader of the Opposition) (4.16), by leave: I move amendments Nos 1 and 2 circulated in my name together [see schedule 1 at page 546].
I will not speak long on these amendments; I have set out in my speech in principle what the opposition’s concern is. I note Mr Corbell’s comments in closing. We believe the intent is good, but we do believe that there is a potential for it to be unwieldy and to have a different meaning from what has traditionally been meant by, essentially, freedom of association. Calling it “industrial activity”, as opposed to the previous terminology not only changes it in name but also potentially changes it in substance. I am not sure whether that was the intent, but that is our fear. That is why I have moved these amendments, which would simply take out those definitions.
We believe that the government should have gone away and come up with a better one. I understand that is not going to be the wish of the Assembly today, but I move the amendments and I commend them to the Assembly.
MR CORBELL (Molonglo—Attorney-General, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Water, Minister for Energy and Minister for Police and Emergency Services) (4.18): As I have previously indicated, the government will not be supporting these amendments. The term “industrial activity” is commonly accepted, both in terms of commonwealth legislation and in terms of a number of other jurisdictions. It is considered to be a best-practice term; it is considered to properly encompass the grounds on which discrimination matters can be dealt with; and it is a modernisation of an existing ground, not a widening of that ground.
I note that in his speech Mr Seselja raised the concerns of employer groups. Employer groups here in the ACT should not be concerned by this change, firstly because of the fact that it is commonly accepted language in the other jurisdictions I have mentioned and secondly because it is purely a modernisation of an existing ground in relation to the consideration of discrimination matters rather than a widening of that ground.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .