Note: Official parliamentary records are available at www.aph.gov.au . This page is provided by the Commission to provide more convenient access.
Title: DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION BILL 1992: Second Reading
Date: 19 August 1992
[COGNATE BILL: HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 1992]
Debate resumed from 26 May, on motion by Mr Howe:
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. G.G.D. Scholes)--I understand that it is the wish of
the House to debate the Disability Discrimination Bill concurrently with the
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Legislation Amendment Bill. There being no
objection, the Chair will allow that course to be followed.
Mr BRUCE SCOTT (Maranoa) (11.41 a.m.) --I rise to speak on the Disability Discrimination Bill 1992. In fact, this week is Disability Week, so it is perhaps an appropriate time to be debating this issue.
Honourable members may recall the words of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services (Mr Howe) in May this year when he told the Parliament that the Disability Discrimination Bill represents a landmark in achieving human rights for all Australians. He went on to say:
This Government has a long term commitment to achieving a better deal for people with disabilities.
At the same time the Minister invited interested parties to make further comments on the legislation over the winter recess. Now, three months later, the Minister and his Bill are under fire from such respected groups as the Australian Medical Association and the Australian Association of Surgeons. Both associations have expressed concern about the expanded definition of the term `disability' and the rights of health professionals when dealing with HIV positive patients.
Even groups representing people with disabilities have hit out at the Bill, labelling it as discriminatory and a mockery of the very essence of the reasons for the Bill. Letters and faxes expressing such concerns have poured into the office of my colleague the shadow Minister for Community Services, Senator Tambling. I know he has brought many of those views to the attention of the Minister's office. However, the Minister and his Government remain oblivious to the fundamental concerns.
The Federal coalition has sought to obtain the names and addresses of people and groups who have made submissions to the Government. The Minister's office has refused to make available those details, leaving the Federal coalition with no alternative but to request the information via questions on notice. For these reasons, the Federal coalition believes it is necessary to refer this Bill to a joint select committee to allow for proper parliamentary scrutiny. Accordingly, I therefore move the following second reading amendment:
That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:
"whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that the Bill should be referred to a Joint Select Committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on the Disability Discrimination Bill 1992, to be appointed to inquire into and report by 3 November 1992 on the following matters:
(1)a general assessment of the outcomes of the proposed legislation in relation both to persons with disabilities and others in the community, including:
(a)the appropriateness of exemptions included in the Bill, particularly for the telecommunications industry and the deaf community and whether further exemptions should be included, for example, for the Australian Defence Force;
(b)whether the Bill deals satisfactorily with significant issues of health policy and whether these could be dealt with more appropriately in separate legislation;
(c)the appropriateness of the definition of `disability', including an examination of existing definitions of disability in the UN Declaration of the Rights of Disabled Persons and/or State legislation, the reasons why the proposed definition is different and whether it should include, for example, cognitive and neurological dysfunctions;
(d)the need to clarify provisions relating to `unjustifiable hardship' and `action plans';
(e)the interrelationship of the legislation with existing legislative provisions such as the `compulsory conference' procedure and the procedures in existing racial and sex discrimination legislation; and
(2)whether the mechanisms contained in the Bill are the most appropriate means of reducing disadvantages experienced by people with disabilities, including a detailed examination of the costs of the proposed legislation to industry and taxpayers and of the practicalities of its implementation".
Various peak bodies have made representations to the shadow Minister for community services. I believe they are the tip of the iceberg in relation to concerns about the Bill's proposed outcomes and mechanisms. For example, the Confederation of Australian Industry strongly opposed the legislation, saying that employment decisions should be taken on the ground of merit. The Head Injury Council of Australia wanted the definition of `disability' to include `cognitive and neurological dysfunction', in line with recent Queensland Government legislation. The Law Institute of Victoria questioned why the burden of proof in disproving the exception of `unjustifiable hardship' rested with the complainant. The Multiple Sclerosis Society of Victoria highlighted the ambiguity of `unjustifiable hardship' and the lack of `action plan' monitoring. The Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills found that the legislation failed to set out the qualities and attributes needed for a person appointed to preside over a compulsory conference.
On reading the representations, a common concern relates to exemptions and, in particular, the proposed three-year exemption for the telecommunications industry. The Royal South Australian Deaf Society went as far as describing the Bill as `discriminatory and, as such, not acceptable to the deaf community'. According to the Bill, the term `disability' covers physical, sensory, intellectual and psychiatric impairment, mental illness or disorder and the presence in the body of organisms causing or capable of causing disease. The new and broader definition attracted a barrage of criticism. The Australian Medical Association rightly pointed out that virtually all Australians carried organisms in their bodies capable of causing disease.
The need to protect personal or private health was also raised by the AMA submission, as well as the need for a special exemption to cover the health professions. Similarly, the Australian Association of Surgeons expressed concern that the Bill would make it illegal for a surgeon to refuse to perform an elective procedure on a known HIV positive patient.While acknowledging that the Bill was laudable in concept, the Association felt that its implications had not been thought through, particularly in regard to the medical profession.
However, it is important to reflect on the principles of the Bill. The legislation is complaints based and provides for the establishment of an office of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner, who will be part of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The Commissioner will try to conciliate complaints but, where the process is unsuccessful, the Commission can inquire into complaints and make determinations. The determinations, which are not binding on the parties but are enforceable in the Federal Court, include remedial action and the payment of compensation.
The legislation specifies that damages can cover injury to a complainant's feelings or the humiliation that the person might suffer. The Federal Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Brian Burdekin, highlighted this point when he referred to the case of a Tasmanian footballer banned from playing because he was HIV positive. Speaking on ABC radio on 17 July, he said that the footballer could soon have recourse to new anti-discrimination law and demand compensation from the local league.
The Bill also provides that only reasonable accommodation needs to be made for people with disabilities. Persons against whom complaints are made can argue that the accommodation necessary involves unjustifiable hardship. Similarly, an employer can argue that a person with a disability is unable to carry out the inherent requirements of the job.
The Bill provides for the introduction of disability standards should the Government and relevant parties decide they are necessary. The standards relate to employment, education, accommodation, provision of public transport services and facilities, and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. Service providers also have an opportunity to lodge action plans with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission outlining long term strategies to overcome perceived discriminatory practices. The legislation exempts charities, telecommunications for three years, pensions and allowances, migration, combat duties and peacekeeping services by the Australian defence forces, and peacekeeping services by the Australian Federal Police.
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission may also grant temporary exemptions.
Originally, this Bill defined `defacto spouse' as a person living with another person:
. . . on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married. . . whether or not they are of the same sex.
The definition broke new ground because it extended the definition of `defacto spouse' to homosexual couples for the first time. Last week the Minister circulated draft amendments deleting the words `defacto spouse' and defining `associate' as a spouse, a person living with another person on a genuine domestic basis, relative, carer, or a person in a business, sporting or recreational relationship.
We in the coalition are concerned that these and other definitional changes, as set out in last week's draft amendments, are the only issues to have been addressed by the Minister. Indeed if these amendments were meant to clarify the scope of the Bill, they have failed. Instead we have been presented with further uncertainty--just what is a `recreational relationship'? Who will be held to be a `carer'?
The objects of the Disability Discrimination Bill are, of course, highly commendable. In his second reading speech, the Minister said that the legislation was an effective means of overcoming the most significant barrier facing people with disabilities in this country--the attitudinal barrier. I believe the Bill in its present form will not overcome that barrier.
I urge honourable members to support the coalition's amendments to ensure that proper parliamentary scrutiny complements the many submissions by interested parties. If a joint parliamentary select committee is not agreed to by the Minister in the House, I would certainly place the Government on notice that the coalition will have no alternative but to pursue that action through a Senate inquiry because we have many unresolved concerns. In this case it would be a great pity that members of the House of Representatives would therefore be denied participation in this important parliamentary review. I reiterate our determination to ensure that people with disabilities in Australia are not discriminated against. I urge the Government to accept our amendment.
Mr SPEAKER --Is the amendment seconded?
Mr Bradford --I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.
The Disability Discrimination Bill represents a high point of achievement in the Government's endeavours since 1983 to promote rights for people with disabilities. As the United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons draws to a close, and in this particular week, Disability Week, it is timely that we should consider our achievements in Australia over the decade as a basis for our plans for the future.
The Labor Government's assault on the joint bastions of fear and ignorance--ingredients of prejudice--which shut off people with disabilities and their carers from the flow of life for so many years is now an important part of Australia's social history. Indeed, this Government's introduction of life-changing reforms has had far-reaching consequences for people with disabilities and for their carers. For a growing number of people with disabilities--certainly not all but those dependent on need--there is no longer the need to be confined to institutions, unable to make decisions about the way they wish to live, and segregated from the rest of society. The changes needed to effect this broadening of opportunities--and such changes unavoidably bring a measure of dislocation and concern--were not undertaken without serious planning and consultation.
In 1983 the Labor Government strengthened the voice of people with disabilities by establishing the Disability Advisory Council of Australia to provide direct advice to the Federal Government in this area. A comprehensive review of programs and services for people with disabilities was undertaken--the handicapped programs review. This set the scene for a series of widespread reforms. The report of the handicapped programs review, published in 1985, recommended new legislation. As a consequence, the Government introduced the Disability Services Act in 1986. This Act stated that services for people with disabilities should be provided in accordance with the kind of fundamental rights that the rest of us take for granted.
The Act marked a move towards smaller services focused on the needs of individuals. It initiated a move away from institutional solutions towards community-based options and it sought to facilitate access to mainstream services. It provided for a wider range of service options and encouraged innovation in service delivery. In introducing and implementing this Act, the Government gave a clear response to people with disabilities. It said, `We hear what you are saying and we are doing something about it'.
However, the Government was not prepared to sit back and rest on its laurels. It recognised, and continues to recognise, that, while the Disability Services Act marked a turning point, it was only the beginning and much more still needed to be done. In 1988 we established a social security review to address key issues for the reform of income support provisions for people with disabilities. As a result, a major reform of income support and related labour market programs was announced in the 1990 Budget.
The disability reform package aims to improve the participation of people with disabilities in employment, education and training activities; to make it easier for people with disabilities to participate in and contribute to the life and work of the community; and to make sure that people who have severe disabilities and limited job prospects get adequate and secure income support. It is unique in that it brings together the major agencies responsible for support services, education and training, employment and rehabilitation.
With the disability reform package the Government signalled that people with disabilities could no longer be cast outside the employment mainstream of this country. The disability reform package also highlighted the importance of agencies working together rather than in isolation.
In a similar spirit of cooperation, the Commonwealth has sought to work together with State and Territory governments to maximise resource use and minimise duplication in order to provide high quality services for people with disabilities. In 1991 the Commonwealth-State disability agreement was signed. Under this agreement the Commonwealth Government will administer employment services for people with disabilities, while State governments administer all accommodation and other support services. In yesterday's Budget $114.3m was set aside to assist the States in this transition.
Since July 1991, Queensland--my home State--Victoria, Tasmania and the Australian Capital Territory have enacted the necessary complementary legislation to the Commonwealth DSA. The agreement was implemented in those four States on 1 July of this year. Today we are debating the next cog in the social justice mechanism for people with disabilities: legislation which recognises the rights of people with a disability as amongst those basic but crucially important human rights which have been enshrined in legislation such as the Sex Discrimination Act, the Racial Discrimination Act and the Bills before the House. It is this type of legislation which makes the difference between those societies which are enlightened and those which are not. People are still subject to discrimination purely on the basis of disability--discrimination which is socially damaging and morally unacceptable and which costs the whole community. Above all, this discrimination is hurting individual people who are contributing to our nation.
The Disability Discrimination Bill provides the framework for eliminating discrimination which prevents fair access for people with a disability to jobs, education, sport and entertainment, and provides an effective means of overcoming perhaps the most significant barrier that people with a disability face--the attitudinal barrier. The key features of this legislation include establishing a Disability Discrimination Commissioner who will be required to investigate and conciliate complaints of discrimination on the ground of disability. It is a complaints based system, broadly styled on the existing anti-discrimination legislation which is now familiar within the community at large. Under the legislation the disability is defined as covering not only the mental and physical disabilities--and this would include cognitive and neurological dysfunction--but also those related to drug and alcohol overuse, addiction and the presence of organisms such as the HIV-AIDS virus. It also defines just what is unfair discrimination and helps the community to understand that ensuring equal treatment for people with disabilities may require some adjustment on their part. While mediation and conciliation are the main emphases of the Bill, it does make provision, as with other anti-discrimination Acts, for judicial proceedings as a last resort.
But underpinning the legislation is the potential for it to influence that factor which is most fundamental to the overall success of disability reform--the changing of attitude. The Act will have two major functions. It will provide a standard for Australia in attitude toward and treatment of people with disabilities, and it will be an educative mechanism to mould a proper attitude towards people with disabilities and their carers. As a standard, it will declare that the Australian society believes that people with disabilities have the right to public recognition of their qualities as individuals, to a respect for their contribution to society and their abilities, to the opportunities for a full citizenship offered to other Australians, and that we believe it strongly enough to legislate for it. It makes a statement that no person shall suffer discrimination when seeking a job, choosing a home, or planning a career. It sets up an expectation that Australians will act decently toward a person with a disability and a requirement by law that they do so. But of equal importance, in the tradition of legislation such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act, it will formulate attitude by educating people, and providing a basis of information necessary to dissolve stigma borne mainly because of a lack of understanding.
There is a public argument which emerges regularly stating that one cannot legislate against attitude. I have heard this many times in many different instances, but I disagree with it. When I was involved in the random breath testing campaign, I was told that one cannot legislate against social drinking. During the debate on affirmative action for women, I was told that one cannot legislate to provide such activity and understanding; one would just have to wait for things to evolve naturally. Now we have an instance where many women, instead of occupying the servile position in business and other organisations, are in a proper managerial role. Smoking in public places is still controversial, but a growing number of people are now demanding a smoke-free environment in areas such as restaurants following the debate on the need to regulate the effect of passive smoking.
Most if not all people with disabilities and their carers have felt the barbs of stigma. I will give four of many instances of everyday discrimination. One is the case of a carer taking out a child with slow intellectual development and being judged not only by people who stare at the unusual but by people who are thinking that a child of that physical age must be naughty for behaving at an intellectual level which is inappropriate to that child. Another instance is when people are out in public areas with mobility aids, maybe aids which are unusual. The same sort of discrimination occurs. The stigma or effects of stigma are applied.
A woman within my area who has an adult son in a nursing home told me a story which typified another type of discrimination. There are two aspects to it. Her adult son is in a nursing home and he has the natural curiosity of a child. She is continually having to contend with his being judged as an adult male who pervs. Not only people of his age but younger people with disabilities are put into nursing homes. That is one area where we want and need a wider number of options.
A community worker was telling me that his group, based on caring for the community, felt very awkward in the presence of an adult with an intellectual disability. Everything would be going along fine until this person would come in when silence would occur. This was given to me as an argument against integration by a person for whom for some time I had had great respect.
A prime instance of bureaucratic discrimination is that experienced by a mother, whom I will call Joanne, who has a 17-year-old daughter, whom I will call Brenda, who has an intellectual disability, slow development. In her early childhood Brenda was actually denied hormone treatment to rectify a known condition that would make her much shorter than average through her entire life. She missed out because it was deemed that so-called normal kids would gain more from that program. So Brenda reaches childhood not only coping with intellectual disability, but also her feeling of being physically different from the other people with whom she mixes. You would not credit it in Australia in these recent decades.
I believe it is the system of educational apartheid which must shoulder a fair portion of the blame for a lack of understanding of people with disabilities. To counter this, I advocate the integration of people with disabilities into mainstream education. I know all of the arguments that are put towards deferring this. I am a trained teacher. I understand that teachers need resources. I understand that sometimes segregation for development within special schools is advantageous to the child. But I also understand that there is nothing which will develop, as in this case, a child with intellectual disability more than to be out in the mainstream. Such children bound ahead when they are integrated at preschool level because they have role models and because they are stimulated. It can do so much for a child with a disability.
On the other hand, this discrimination, I believe, is in part because we are all part of generations which did not understand the abilities and the individual qualities and personalities of people with disabilities because they were not in our schools. That is why there is fear. That is why there is lack of understanding. That is why there is stigma; that is why there is discrimination; and that is why a Bill such as this is very necessary. It is necessary to stimulate debate, to set a standard, to get people talking about the need to give the same options and opportunities to people with disabilities as other citizens are enjoying in Australia. Most particularly, it is necessary to understand that there is a large and mostly silent grouping--it has been silent in the past--of citizens of Australia who are not getting the same sorts of opportunities as they themselves would expect for their own families, and in part this is because of attitude.
Before closing, I would like to take a moment to praise the dedication and humanity of the many thousands of people who spend their lives caring for people with a disability and to welcome the announcements in last night's Budget, which is looking specifically to the needs of those people. I really appreciate all that has been done by those appropriate Ministers and would like to congratulate the Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services for his continued commitment to broadening the horizons for people with disabilities.
The value of a Bill such as this is that it sets up a point of public debate
which will educate a large and growing number of people to support and appreciate
people with disabilities. There are organisations and people who have done so
over the decades, but now we have people coming out of schemes such as the Disability
Services Act transition scheme. There was a lot of natural fear regarding the
introduction of something new, but a statement had to be made that is loud,
clear and definitive and in the interests of people with disabilities who will
be advantaged by these Bills if they are, in fact, to take their rightful place
in society. (Time expired)
Mr MILES (Braddon) (12.15 p.m.) --The Disability Discrimination Bill concerns a topic which is of deep concern to all Australians--that there are people who live within our community who have disabilities. Many of us are aware of circumstances where people with disabilities have been discriminated against quite unfairly and unacceptably in our society. The Bill before us is important. The position that we, as an Opposition, are adopting in asking for a full and thorough analysis of and debate on this issue is only going to back up what the previous speaker, the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), said, which is that this is an important issue and, if it is about attitudinal change, the more vigorous and wide-ranging the debate is in regard to leaders in this nation of ours on this topic, the more people will be alerted to the issues involved.
Discrimination and disability are complex areas in their own right for the community generally and for members of the Parliament. When we talk about attitudinal change, we must realise that it does not occur by the passing of legislation in the Parliament--it is helped by it--but by convincing people out there that the leaders of the nation have given due consideration to it; that they have analysed it carefully and fully and that they appreciate the logic and rationality of the debate. From that comes a mainstream change in thinking in the community.
If the Government really believed that this legislation was vital and very important, it would have done a lot more work on it before bringing it into the Parliament. We now have something like 41 amendments. If this was crucial and important legislation, why were there fundamental changes to it--particularly in the areas of definition--in the intervening period between its being introduced into the Parliament and now?
When we consider the subject of discrimination, we find that quite often as things are changed in society and we say that we are taking away discrimination against certain groups, we start to discriminate against other people. I highlight to the Parliament, and to anybody else who may read the Hansard record of this debate later on, that for the first time in this nation a government has brought into this Parliament the equating of homosexual relationships with marriage; it is the first time in our history that a government has tried to put exactly the same legal and responsible status on a homosexual relationship as there is on a marriage.
I want to say to everybody who is either listening to this debate or who may even read these speeches that we in this place have to decide what is good for Australia as to whether we promote family life or whether we equally promote homosexual relationships. Fortunately, the Government saw good sense and withdrew that definition. But it does signify the attitude of the present Government to family matters that it is willing to equate those relationships with that of marriage. I think that is unsatisfactory. I do not believe that is the way to build a better society in Australia.
I congratulate the Government on amending the legislation and taking that definition out. But it would not have happened without lobbying by the Opposition. The Government would have brought that in and would have believed that it was going to create a better society by so doing.
Discrimination is not an easy topic to debate. Therefore, let us examine this legislation. We are saying that we are dealing with discrimination and trying to eliminate it, but this Bill is inconsistent. I say that because it exempts certain groups. Is that or is that not discriminatory? Of course it is discriminatory if Telecom, charities, pensions, allowances, migration and combat duties are not covered by this legislation. It is not a straightforward issue. The legislation claims to be aimed at doing away with discrimination or minimising discrimination in respect of people with disabilities. However, the legislation is internally inconsistent.
The Human Rights Commission, which would oversee this legislation, could do three things. It could conciliate, it could inquire about a particular issue which is brought before it, and it could make determinations. Let us look at the types of determinations that it can make. It can make a determination for remedial action--that is, something which might be able to smooth over the circumstances and sort out the issue without any particular difficulty. I would agree with that. Compensation may have to be paid or dealt with.
We then get down to the real nitty-gritty as to how this will operate. This area of legislating is very complex and we need to fully debate and understand it. Compensation by the Human Rights Commissioner is made in regard to complaints involving feelings or humiliation.
What criteria will we give for compensation? What will be the qualities of the people involved which will ensure that, in their assessments and judgments of making compensations in regard to people's feelings, they will not be discriminatory? How can we achieve this at the nitty-gritty level? Can it be legislated for? Let us treat those people with disabilities fairly and in a caring, compassionate way, but let us recognise that it is extremely difficult to legislate fairly in these areas.
I put a question to those present. If one had to make a judgment about feelings and complaints or whether there had been humiliation, what criteria would one use? I am sure that there would be some prejudices flowing from each person's experiences of life. How do we ensure that this legislation, if passed in its present form, will do the things that we want it to do? The position is not clear.
Not only do we have people assessing the almost unassessable things such as feelings and humiliation, but the Bill also provides for things like reasonable accommodation needs. Who determines what is reasonable? Is there a community standard as to what reasonable accommodation is? Is reasonable accommodation in northern Australia the same as in southern Australia? There is a great diversity. If we are going to put into place legislation that addresses these things, we will have to have a lot more clarity than is provided by generalised terms such as `reasonable accommodation'.
Then we have employers being able to talk about inherent requirements of the job. What determines `inherent requirements'? How do we define these things? This is a very complex area in regard to being able to bring about the attitudinal changes that are required. In many ways, unfortunately, we as a Parliament are trying to do something which should have been instilled in all of us as we grew up--to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. If we actually believed in that as a nation--all of us as individuals--this legislation would be totally irrelevant and unnecessary. The failure in Australia today is that the attitudes which are needed are not being inculcated into our young people as they grow up. It is probably not possible in many of our homes, where families are breaking up. But here we have circumstances where we are trying to legislate back for a very old edict. If we had all obeyed and followed that edict diligently, we would not be faced with this legislation. What we are trying to do is a very complex task.
Then there is the definition of `disability'. We find in the definition provided in the legislation that we in Australia are now becoming much more wide-ranging than even the conventions. We want to expand the definition. I say as a side comment that it is interesting that we have our Prime Minister saying that he wants to throw off all the shackles that have anything to do with our heritage, our origin with the United Kingdom, the Queen, the flag, et cetera, but at the same time saying, `Let us all bow and kiss the ground to any United Nations convention'. We ought to be able to stand in our own right. Here we have this sort of duplicity.
But let us forget about that and let us keep to the actual definition of `disability'. The Government wants to expand it so that it covers diseases that people may have or organisms which lead to diseases within the body. The interesting thing about that is that it is not just for the disorder that might occur now; it is also for the future. This expansion of the definition of `disability' needs far more discussion in this Parliament than it has ever been given credit for by the Government. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Bruce Scott) raised the incident of the Tasmanian footballer. That was the subject of a discussion with Ellen Fanning and Brian Burdekin. Is infection with AIDS a disability?
Mrs Darling --I'd say so.
Mr MILES --Yes. Let us say it is. As things stand at the moment it will ultimately cause death, unfortunately. We should understand that. We are trying to legislate for that disability but, at the same time, we have the Human Rights Commissioner saying that someone could probably ask the Tasmanian Football League or the North-Eastern Football League for compensation under this legislation if it were passed.
I firmly believe that the people making the decision to ask persons to be responsible and not participate in a contact sport which may lead to the exchange of blood are acting responsibly. Yet this legislation would force them to pay out. Is that the way we want to go in Australia?
We cannot have rights on one hand and no responsibilities on the other. That is one of the fundamental difficulties with legislation of this sort over the past decade. Legislation based on rights has been constantly brought into this Parliament, but very little has been said about responsibilities.
I believe that any citizen in this country who contracts the HIV virus, in whatever circumstances, should be asked to act responsibly. I do not believe anybody in our society with that virus who participates in a sport or activity that contains the possibility of an exchange of blood or body fluids is acting responsibly. If this legislation goes through and the views of Mr Burdekin are proved to be correct, then I think we will saddle our society with an unacceptable burden.
I very much support our amendment to the legislation. I believe it is very important that we debate this issue and that we discuss it fully. I say to the Parliament again that if we do want to bring about genuine attitudinal changes, it will take time. This process needs to be undertaken in the community and I believe a committee of the Senate would fully explore this issue. That is what should happen if we are to bring about wholesome attitudinal changes. There is a great need for us to bring about those changes in our society.
Some of the illustrations presented to the House by the honourable member for
Lilley are compelling. I have spent time with people with disabilities; I have
looked after them and cared for them, particularly when I was in high school.
In my work with them I very much enjoyed their personalities. I believe that
I am a better person for having had that experience. But I believe that this
legislation contains some serious flaws and that some areas need further exposure.
Ms CRAWFORD (Forde) (12.33 p.m.) --I rise to speak in support of this Bill which espouses anti-discrimination legislation for people with disabilities in our community.
The honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) has said that this is a very complex issue. There are complexities, but my Labor colleagues and I believe that this legislation embraces the very simple premise that people, irrespective of who or what they are, should be treated equally and with dignity. I think that is what we all should be striving for. We have all heard tales about the end of society as we know it. Labor members are working to change society as it is now, as it is not the kind of society that we would want.
I am reminded of a process that happened about 10 years ago when some children in my electorate who were in wheelchairs wanted entry into the local high school. Many parents and a range of people in the community complained, but I am pleased to say that the process went ahead. It was not a question of time but of action. To suggest that children who are confined to wheelchairs or who need the aid of various other mobility processes and so on should not be part of that high school would now be looked upon as outrageous and poor behaviour.
What we need to change attitudes in many ways is action--not talking. We all know what society is like now. All of us can stand here and talk and look at the way society is, but now it is time for action and change.
This legislation has at its heart a very simple premise. It is, in fact, very much part of Labor policy. We are committed to a fair and just society, irrespective of who we are or where we are. We believe it is part of the Government's role and responsibility to provide leadership in this area, and so it is that we bring this legislation before the House.
When we look at last night's Budget, we can see something of that very heart of Labor which is in all of this. It is about quality of life for all Australians; not for some--not those people who happen to have various attributes and not others--but for all Australians. Every person has the right of access to opportunities and services. That is very much what is at the heart of this legislation.
No amount of Senate committees, discussion and talk is going to change that. It is simply a held belief that, irrespective of who we are, where we are or where we live, we should be treated with dignity and have the right to access opportunities and services. Unfortunately, for that to happen in our society we need to enshrine it in legislation.
Perhaps in an ideal world, as the honourable member for Braddon suggests, we should all think, believe and hope that this will occur. Our European society has been here for almost 200 years and to date it has not happened. People have talked about it, people have talked against it, but it has not happened. Now is the time for action and for the Government to take a role in leadership. It is this commitment to a fair and just society which perhaps best delineates ourselves and those people opposite.
When we look at the experiences of people with disabilities, we become increasingly aware of the need for a disability discrimination Bill. We heard what the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) said. We have also seen that, within our society, there is not full acceptance of people with disabilities. Changing one's attitude is fundamental to the overall success of disability reform.
There are a whole range of examples that we could all cite, but at the heart of the matter is something which I--and members of this House perhaps know this--have discussed for some time, and that is people's right to work. I find it not immoral but amoral that it is considered all right; that it is considered de rigueur that people with disabilities should actually pay $50 a fortnight to go to work.
Various people in the community suggest that that is totally acceptable. In fact, I was told it is not even illegal. I do not care whether it is illegal. I say simply that it is wrong; nobody pays $50 a fortnight to work in Woolies and pack shelves. No member of the Parliament pays $50 a fortnight to work in here. Why then is it somehow acceptable for people with disabilities to pay $50 a fortnight to go to work? Indeed, it is not. It is because of those attitudes--allowing people to be treated differently because of different kinds of abilities--that we need legislation such as this.
While I acknowledge that this legislation may not change attitudes, it is one small step towards realising that kind of change. As I have said before, the time for talking is gone. What we want is action. This legislation will challenge discriminatory attitudes and will encourage people to be more aware of the abilities of people with disabilities. I am reminded of when I was in the classroom way back in 1974 when children with special needs were integrated into our school. The change in attitudes which occurred there was quite dramatic. It was not because people spent time on committees talking about doing things--what may or may not be done--it was the result of action.
What we see now is a vision; we have not achieved it. There are plenty of people with disabilities who do not have the opportunities they deserve or the services that they could ideally benefit from in order to participate more fully in our society. No-one is more aware of that than I am as we struggle to provide a range of different kinds of services. But the Disability Discrimination Bill is a vital step in the Government's continuing commitment to people with disabilities. It builds on the decade of reform. It has been a decade in which we have seen significant changes in Australia's social security, health, housing, education, industrial relations and taxation systems as well as disability services.
The honourable member for Braddon asks what kinds of standards people want in housing. I remind him that people, irrespective of who they are, just want to be able to choose when they get up and when they go to bed. I do not think that is too much to ask in Australia in the 1990s. There are people in our community who do not have that choice. The honourable member is totally unaware of the kinds of conditions in which many people live. If we are to confront the fundamental causes of disadvantage in Australia and break down the barriers that stop some groups from participating fully in Australian society, we have to confront the cause. In ensuring that all Australians are able to exercise their rights, we must ensure that they have a right to act freely and to determine the shape of their lives. Very many people with disabilities do not have an opportunity to determine the shape of their lives. Our policies are based on the principle that all Australians have a right to a quality of life which includes choices and opportunities.
As part of our demonstrated commitment to this, our achievements for people with disabilities have been unsurpassed. We have achieved considerably, but there is still a long way to go. The introduction of the Disability Services Act, and with it those innovations, has had the support of a whole range of people.
The building process and additional initiatives which were announced in the Budget last night also looked to address issues of concern to people with disabilities and their carers: the increase in the mobility allowance by $5 a week, and the establishment of the Transport Advisory Committee to improve access to public and private transport. We have only to look in the public galleries to recognise that people in wheelchairs cannot come into our Parliament and listen to what we have to say. If we are talking about choices and questions of opportunities, right here in this House is an example of the way in which Australian society has failed to address the needs of access. The Opposition can set up all the Senate committees it likes but it will not change the stairs to the gallery for people who may want to come here to hear what we have to say.
The employment entry payment for people with disabilities entering the work force has increased to $300 from $100. Often we find that people who have particular needs need some extra financial assistance to enable them to make a transition to work. As well as that, the education entry payment of $200 a year will also be payable to disability support pensioners. That entry payment for education is paid to a number of other people in our community for whom the cost of entering education can become a barrier because of their period on benefits. Why should we not treat everybody in the same sort of equal way? We have also heard discussions about the Deaf Society and various other groups which are lobbying. This Budget looks at the 12-month--
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Sullivan)--Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have leave to continue her speech when the debate is resumed.
Ms CRAWFORD (Forde) (5.28 p.m.) --I continue debate on the Disability Discrimination Bill to reinforce the idea that, as a Government, we are committed to justice, to a fair and just society and to equality of life for all Australians. As I was saying when the debate was adjourned, this is no better exemplified than in the Budget, in which we have provided a range of measures. One of those measures provided in the Budget which deals particularly with the concerns of those people who are hard of hearing in our community is the 12-month feasibility study aimed at giving people with speech and hearing impairments access to a national telephone typewriter relay service. This will be conducted in both New South Wales and Victoria, and will provide a 24 hour service. This is something which people in our community have wanted for a very long time, and I am certainly hopeful that it will be well supported.
One of the other programs is that assistance towards the cost of continence items will be provided. For many people this is a very significant cost in their household budget. That is a real measure of concern to people with special needs. Rent assistance will be increased, as will the domiciliary nursing care benefits. In addition, there will be an expansion of Commonwealth rehabilitation services which will benefit 700 people with more severe disabilities, and there will be more than 2,000 additional places to support people with disabilities during training or job placement. A further 600 work experience program places will be provided. The purpose of all these reforms is to achieve meaningful and enduring reforms. If these reforms are to be achieved, there is a need for cooperation at all levels of society.
In Australia, an unprecedented partnership exists between people with disabilities and their families, all levels of government, service providers, employers and unions. This is resulting in significant changes in opportunities for people with a disability. The disability reform package is an excellent example of how the Government is committed to developing cooperative initiatives which focus on individual needs.
The Disability Discrimination Bill, when enacted, will assist in broadening the Government's reforms to all areas of government, and also encourage private industry to adopt these reforms. The kinds of reforms we are talking about are, at times, very simple. While we have the Opposition continuing to espouse the needs and demands of themselves through a Senate inquiry for a further talkfest on this matter, we have seen some action. A group of young people in my electorate who use wheelchairs suggested that they could not get in and out of the post office so ramps were built, as were electronic doors. It was very simple, not just for them but for people with strollers, people who would find it a bit hard to go up and down stairs, and so on. So it is essential that the Government give the lead to the community to ensure that measures are taken to enable quality of life.
It is this Disability Discrimination Bill which actually raises the level of our concern and also raises our attitudes and awareness to this. It is this legislation which is vital to awakening and strengthening our national consciousness to the rights, needs and responsibilities of people with a disability, and ensuring that they have proper avenues for redress in the case of discrimination. Today very many of us have heard of all kinds of discrimination at work. We have heard of children denied medical treatment because, perhaps, it was considered that it would be better given to somebody else. We know of places, such as restaurants, where people are denied access for a whole range of reasons. Sometimes people do not want to be near others, sometimes people suggest that there is something different about them and so, in fact, they do not want them.
We have a society which is multifaceted and, indeed, the focus and the emphasis should be very much on ability. We all have abilities. We all have a whole range of abilities. Indeed, that is the kind of focus which we, in our community, should be focusing on. It is that kind of focus which it is necessary to raise within the community. The Disability Discrimination Bill, while it provides avenues for people to seek redress, also reminds us, as a community, that we are all human beings who are deserving of equal treatment under the law.
These reforms are not isolated initiatives with only a transitory impact on the lives of people with a disability. They go considerably further than that. They are the foundations of this Government's vision for a fair and more just society where people with a disability are equal participants. I am pleased to see the honourable member for Corinella (Mr Broadbent) here because he made some quite scathing remarks this morning when I suggested that there were people in our community who had no choice in the way in which their lives were shaped--determined by the time they got up or the time they went to bed or, in fact, what they ate and how they ate it. I suggest to him, as I suggested to the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Bruce Scott), that they could perhaps go and visit a number of places where this is happening in the Australia of the 1990s because of people's paternalistic view of some in our community as being less than equal and undeserving of even that kind of treatment. To suggest that there are not such people in our community is to have one's head in the sand.
These kinds of reforms and this kind of legislation are forcing the community to raise its consciousness, to look at the kind of society that we want. Indeed, this also raises the practical issues such as physical accessibility; we have pointed out that there is traditional conservatism and a reluctance by some people in the community to consider working alongside anyone who they believe may be a little different or who has particular needs. This is the result sometimes not of ill will but of our recent history of tucking people away--the isolationist approach referred to by the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling). It was a case of `out of sight, out of mind'; as a community we absolved ourselves of responsibility for involvement in the community.
However, it is important to remember that there is also a tremendous amount of goodwill out there. Opinions are waiting to be changed and opportunities are there to be taken up. I am sure that by working together through this legislation we can achieve a world in which people with a disability can participate in the life of the community in which they live to the degree that they wish and in which individual differences are acknowledged and accepted; a world in which people with a disability are regarded as ordinary citizens with the same rights as any other citizen and with recourse to systems to redress any infringements of those rights; a world in which people with a disability can gain and hold meaningful employment that provides wages and career opportunities that reflect performance.
With this Disability Discrimination Bill the Labor Government looks to the
creation of a fair and just society in which all people irrespective of needs
have access to what many citizens take for granted and have access to opportunities
so that their full potential can be realised.
Although I was disappointed with the honourable member for Forde, on the other hand I can easily praise the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling). The honourable member for Forde continues to make remarks about equality with dignity. But she should look at the record of her Government on equality with dignity.
Before I go any further, I probably should explain my role with disabled people. For 10 years I have worked with mildly and severely disabled people. For six of those years I was the president of our local adult unit and school. I was responsible for the biggest and most successful integration program in Victoria. We were so successful that we integrated every child in our junior section, and we no longer have that facility.
I want to take that a step further and explain that facility. We had gathered around us the most competent instructors--people involved in cohesion of families and children with disabilities; people who were called upon by government agencies; people who were called upon by the families; people who were called upon by people such as me taking a voluntary role on behalf of disabled people--and we disbanded them throughout the education department in Victoria.
My only fear when I mention integration is that as the honourable member for Corinella I will one day be called upon by the community, because of what the Government has put in place across Victoria, to create another institution like Minibah. My concerns are not just those of one person who worked within the field but of many of the people that I deal with who are struggling on a daily basis with integration.
The honourable member for Forde talks about a fair and just society. But is it a fair and just society when the numbers of homeless people in Melbourne are swelled because those that have been taken out of institutions find themselves on the streets? One can talk to the community police in Victoria, anywhere from Dandenong through Melbourne out to the western suburbs, and one will find that that is the case, tragic though it is. In some cases the removal of the institutions that were put in place has caused tragedy within families and in the lives of individuals. We have thrown on to our police forces people who are not the norm. People within the police forces, untrained, are unable to cope with the situations that they face. We tried using the community police forces on different occasions for some of the people who were sent to our centre.
Unlike the honourable member for Lilley, I am not going to go into individual cases, because the parents of those children and adults will know exactly who I am talking about, and I do not want to cause them any distress. But I can tell honourable members that as a volunteer president of that organisation--hands-on, I say to the honourable member for Forde--I had some very difficult times dealing with people. When we first began the de-institutionalisation of people with disabilities in Victoria, the first people that arrived on our doorstep had mild disabilities. It changed my life to have to deal with people with severe disabilities. I was not able to cope, yet I saw a complete staff around me move the way they thought--what they did and how they approached people. We were able to do our very best with many of the clients in our care. Hopefully we were able to change their lives. But, in fact, we even had some people that we could not cope with at our centre--a centre that had never had a locked door. But we are not here today to talk about the problems that the honourable member for Forde has, so I will return to the Bill.
I understand the feelings of the honourable member for Lilley when she presents the problems that face her in her electorate. I agree with much of what the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) put forward in the debate. I agree with the first proposal by the Government to introduce national legislation to make discrimination against people with disabilities unlawful; I have no problem with that. It aims to eliminate as far as possible discrimination on the grounds of disability in the areas of work, accommodation, education, clubs, sport, the provision of goods, facilities, services and land, existing laws and the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs. Harassment will also be unlawful.
The term `disability' covers physical, sensory, intellectual and psychiatric impairment, mental illness or disorder and the presence in the body of organisms causing or capable of causing disease. This includes past, present, future and imputed disability.
I realise that debate on the Disability Discrimination Bill has been wide ranging. But we have to look, as we did in the centre that I was closely associated with, at the outcomes and what is achievable. Much of what the honourable member for Forde said I have heard and been part of for 10 years of my life. But for some there are great difficulties in achieving the outcome that we all so desire--for people to have more opportunities. But, when we take people with disabilities out into the workplace and say to an employer, `Can you please give our people with disabilities a job?', we have problems. Do honourable members know what is the greatest area of discrimination that we face in Australia today when we try to integrate those people in the workplace? It is unemployment; it is one million people unemployed and another one million underemployed. An employer says to me, `Look, Russell, I have 300 people on my books, and you want us to take on a person with a disability when we do not know what that person may or may not be able to achieve in this workplace'. So the greatest discrimination today arises from the fact that there are so many people--able-bodied, with disabilities, or whatever--who have a real problem in gaining employment.
It is a tragedy that it was difficult through the 1980s, even when our employment levels were not as tragic as they are today. But now the outlook for jobs for people with disabilities is horrific. We have put so many disincentives in the way of people with disabilities who are trying to get employment. The reason I would like this Bill to go to a committee for decent assessment is that I want to make sure that we are not putting another disincentive in the way of people with disabilities so that they will never have the opportunity to work.
I want to speak for a moment about the introduction of legislation into this House and how the outcome affects people. It is not only for honourable members to take note of this; it is also for every person that has something to do with this legislation, regardless of the role he or she plays. I refer to a letter written by an American presidential hopeful, George McGovern. After losing the Watergate election campaign, he entered into the business world and subsequently went bankrupt. In a letter published in the Asian Wall Street Journal, he writes:
I wish that during the years I was in public office I had had this first-hand experience about the difficulties business people face every day . . . I lived with federal, State and local rules that were all passed with the objective of helping employees,--
and they could be disabled employees--
protecting the environment, raising tax dollars for schools,--
that could be for special schools or adult units--
protecting customers from fire hazards, etc. While I never doubted the worthiness of any of these goals, the concept that often eludes legislators is: `Can we make consumers pay . . .
I add: can we continue to make business pay for the deficit of this Budget that we have experienced? He goes on:
I've witnessed first-hand the explosion in blame-shifting and scapegoating for every negative experience in life. In short, `one-size-fits-all' rules for business ignore the realities of the marketplace.
The reason I would like this Bill to go to a committee for better scrutiny is that I am afraid that it is another Bill that will put impediments in the way of people with disabilities. `One size fits all' legislation, such as the Disability Discrimination Bill 1992, is inappropriate these days when there are a number of laws in Australia that prevent people being discriminated against.
I represent all the people in my electorate of Corinella and, as a member of this House, I represent the people of Australia. It weighed heavily on me when at a breakfast this morning the speaker said, `I'm speaking to the leaders of the nation'. It is about time we looked at the legislation that we put through and made sure it benefits those people it affects. As an administrator of people with disabilities, I lived through and watched the bureaucracy in my area grow by tens and then hundreds and yet there was not one further dollar given to the people with disabilities.
I note that the honourable member for Forde mentioned again that the mobility allowance is up by $5 a week. One day when
I was in my office, representatives from the Kirner-Cain State Government said, `We want a share of the mobility allowance'. But I said, `That's federal funding'. They said, `No'. My understanding of a mobility allowance is that it is to help those people with disabilities go to the football or participate in life the way those of us who do not have disabilities take for granted. The representatives of the State Government said, `No, we are going to take it out of your transport fund for your buses, Russell. You are going to have to cut down your bus routes'. That would mean that two of my disabled people would not be able to catch that bus unless their parent, guardian or someone in their community took them to as far as the bus could go. These were Federal funds given directly to the people who were part of my care--we were equal--the people that I was working with. The funds were being taken off them by the State Government in an area unrelated to this disability allowance.
So the honourable member for Forde should not talk to me about quality of life for all Australians, because under Labor governments in this nation that has not been the case. I have been on the receiving end of that type of discrimination. When people get up in this House and preach to me about what the Labor Government has done for people with disabilities in Australia, they might as well be talking to a brick wall because I know the truth.
Mr Campbell --You are a brick wall.
Mr BROADBENT --Those opposite can throw personal abuse at me; I want to see quality of life for all Australians. I want to see this Bill scrutinised diligently by a Senate committee. I want to make sure that every person who has a disability will not be discriminated against and that there will not be any detrimental effects because of the introduction of this Bill. I want to give the disabled opportunities because we in the coalition are about choice and quality of life. I am saying with honesty that there should be an opportunity for people. Those opposite should not talk to me about the taxes that we might put on, when in actual fact a walking stick or a walking frame for elderly people with disabilities has a 20 per cent tax on it.
When George McGovern found out that his business was eventually wrecked, he blamed all the rules and regulations that he had put in place and that he thought were cosy and careful. Here is another Bill that is going to cost $5.5m to implement over two years, I think. Business will carry the costs; government will carry the costs. It will come out of the deficit that was announced yesterday. I have to note that by accident, I think, the actual deficit figure was announced by the Leader of the House, the honourable member for Swan (Mr Beazley), before the Budget.
We already discriminate, as a matter of course, against a number of people in our community. When I arrived at a school at 9 o'clock the other day, there was a parent there with a young child. She said to the principal of the school, `May my son come back to school?'. She explained the disease that he was suffering at the time. He said, `Yes, I think it is all right'. He looked at me and, being a parent, I thought I would jump in. I said, `From my knowledge of this disease I think it is all right for him to come back, too', which was totally outrageous. He said, `Having regard to the fact that you're a politician, Russell, I'd better go and check the documents'. So the principal diligently checked the documents and came back to the young boy and said, `You're not allowed back to school. We have to discriminate against you at this particular time because you've got a certain disease and you're not allowed within the school group until another week has passed by. Then you can come back to school'. Obviously the boy was very disappointed. He would have been five or six years of age. His mum was not too happy either because she had another week of having this young boy at home.
So we discriminate now in regard to infectious diseases in schools and exclusions from schools. What they can and cannot do is all documented. In my opinion, we discriminate every day because we as employers decide whom we want to work for us and what they can and cannot do.
I agree that anybody who by misfortune has to spend his or her working life in a wheelchair and has the same abilities as somebody with legs should have equal access to a job, and I would support that. That is another reason why I want this Bill to go to a Senate committee. I want to make sure that we do not have another situation similar to what happened this morning, when I was handed 53 changes to the Disability Discrimination Bill 1992, put together by the Government people--53 amendments to be moved on behalf of the Government. Does this tell me that the Government has already made 53 mistakes? There are three notes at the bottom of this document as well. If there are 53 problems with the Bill as it stands at the moment, surely we should stand up and say that this has got to go to a committee.
I am finding that 20 minutes is not long enough to speak in this House on an
issue as important as this. There are other parts of the legislation regarding
de facto spouses and defining associates and who under this legislation will
be able to live with whom, and what facilities will be provided by the Government.
That time is not given to us in this House. That is why we have a committee
system, and that is why this Bill needs to go to a select committee. I ask the
House to support the amendments before the Chair at this time so that we can
dissect this Bill to see how every clause will affect those it is intended to
help. (Time expired)
I want to put on record my own reasons for speaking today. I am not proud of my effort. When I put my name down to speak on the Disability Discrimination Bill it was some time ago, and the Bill did slip my mind. I did not look at it, and I am not on any appropriate committees. I am, quite frankly, not impressed with the Bill. I, however, will not be voting against it because, as the Bill says, it is not going to be a particularly expensive measure. It is not going to achieve very much and, therefore, in my view, it is not in the short term going to do a lot of damage either.
I think honourable members on both sides of the House have completely misread the intent of this Bill. It has very little to do with treatment of the disabled or the disadvantaged; it has everything to do with expanding the power of people such as Irene Moss and Brian Burdekin, who run the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. These people are in my view an abomination on society, and hopefully one day a government will have enough courage to sweep them away. I do not see that resolve in my own Government, and I certainly do not see it in the Opposition. This Bill is a heyday for the social engineers, those people who have already done so much damage in society. I recognise this. I will not be voting against this Bill because I find myself overwhelmed with other issues and, frankly, I cannot bear the pain.
I think that we ought to think about treating people appropriately, and I want to talk about some of my own experiences. In my youth I was engaged in an industry manufacturing budgie toys. We were invaded in those days by one of the low wage countries of the world, Japan. It was landing budgie toys in Australia assembled at rates we could not compete with. To compete, I organised groups of people in the community to assemble these toys for which they were paid, albeit on fairly low wages, on a piecework basis. One lad that I was encouraged to give a job to was mentally retarded, intellectually handicapped quite severely, but he certainly had an ability to assemble these toys. By his dexterity, he made reasonable, passable money out of doing this assembly work and felt terribly pleased with himself. He was absolutely devastated when we were no longer able to provide him with the work. It was probably the only meaning he had ever had in his life. He was employed not out of compassion but competitively because he was good at what he did. It is quite clear that many disadvantaged people are very competent in what they do, and they are employed on merit.
I have a friend who is involved in a private employment agency. She says that she has no trouble placing disadvantaged people who, on their merits, can hold down positions. There are some companies in Australia that have made a policy of employing disadvantaged people over some time. They do this, I guess, as a sort of community service. I was talking to the manager of one of these companies yesterday when I realised that this Bill was upon me. He said that, while it was the policy of that company, it was a very serious cost because many of these people that they employed were not good employees. This company made a habit of employing people who had undergone withdrawal treatment for drugs--people who had been hooked on drugs of various sorts.
Generally, the firm found these people to be unreliable. People who had poor work records for various reasons were found to be poor attenders. People with intellectual ability seemed to have no shortage of ability in avoiding work. When we talk, as this Bill does, about costs in the United States of $1,000 per employee, I suspect it is simply for physical infrastructure to aid that employee. As this fellow said to me, the real cost is in the employee one has to employ to supervise these people. So it is not a situation where one can generalise, as most speakers have done. I have sat here today listening to speakers on both sides sanctimoniously prattling their platitudes and their stained-glass attitudes about this particular problem.
I have a boy who is diabetic. Diabetes is a real problem in the community. The impairments caused by it are its limitations. In his case it ties him to two injections a day. He said to me recently, as he has just turned 17 and is looking for a driving licence, `The police would not give me my L plates because I am a diabetic, and I have to get a letter from my doctor. The police would know all about diabetes!' Would the police be guilty of discrimination? I think not. I think the police action was appropriate. People with diabetes can be a danger on the road under certain circumstances. If the police are not sure of the ramifications, of course it is sensible to discriminate in that respect against people with diabetes.
We are told in the Bill that people who cannot read should not be discriminated against in employment because there may be a job cleaning windows. I put it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in society today everyone should be able to read. It is an indictment of the school system when people fail to be able read. It may be that there are a few people with an intellectual ability which, although they are otherwise completely able, makes them unable to read. I myself have a similar disability, due in part to the education system. I like to blame the education system because otherwise I would have to blame my intellectual capacity. I am unable to spell. I am amongst the world's worst spellers. I have absolutely no grasp of the grammar of the English language.
Should I be discriminated against if I seek a position to instruct people in the mysteries of the English language? Of course I should. It is absurd nonsense to suggest that I should not be. I am not suggesting that the Bill goes that far, but it is an extension of the logic which we are being touched with today.
When one looks at the education system throughout this country, one finds that the greatest single need is for more remedial teaching in primary schools because if kids get through primary school without learning the basics of reading and English they are doomed for the rest of their lives. In being doomed, they impose a great cost on society. I believe that if we are genuine in approaching this business of discrimination we should be looking to ensure that remedial facilities are available in the schools. They are not at present.
It is an indictment of the teachers union in my State that it fights for the State Government to spend millions of dollars removing asbestos from the roofs in schools, which poses no health threat whatsoever--and that has been scientifically proven--but it does not fight for remedial teachers. The several million dollars that the State school teachers union has cost the Government in asbestos removal would have been much better employed giving some equality in education. This applies disproportionately to people in country areas.
We ought to look at the great discrimination that goes on against people who live in the remote areas of this country. Ironically, it is these areas which create the wealth of the cities, but they do not enjoy the facilities of the cities. Even though it is the country areas which create the reason for the cities' existence, we continually discriminate against people in remote areas. Both parties are guilty of this.
Another area of great concern to me is the number of people who are brain damaged through trauma on the road or for other reasons. I know that the Minister has been approached by Dr Ted Freeman, a man who has had considerable success in the rehabilitation of these people. I can think of no more horrendous experience than being a captive in one's own body. Yet what does society do for these people? We prefer to keep them in a hospital situation under total care and often living like vegetables, when many of them would respond to some remedial treatment.
One of life's other little ironies is that giving these people treatment would in fact be the cheapest remedy for society. It would be much better for the individuals to be free from the bondage of their own bodies and it would increase the quality of their lives. It would also at the same time reduce the costs on the Government. There is nothing in this Bill that even addresses that matter. It is something that has never crossed the minds of the likes of Moss and Burdekin. If we are serious and if we are genuine, it is about time we looked at putting some funding into doing something for these very unfortunate people who are today a product of our society. We have a motor car culture and these people are a consequence of that. I believe that society should be doing a lot more for them.
Today, honourable members have also spoken about the right to work. There is no right to work. It was a slogan adopted by the Australian Labor Party that the Labor Party would give and recognise that right to work. Throughout the world there is no right to work. I believe it is an enviable situation where people have an opportunity to work. Until we address the matter of an industry policy that recognises a need for manufacturing in this country, there is going to be no right to work because there will never be a situation again where we have full employment.
What do we have? We have the Government not really addressing this problem at all and we have the Liberal Party still transfixed by the level playing field and unable to have even the remotest idea of how we can get manufacturing industry working in this country. There are obviously costs in doing what we can and this Bill imposes some costs. It is clearly society's responsibility and, if we have that fair society which we all aspire to, everyone in that society who is able to do so should contribute to the welfare and betterment of the position of the disabled. It is therefore irrational and illogical to put this cost on employers.
Here we are as a government trying desperately on the one hand, through micro-economic reform, to make the workplace more efficient and to take costs off employers and, on the other, we are putting costs back on. I believe that we should be looking to incorporate disabled people in the work force wherever we can. One must bear in mind that not all handicapped people require this service.
I find inspiration in people such as Stephen Hawkins, one of the world's great intellects, who is afflicted with a disease that is slowly paralysing his mind and his body but he has done revolutionary work in astronomy and has carried that message to ordinary people. Stephen Hawkins is a man who makes me feel extremely humble. It should be recognised that many people with infirmities and disabilities show enormous courage in overcoming them.
But however much courage they display on some occasions, handicapped people can never aspire to be as efficient as somebody who is simply unafflicted. Therefore, they are going to be more expensive to employ because they are going to be less productive in some cases, although there are some cases in which I believe they are more productive. I have been told that there is quite a demand for employing blind people as telephonists. These positions are probably going to be made redundant as technology advances, but it is an area in which they are very competent and efficient.
However, this is not always the case. Is it fair that we should ask the employer to bear the burden of this? I think that it is most unfair. It is a burden that society should bear. I suspect that that cost could best be distributed to society through the tax system with people getting workable discounts for employing people under these conditions. I do not think there is any argument about the responsibility that society bears. Anyone who tries to avoid this responsibility is simply passing the buck.
In conclusion, I reiterate that this Bill is largely a Bill designed to increase the power of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Both we as a government and those opposite as an opposition are beholden to these pressure groups. I believe that these groups and the social engineers which accompany them are doing enormous damage to the fabric of Australian society with no real gains. We ought to be looking at this very carefully.
However, as I said, I lack the courage to vote against this legislation because I have other pressures and other things that I am working on. But I hope that one day we will get a government in this country with sufficient courage to sweep away all this nonsense and return Australia to a proud, competent country and, in my view, a country that has a history of being compassionate. That is the Australia that I aspire to.
The things we are doing today in this Bill work against the very thing that
we all say we aspire to. What we need to do in society is to make sure that
people who have disabilities have every possible help. For example, prostheses
should be available whenever they are needed. We should not stint on that at
all. Australia could easily be at the forefront in the provision of this equipment.
However, what has happened with kangaroo leather which is the lightest leather
the world? When one talks about making orthopaedic shoes, there is nothing comparable
with kangaroo leather; it is by far the best. But do we have a manufacturing
industry in this country utilising this very valuable raw material--this renewable
resource? The answer is: only to a very limited degree. Every attempt to do
so is met with opposition. I have probably spoken for too long in this debate
because I believe that my contribution will be welcomed by neither my Government
nor the Opposition.
This matter will go to a committee in the Senate. One way or another that is where it will end up, because that is where the Opposition plans for it to go for proper consideration. Those things happen in the Senate. Because in that chamber the Government cannot guillotine and does not pull the strings, proper consideration is given to some of these important matters. More power to the Senate.
What happens in that situation--and it will happen in this situation--is that we, the representatives of the people in the people's House, will be denied the opportunity to participate in a committee which ultimately, whether or not the Government likes it, will deliberate on this important matter. I cannot see why the Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services (Mr Howe), knowing that that process will happen, whether he likes it or not, would not give us in the House of Representatives an opportunity to participate in that important committee process. It shows the way this Government operates. The fact that it would exclude me from participating is beyond belief.
The Opposition has a number of concerns with this legislation. All of those concerns have been expressed by our speakers so far in this debate. That is why we have chosen to move this amendment, which I strongly support, for the matter to be referred to a joint parliamentary committee. As many honourable members, not least the honourable member for Kalgoorlie, have said, this is a very sensitive and emotive area.
Community attitudes to the disabled vary enormously. Generally I believe that most people support the principle, and so they should, that disabled people should not be discriminated against. I think many people would go further and suggest that if there is to be discrimination, it should be in favour of those who are disabled. None of us has any problem with the concept that disabled people should be enabled, wherever possible, to live meaningful and worthwhile lives and that they should not miss out on the opportunities and pleasures which are experienced and enjoyed by the general population. None of us would have any problems with those principles. Unfortunately, Government members do not seem to recognise that the position is not as simple as that.
There are very good reasons why disabled people cannot do certain things, and it is much to their detriment. As I meet many of these people, I am surprised at how wonderfully adjusted they are to their situations, but there are reasons why they are unable to do certain things or are prevented from doing certain things. If anyone wants to say that that is discrimination--a word with all sorts to connotations--I guess it is just that.
This legislation does not help. If anything, it makes the situation more complicated than it ought to be. In this Government's headlong rush to present itself in this legislation as caring--that is the word of the last 24 hours--it is laying a veritable minefield for those whom it is attempting to help. That is so typical of this Government. Too much of the legislation that we have seen has been an overreaction and an attempt to solve a problem which often does not exist. We have been faced with legislation after legislation which has what has quaintly become known as unintended consequences, or problems that have to be sorted out down the line, or amendments that are necessary to fix some problem that was never envisaged.
The Minister spoke of social justice, human rights and all the sorts of things that give Labor members a warm inner glow. These are the sorts of things the Labor Party loves to talk about. As the Minister said in his speech, the legislation is an attempt to change attitudes. If ever there was a fundamental reason for not bringing in legislation, it would be that reason. Our experience everywhere tells us that changes in attitudes cannot be legislated. Changes in attitudes are more a matter for the process of education than of legislation.
There have been many instances in this area where legislation has been positively unhelpful or counterproductive. I recall the result of the Richmond report into certain New South Wales hospitals which eventually were closed down. It caused great distress to the disabled people, especially to young people and their parents. That was an example of legislation or government activity which seemed to be enlightened turning out to be counterproductive.
Is there any real need for this legislation? That is where we have some serious doubts. There is already a plethora of legislation on a State level in this area. Serious doubts exist in our minds about the rationale for this. What is the Government's real motivation for introducing this legislation now in the run-up to the next election? In my view, its motivation is very doubtful.
The Minister says it is timely. He puts it in the context of the end of the United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons. Interestingly, the Minister goes on to say that it is another significant step in fulfilling our international obligations under the United Nations. Personally at least, I do not disagree with what the honourable member for Kalgoorlie was saying about those obligations. Many people have told me that they are concerned about that process under which, without reference to Parliament, we agree to a range of protocols and conventions. The Minister listed them in his speech. Having so embarked on a process of committing ourselves to those, we then have to proceed with a range of legislation.
Many of these protocols are not entirely appropriate to the Australian situation. Recently we had limited debate in the Parliament, but a more extensive debate in the community, about the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. There are still serious doubts and reservations in the community about the applicability of that to the Australian situation, and whether it was even wise for us to agree to it.
This legislation is flawed in some more significant and fundamental ways than just on the bases I have already mentioned. It certainly canvasses some important issues. Honourable members on both sides of the House have agreed that that is the case. In fact, it is so important that our amendment says that this is a very important issue. It needs to be given further consideration rather than just accepting what the Government dishes out in a headlong rush into something as important as this.
There are some very serious concerns among a number of people and organisations within the community at this time. Perhaps this matter should be capable of complete bipartisan support. Disabled people should not be political footballs. But let us get this right if we really wish to help the disabled. Let us remove the obvious social engineering agenda and the ideology that is involved. Let us get down to some practical solutions to problems which really do exist rather than ones the Government attempts to create and then goes about solving.
If our amendment is not carried, it will go to a Senate committee and it will be discussed in more detail there. But as I said, I am denied a part in that process.
I want to talk briefly about some of the problems that I believe exist with this legislation. The Australian Medical Association has expressed concern about the definition of `disability'. The Minister in his second reading speech said this includes HIV and AIDS. The AMA said this definition is inappropriate and needs revision in the light of scientific knowledge. Scientifically, the AMA said, this definition is untenable and it makes the point that virtually all Australians are presently carrying organisms in their bodies capable of causing disease.
That is an important matter. What has the Government done in that regard? It has done nothing. There is no attempt to take account of that important point in the definition of what a disability is. One suspects, in reading that, that it is a thinly veiled attempt to pander to the AIDS lobby. That is crass in terms of the naming of this legislation and the emotion that is built up in talking about people with disabilities. Yet this is slipped in almost to catch us off-guard. Of course, the AMA makes reference to that.
Let us be quite clear: it is an important point and it warrants careful investigation. There may well be a case for discrimination against people with AIDS. That may apply in respect of some employment. It certainly applies, in my view, in respect of some sporting activities. The case involving a footballer has already been talked about today. I say `may' because there is still, in respect of the transmission of HIV, in my opinion and from the reading I have done on the subject, a lot of the unknown and there is still a great deal of concern in the community about this matter. Some of that concern has been shown to have been misguided, but some is warranted. Yet we have this thrust upon us without any due consideration of the AMA's position on it, and I believe without any due consideration of the concern that exists in the community.
The Confederation of Australian Industry is quite categorical in its criticism of the legislation. It states that it does not consider there is a need for such legislation and it points to already substantial practical difficulties that can result from statutory prohibitions on indirect discrimination. The CAI, as a peak employer body, also has concerns about the onus of proof established under this legislation. It says:
There should be no obligation on the employer to in effect prove conduct to be reasonable.
Once again, having regard to this advice and, I believe, this perfectly valid position, the Government has failed to take account of that in the framing of this legislation.
The Law Institute of Victoria has expressed concerns regarding the Bill. It believes that the Bill should be redrafted clearly to impose the burden of proving unjustifiable hardship upon the respondent seeking to claim it. The Government's response to that suggestion is to press on regardless. That is why this legislation boils down to being sheer politics, in my view. It makes political footballers, as I said, of those whose interests this caring Government wants to stand up and claim it is representing. Surely, there is an unambiguous case in what we have presented. In the spirit of the debate that has been carried on in this place throughout the day, there is a case for caution; there is a case for further consideration; there is a case for reference to a joint committee.
One other matter of great concern to many members of the Opposition is the definition of `associate'. In the original draft of the Bill `de facto spouse' included in that relationship, as others on this side have said in the debate, for the first time in the history of this country reference to the fact that people should be regarded as de facto whether or not they are of the same sex. At least the Government accepted representations in respect of that and this has now been amended to delete `de facto spouse' and include the quaint word `associate'.
Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m.
Mr BRADFORD --Before dinner I was talking about the Disability Discrimination Bill and speaking particularly in support of our amendment which calls for a joint committee inquiry into this matter. One other great concern to many members of the Opposition is the definition of `associate' in this legislation. I said before dinner that the original draft of the Bill referred to a `de facto spouse'. Within that context, it was defined as a relationship `whether or not the people concerned are of the same sex'. The Minister, to his credit, has at least taken the step of removing that reference; that attempt to put a relationship between two homosexual people on the same level as a normal family relationship.
However, this quaint word `associate' has now been inserted. But I wonder whether this is an exercise in semantics. We now find that an associate is `a person living with another person on a genuine domestic basis'. Implicitly, that could be two people of the same sex living in a relationship.
Mr Gibson --How dreadful!
Mr BRADFORD --It is dreadful. If the honourable member for Moreton is going to stand up here and tell us what the Labor Party believes in, let him admit that the Labor Party is taking us down this track by stealth in this legislation. It is doing it dishonestly. It is hiding behind this legislation which has had so much importance placed upon it. That is our criticism of this legislation and our concern about it.
This is a thinly veiled attempt to promote homosexual relationships as some form of acceptable alternative lifestyle. That is what the Government is on about and it ought to be ashamed of itself. It is trying to make a homosexual relationship somehow equal to a family, in the normally accepted sense of this word. In my view, this is a very dangerous path to go down. It threatens the very fibre of our society and it must be resisted. Even the Family Law Act, with all of its problems, weaknesses and limitations, does not go that far and nor should it.
Whilst we may have compassion for homosexuals and we may not wish them to be discriminated against in their unfortunate situation, the unchangeable fact is--and let the honourable member for Moreton tell me otherwise--that homosexual relationships are not normal. They should not be condoned, encouraged or, worse, recognised in law. That is what the Government is trying to do. It has been caught out here. It has stepped back from including this sort of relationship in what it calls a `de facto relationship' and it now calls it, quaintly, an `associate relationship'. I challenge the honourable member to refute that that is the Government's intention.
As we have said consistently in this debate, there is need for further consideration of this legislation. We are concerned about the Government's motivation in bringing this legislation before the House and attempting to slam it through despite the strong logical concerns of reputable organisations such as the AMI, the CAI, the Law Society of Victoria and a number of others. We do not dispute the need for us to address this important issue, but we object to what the Government has lumped into the legislation. I have referred to a number of those things tonight. We believe the Government is doing a great disservice to those whom it is talking about caring for by lumping in these other matters and disguising them behind what we think is a very important issue.
I ask the Government to reconsider and accept our amendment that this legislation
be referred to a joint parliamentary committee. I say again that it will go
to a committee in the Senate, because we have decided that that is what should
happen, and the Government will not be able to prevent that. What it will be
preventing is the opportunity for those of us who are members of this House
of Parliament--the people's House of Parliament--to participate in that important
process of consideration. I say to the Government: please give us that opportunity.
This is an important matter. People with disabilities are important and their
concerns are important. This is an important matter and I feel that I am being
disenfranchised. (Time expired)
Mr Bradford --Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I do not normally take offence easily, but I think the expression `bigoted ravings' was a little over the top. That is surely not a fair reflection of what I said and it is an adverse reflection on me personally.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Ronald Edwards)--It would probably help the debate if the honourable member for Moreton were to use another term.
Mr GIBSON --I will withdraw the term `bigoted'.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER --Of course, the normal process also entails the extent to which the honourable member for McPherson may have provoked these interchanges.
Mr GIBSON --Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I have said, I am proud to stand here today and support the disability discrimination legislation because I think it is a fine piece of legislation and it is fundamental to the Government's objective of social justice for all. The Disability Discrimination Bill represents yet another watershed in the Government's continuing endeavours to promote social justice for people with a disability. But what do we mean by social justice? Social justice is the fair distribution of economic resources, equal rights, fair access to essential services, and participation by individuals in making the decisions which affect their lives.
But how do we translate these ideals into policies that will make a difference to the lives of individuals? Time and again during the last decade the Labor Party has gone out of its way to translate these ideals into practical policies. We have listened to those people who have been most disadvantaged, to those whose voices have long been suppressed, and to those who have much to say but have previously had little opportunity to be heard. We have gone out of our way to bring together disparate groups and unite this country and break down the barriers that create divisions among us. In short, our aim is to be one nation.
We recognise that everyone has certain basic rights. We want all Australians to have a quality of life which allows them to make their own choices and develop to their own full potential. We recognise that all have a contribution to make and that we can all benefit from sharing with others. This makes us richer as individuals and as a nation.
People with a disability are a particular group who have not always received their fair share. They are a group who have not always had control over their own lives and who have not always had access to the facilities they need to enable them to reach their full potential. They have been held back, often not through any fault of their own but because of the limited imagination of others.
In an unprecedented series of consultations during the handicapped programs review, which was established in 1983, this Government asked people with a disability what they wanted--what would make a difference. Their response was clear and unequivocal. `We are people first', they said, `not the disabled, not patients, and certainly not objects of charity'. The disability groups said, `We want jobs, homes and a chance to live an ordinary life like other Australians'.
Up to that point the focus of government policies had been the provision of institutional care and sheltered workshops. These services had played an important role in meeting many of the basic needs of people with a disability and the needs of their families. However, the Labor Government recognised that people with a disability deserved better.
This set the scene for a series of widespread reforms. These included the Disability Services Act introduced in 1986, the disability reform package announced in 1990 and the Commonwealth-State disability agreement signed in 1991, to name just a few of the more significant reforms which this Government has introduced. These reforms provide a model for how principles of social justice can be translated into policies which enable some of the most disadvantaged people within our community to participate as full and equal citizens.
How has this been achieved? Firstly, our policies have been directed towards equity. By this, I mean that we have sought to ensure that there is fairness in the way our economic resources are distributed. For people with a disability this can be graphically illustrated by the implementation of the disability reform package. The aim of this package is to improve the participation of people with a disability in employment, education and training activities and to make it easier for people with a disability to participate in, and contribute to, the life and work of the community. Further, the package makes sure that people who have severe disabilities and who have limited job prospects get adequate and secure income support.
Under this Labor Government there have been record increases in funding for disability services: from a funding level of $104m in 1983 to a figure of $314m in the 1991-92 financial year. This represents an increase of over 60 per cent in real terms and a threefold improvement in dollar terms towards the provision of practical support for people with a disability.
Secondly, our policies promote equality. Equal, effective and comprehensive civil, legal and industrial rights are a fundamental tenet of the Labor Party. It has been implicit in all our policies and has been particularly manifested in relation to our equal opportunity and anti-discrimination legislation.
Thirdly, we aim to ensure that there is fair and equal access to services. We have sought to provide people with real choices and services that meet their individual needs. It is this aim which is clearly set out in the principles and objectives of the Disability Services Act. This Act has encouraged a move towards smaller services focused on the needs of individuals. It provides for a move away from institutional solutions towards community based options and it seeks to promote access to mainstream services. Under the Act, a wider range of service options can be offered and innovation in service delivery can be encouraged. Currently an unprecedented number of people with a disability receive support under Commonwealth funded programs and services.
Fourthly, we want everyone to have an opportunity to participate in, and contribute to, the life and work of our community. We are particularly focusing on jobs in recognition of the increased opportunities that employment provides for people to participate in community life and to obtain an increased share of the nation's economic resources.
The Government has signalled that disadvantaged groups, such as people with a disability, can no longer be cast outside the employment mainstream of this country. We are promoting access to open employment through policies such as the disability reform package, the provision of employment and rehabilitation places and awareness raising strategies targeted towards employers, unions and co-workers. The Government recognises that these measures are part of an ongoing process of reform to bring about real and enduring change.
It is fitting that the Government now turns its attention to promoting the rights of people with a disability in the wider community through the Disability Discrimination Bill. The Bill before us tonight will ensure that the reforms continue to permeate at all levels of society by promoting social justice through education and reconciliation. The Disability Discrimination Bill is further evidence that the Labor Government is hearing and listening to the voice of people with a disability and acting upon it.
To illustrate how this legislation will make a difference, I would like to outline something about the origins of the Bill. In 1990 the Government commissioned a report to examine a number of barriers to work force participation for people with a disability and steps that could be taken to remove the obstacles. The report, known as National Employment Initiatives for People with Disabilities, prepared by Sydney barrister Chris Ronalds, identified a number of major barriers to employment which remained largely untouched despite prior initiatives. These included employer and co-worker attitudes, access to premises and transport and the types of job and job design. In particular, the report highlighted the need for national discrimination legislation. During consultations on the report, many people gave examples of how they were denied an opportunity to contribute to the work force because of the attitude and misconceptions of employers and co-workers.
Let me give some examples. Many people told how they had experienced arriving at an interview and, once the employer or the interviewing committee observed that they had a physical or sensory disability, the tone and content of the interview changed and interest quickly waned. One particular job applicant was told during a preliminary telephone interview that his qualifications and experience were appropriate and was invited to come to an interview. Upon inquiring about wheelchair access, the call was abruptly terminated by the employer. It was also reported that many co-workers questioned the right of a person with a disability to have a job when they were entitled to a pension and they were taking the jobs of `proper' workers.
People with hidden disabilities are also often disadvantaged. Many people with psychiatric disabilities find it difficult to obtain a job, even if they have not had a period of hospitalisation for some years. As one person put it during consultations:
If I am honest with potential employers, I fail to get an offer of employment and if I conceal my disability and am later found out, I am dismissed unfairly without appeal.
In further consultations conducted by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, people with a disability have related examples of discrimination in almost every area of community life. These include the areas of employment, accommodation, education, clubs, sport, the provision of goods, facilities, services and land and existing laws--areas which are all covered in this Bill.
The Government has continued to consult with people with a disability throughout the process of drawing up the legislation to ensure that their views can be taken into account. During these consultations, people with a disability have overwhelmingly supported the legislation and there has also been widespread support across the community.
The legislation covers all areas that it is feasible for us to incorporate in the legislation. There are, however, two areas where we have made exemptions because of arrangements that were already in place before the drafting of the Disability Discrimination Bill. These exemptions are in relation to telecommunications and migration.
There is a three-year exemption for telecommunications carriers which is designed to allow time for the implementation of reforms presently under way in the telecommunications industry. This exemption is in line with government commitments in relation to these reforms and binding arrangements that had been made in respect of the second carrier. It should be noted that the exemption applies only to the carriers in their role as service providers, not as employers.
Under the legislation, telecommunications carriers, together with other service providers, will, however, have the option of developing voluntary action plans which provide for a gradual planned approach to meeting the principles contained in the legislation, and which can be lodged with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
It is true that in the short term the legislation will not address the immediate access needs of people with a disability to telecommunications services; however, the legislation does promote slow and gradual change which will result in real benefits to people with a disability over time.
It should also be noted that, in recognition of the difficulties faced by people with severe speech and hearing impediments in gaining access to the telecommunications system, a decision was taken in this month's Budget to undertake a 12-month examination of the feasibility of a national telephone-typewriter relay service.
The exemption in relation to migration reflects the fact that the Migration Act 1958 and the regulations made under that Act already incorporate review procedures which relate to the migration of people with a disability.
People with a disability know that while there are many in the community with good intentions, this is not enough. As one person has said, goodwill alone does not provide enforceable protection against discrimination. The Federal Labor Government has listened to the people with disabilities and is responding in a way that is bringing about tangible benefits for people with a disability. We recognise that people with a disability want to have a go. They should not be handicapped because of the attitudes of others and ignorance and fears within the community.
People with a disability have had their say. What they ask for cannot be denied by any fair-minded, thinking Australian. The Disability Discrimination Bill goes right to the heart of the Government's commitment to social justice for all Australians. It shows this commitment is more than mere rhetoric. I believe we can all recognise that this legislation brings us another step forward as a nation by striving to improve the position of those who have been among the most disadvantaged in the past. I therefore urge all to give this Bill full support.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER --Before I call the honourable member for O'Connor, I note
the presence of some who have a special interest in the debate. I am sure all
my colleagues in the chamber would welcome their presence for this particular
debate.
Were we now debating a motion of this House condemning, if you like, discrimination in the workplace or anywhere else against disabled people, I would be the first to stand and speak in favour of such a motion. The fact is, of course, that we are not doing that. We are debating specific legislation attempting to bureaucratise a real issue in our community. It is not the first time the Parliament has chosen to do this; it will not be the last. I guess we have a little problem. We see ourselves as law makers and we are too frequently the victims of a bureaucracy that stands to gain substantially from measures of this nature.
For many decades, many centuries, family matters remained the responsibility of the family. It would not be the first time that I have advised this House that my mother was one of 13 children. It could certainly have been called a financially disadvantaged family, yet I have a recollection as a very young child of a family discussion relating to family violence. My mother just happened to inform my father in a very casual way during dinner that, in fact, two of her brothers had called around to see her sister's husband on account of the fact that he was not treating her properly. I might add that they were both of Irish background, stood about six foot two and weighed about 16 stone--I can assure you that their message would have been considered.
I want to be more serious about it. It was not a big deal in our family: a wife had reported to members of her family that she was not properly looked after by her husband; the family took action. Honourable members can reply that that was because in those days we had a neglectful government and that it was not prepared to do anything about it. The simple fact was that that neglectful government used to consume about 14 per cent of GDP. We now have a caring government that consumes 40 per cent of GDP and, of course, the family goes to the front pages of the telephone directory for assistance.
I am not sure that it is very productive because people in those circumstances frequently take these bureaucratic jobs for the purposes of their own agendas. I know we are talking about disabilities now, but I just want to make this point about our more recently formed domestic violence bureaucracy: there are people who take jobs in that area who are more concerned with breaking up marriages than making them survive. I am deeply concerned about that. I am proud to announce that I stand here as someone who has been married for 35 years and I would be a more difficult partner than most.
The simple fact is that I worry about those things because fundamentally I believe family is a very important thing. I extend my responsibilities to my children and my grandchildren. I am the family marriage counsellor and I am proud of it--and I want to make that point. But I also want to make a point that my worry about this is that we are going too far. I am not criticising the Government for trying to do the right thing. I heard the closing remarks of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Gibson). He believes that a bureaucratic solution is the right solution.
I was approached just recently in the area of human disability by a parent who is deeply concerned that because her severely disabled child has reached the age of maturity, is either 18 or older, although in every other respect she is a five-year-old, she has to have a legal friend, a bureaucrat, to take a proprietary interest in that child, when the mother desperately wants to continue her responsibility. I do not know anybody that loves a child more than its mother. I do not care if it is someone who is 55. Why did we implement laws that say that when somebody reaches the age that, in respect of the rest of us, gives us the right to vote and stand on our own two feet, we believe a bureaucrat is better able to conduct business or anything else on behalf of a child than one of its parents? But that is how the law of Australia provides. I have a funny feeling we are heading off down the same track again and I am deeply concerned about it.
I have said in the Parliament before that if we want to write laws, let us write them for a good reason; let us make sure they are fair; and having done so, for goodness sake let us apply them. We should not make them token laws. With due respect, I sincerely hope this is a token law, that somebody is introducing it to make themselves feel good, although I see that the expenditure of a sorely pressed taxpaying community is $5.5m to make it work. Quite frequently we find when we talk to our constituents that one of the reasons that the second partner goes to work, one of the reasons that they are unable to meet their mortgages, is that the tax man takes too much. It is not a matter of whether the Government decides to borrow $13.4 billion to ease that burden. That burden is applied at a later date and living standards are constantly reduced.
One of the more common sayings of the mother I have already referred to was that when poverty comes through the door loves flies out of the window. That is a tremendous pressure on a marriage and we should not be bringing forward to this Parliament propositions that increase people's taxes and--let me say the other half of that--reduce people's living standards if we are not going to do a lot of good with the legislation that we propose, if we just see it as some token commitment to people whom I believe are entitled to every consideration.
Let us look at what the legislation proposes, taking into account what I have just said. We know that some bureaucrats will do all right because there is to be an office of Disability Discrimination Commissioner. We know that that will not be an office of one. We have already been reminded by me that the expenditure will be $5.5m. Who will be the other great beneficiaries? There is a heap of them in this place; they are called lawyers. There is a great opportunity for them to profit from this legislation.
If honourable members think that that does not happen, let me give a case example. I will not use names; I will not even identify the race club with which I am involved. But it is a tragic example of what happens. A young man applied to this race club for and received indentures as an apprentice jockey. His master then discovered that he is totally deaf in one ear. Of course, a lot of things go on in horseracing, particularly in a race, including the fact that jockeys coming up behind tired horses call out for room. The master did not have any objection to this young man but he had a responsibility, as people get killed on racecourses, to refer the matter to the race club.
The race club, quite responsibly, took the matter to experts. The young man was tested by ear nose and throat experts who said, `He has good hearing in one ear and bad hearing in the other ear. Unfortunately, in our professional opinion, this will affect his ability directionally to decide where noise is coming from--whether the jockey asking for room is on his right or his left'. That was the opinion of the experts. He was therefore told that he had no future in horseracing--that he could act as a strapper or as a track rider and gain a living in that area but that he would be a danger to everybody else in a race. The club had nothing against the young man, but it felt obliged to take this action in the interests of others.
In answer to the technical evidence I have given in that case I believe that the Minister might choose to say, `Well, we have covered that in our legislation. We have this word `reasonable' poked in here and somewhere else and we have laid down conditions'. Every time the word `reasonable' is written, another lawyer gets a job. One can debate `reasonable' in the courts of Australia until one is blue in the face.
Of course, the legal profession is a little short of work at the moment, so all of a sudden this young man went off to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. The club did not wish to discriminate against him, but suddenly the race club is now up for thousands of dollars in legal fees while it defends the position that it has taken in the interests, as it sees it, of protecting the lives of other jockeys.
It does not matter what the outcome is from here on. The bureaucracy has got hold of this. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has got hold of it. It is funding the case and the club cannot win. I have had discussions with one of the participants about what the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission might decide about someone riding in a race with only half-hearing and the disability that that creates for the person in that situation. I wonder whether, if it finds in the young man's favour, it will give an indemnity to that race club that, if anybody gets killed by this young man, it will pay the compensation. That is a pretty fair question. I see a couple of grinning advisers over there. I wonder whether they will answer that question. In other words, what will happen if a disabled person is forced into a position where that person could put others at risk and he wins the case--probably because the employer throws his hands in the air and says simply that he will pay and take on that person rather than face the legal costs, which would run into tens of thousands of dollars--and then someone is killed by that person? That could be the case in the example I have just given. That is true; that is happening in Western Australia at the moment. Will the Minister undertake to this Parliament that in those circumstances he will take the responsibility? The employer is put out of it. The employer is an expert in his field. The turf club is an expert in its field. But it did not stop there. It did not want to discriminate against the young man. It sought other expert advice which said, `If you go on with this, someone could be killed'. It is as simple as that. Honourable members should not tell me that this does not happen because every year deaths are recorded on racecourses--probably more than in car races. It is a very serious issue. But we are going to leave that sort of judgment to people who have no idea whatsoever what it is all about. Of course, as I have already pointed out, they have another agenda--their jobs. It is pretty worrying.
I have another objection because I happened to do a turn as the shadow Minister for health. I did so at a time when the AIDS debate was probably at its zenith. I am sympathetic with people who have contracted AIDS. I am sympathetic with people who have contracted yellow fever. But I find that this legislation again wants to discriminate between the two. We all know that yellow fever can be transmitted from person to person without any bodily contact whatsoever. So we say that that should be put aside.
It is interesting that during the time that I mentioned a shadow Minister, the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Beale), came back to Australia from a yellow fever area. When he got back he was unable to produce evidence that he had been inoculated before he left. The health authorities immediately said to him that he could not travel north of a certain parallel in Australia until he had completed a quarantine period. He did not do that; he ignored their instructions. I do not support him in that because I think he was foolish.
At that time we were saying that it was all right for two fellows to go out onto a football field, one quite capable of infecting the other but only by bodily contact and an exchange of blood, but that a fellow who was going to fly up to Brisbane or somewhere where he had about a billion-to-one chance of being bitten by a suitable mosquito and transferring it to someone else could not do so.
This place has a responsibility to put up decent legislation. I presume that this legislation was primarily meant to be a vehicle to protect the interests of people who have a disability inherited at birth, through accident or something of that nature. Why should HIV sufferers suddenly be included at the end of it? Is it because somebody from gaol wanted to play football in Tasmania? Is that the reason?
What is our responsibility to the community? We think that it is to protect it from yellow fever, not to protect it from AIDS when that is a much simpler procedure. In fact, we want to write laws that guarantee that people cannot be protected from AIDS in the simple manner that they would all prefer. That is what is in this legislation. It is unbelievable. So there is good reason to have some of these matters considered.
Whether we like it or not, industry today is very concerned about people with a long history of workers compensation claims. Whether we like it or not, there are people who trade on genuine or perceived disabilities so that they do not have to work. Anybody who wants to stand up and say that is not so is a fool. The evidence is legend. What do we do now? It appears to me that if there are 25 cases of compensation claims from a perennial bad back that gives a person prior access to a job because he has a disability. The only certainty is that that person is going to break down again and a new employer will be subject to a compensation claim and an attack on his insurance rates, et cetera. Why should a piece of legislation brought down in this Parliament create that situation? It is ridiculous. Of course, industry would bring to us a list of those.
I am not sure who we are talking about when we talk about service providers,
but service providers have an opportunity to lodge action plans, and HREOC has
outlined long term strategies to overcome perceived discriminatory practices.
What are we about in this Parliament that we have to deal with perceived matters?
We are legislators; we write law. What are we talking about? While the Government
tries to write this legislation, and then say that people have a reasonable
excuse not to obey it, a lawyer's jungle has been created. There will be plenty
of problems, and small business and others who can ill afford it will end up
sacking other people to pay their legal fees. I hope the Government decides
that this matter should be passed on to the committee we recommend.
The Disability Discrimination Bill represents another key plank in this Government's endeavour to do all that it can to ensure that all Australians enjoy the same rights and fundamental freedoms. This legislation is designed to break down some of the fundamental barriers to equality of opportunity that are presently experienced by people with disabilities. Others have spoken on this Government's proud record in relation to assisting people with disabilities. I wish to look at this Bill as part of the Government's commitment to human rights for all Australians and to look at this Bill as it fulfils some of Australia's obligations under a number of international instruments. The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons states:
Disabled persons have the inherent right to respect for their human dignity. Disabled persons, whatever the origin, nature and seriousness of their handicaps and disabilities, have the same fundamental rights as their fellow citizens of the same age, which implies first and foremost the right to enjoy a decent life, as normal and full as possible.
That document further states:
Disabled persons shall be protected against all exploitation, all regulations and all treatment of a discriminatory, abusive or degrading nature.
This Bill gives domestic effect to the Government's obligations under that international instrument as well as under a number of others. The Bill is but part of this Government's record of implementing human rights for all. In putting into effect each of the initiatives which make up that record, the Government has consistently relied upon the various international instruments that underpin the domestic legislative initiatives which have taken place. This legislation is of course but part of that record.
I would like tonight to highlight a number of the Government's initiatives in this area. In my view, these initiatives show clearly how this Government is committed to social justice for all, no matter what their social or economic disadvantage. It can be said that our record stands in stark contrast to the politics of division and survival of the fittest now being preached by our political opponents. Our commitment is to build an Australia where all have equal opportunity to share in the unique benefits of being a citizen of Australia.
The stimulus for Federal anti-discrimination legislation came with the Whitlam Government's enacting of the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975. That Act was designed to make racial discrimination unlawful and to provide that all people, notwithstanding their race, colour, national or ethnic origin, should have the same rights as all Australians to equality before the law, whether that be Federal, State or Territory law.
That legislation was enacted to bring into domestic application the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It was this focus by the Labor Government of the day on Australia's international obligations that opened the door for the Commonwealth Government to play a central role in the area of ensuring domestic compliance with internationally accepted human rights. The effect of this groundbreaking legislation on educating public opinion and changing attitudes to racial discrimination has been tremendous, to say the least. I think it is fair to say that it has quite fundamentally changed the attitudes of many tens of thousands of Australians.
Many argue that governments should not be involved in these areas and that education and public awareness alone are sufficient to deal with issues such as racial discrimination. Anyone who really believes in such sentiments only has to read some of the recent reports to government in areas such as racial violence, employment of people with disabilities and Aboriginal deaths in custody to realise that such programs of themselves are not enough. The law can and must play a key role in these areas.
Further major Federal initiatives in the area of human rights sadly had to wait until the coming of another Labor government in 1983. In 1984, the Federal Government enacted the Sex Discrimination Act. That Act has as part of its primary purpose the elimination as far as possible of discrimination based on sex, marital status or pregnancy and to assist in eliminating discrimination involving sexual harassment. The legislation was designed to give domestic effect to Australia's international obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
The Act had a significant effect on public attitudes, particularly in the area of sexual harassment. This legislation sent a clear message to the general community that discrimination against women, and in particular sexual harassment, was not merely objectionable but, by that legislation, made unlawful in certain circumstances. For too long such discriminatory practices were looked on as simply humorous and part of the rough and tumble of working life. Such attitudes simply ignored the effect of this behaviour on women and the flow-on effect that such attitudes had on their employment and their opportunities.
The Government has recently amended the Sex Discrimination Act to narrow the exemptions relating to superannuation. The changes will have particular impact for workers who are part time, many of whom are women. The legislation is part of the Government's initiatives to ensure better income security retirement for all Australians.
Another indicator of this Government's commitment to equality of opportunity is the recent announcement that the Affirmative Action Agency is to be made an independent statutory authority. This initiative will further enhance the work of this agency in promoting the advancement of women. The Sex Discrimination Act is not without its problems and the Government is presently considering recommendations for reform of it, as suggested by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs known as the Lavarch report.
The Federal Labor Government's central reform in this area was probably the enactment of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986. That Act established the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission as a fully independent statutory authority with considerable power to investigate complaints of breaches of several international human rights instruments. The Commission has established itself as the foremost Australian body in the area of protecting the human rights of all disadvantaged people in this country. The Government does not always agree with the Commission but recognises the very significant work that it undertakes.
Perhaps the most recent example of the work of the Commission that has raised public awareness of the problems of certain people with disabilities has been the inquiry into the treatment of mentally ill people. Some of the evidence that has been presented during that inquiry has shown the critical need for independent bodies such as the Commission. Without that inquiry, many of the practices that were exposed would probably never have come to public attention. Many of those examples came from States which already had anti-discrimination and other legislation designed to protect the rights of such people.
In 1990 the Government considerably expanded the functions of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission in relation to discrimination in employment by allowing the Commission to inquire into discrimination in this area on the grounds of age, medical record, criminal record, impairment, marital status, mental, intellectual psychiatric or physical disability, sexual preference and trade union activity, pursuant to ILO convention No. 111 on discrimination in employment.
In 1988 the Federal Government enacted the Privacy Act. That Act established the office of Privacy Commissioner and set out to ensure the rights of ordinary citizens to the protection of their privacy in certain areas of Commonwealth responsibility. Legislation to protect these rights was based on Australia's international obligations under the terms of article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. That article states:
No-one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.
Any doubt as to the need for such legislation has been firmly put to rest by the recent damning report of the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption on the misuse of information by public and private officials. Governments may yet see a need to further strengthen such laws. There have been many other human rights initiatives undertaken by this Government.
The International Labour Organisation convention No. 156 concerns equal opportunity and treatment for men and women with family responsibilities. This convention potentially affects the vast majority of the working population of Australia. Many workers are discriminated against because they have obligations to their families which may conflict with expectations by employers in relation to particular work. Yet this country prides itself on the fact that the family is the foundation of our society. Legislation is likely to be introduced into the current session to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to make it unlawful to dismiss a person on the basis of family responsibilities.
One of the most difficult areas that the Commonwealth is currently addressing is that of discrimination on the basis of age. There will be a discussion paper released shortly to canvass public opinion on options for possible legislation in this area. The Government has recently announced that it has decided to draft legislation to make unlawful racial vilification. This decision is based on a number of reports to government which have recommended that such an initiative be taken. Those reports, including that of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, have indicated that for some Australians serious vilification is something they are forced to endure as part of their everyday lives. There has been a lot of hysterical reaction to this announcement, but the Government has made it clear that it is not in the business of making unlawful the odd racially based joke on such things. We are concerned about serious racial vilification.
Mr Connolly --You don't mind Irish jokes?
Mr DUNCAN --My Irish ancestry allows me to say, in response to that, no. There are still further initiatives which I could mention, but time does not permit me. I point out, however, that many of the Federal Government's initiatives have been undertaken to supplement what has been undertaken in many of Australia's States and Territories. I am particularly pleased that, in the South Australian Government in the 1970s, I was able to play a role in introducing a number of pieces of legislation which, at that stage, were leading the nation in outlawing this undesirable and unwanted conduct.
The Disability Discrimination Bill is now to be added to this Government's outstanding record in the area of human rights. I emphasise that anti-discrimination legislation in this country is based primarily on the process of conciliation. In excess of 90 per cent of complaints are dealt with at this stage with an amicable solution being worked out with the parties concerned. This Bill is based on just such a mechanism. People with disabilities have indicated their strong views as to the need for such legislation and the Government has listened.
Although I have not dealt in any detail with the legislation that is before the House tonight, I thought it was important to set out this Government's record in relation to human rights for the Parliament and the people of Australia. I think it is not well enough understood. It is certainly unsurpassed. No government in the history of this nation has ever attempted to provide human rights for the people of this country such as those which have been provided by this Government.
I think I can say with some justification that this Government and its Labor predecessors in the 1980s will be remembered as governments which paved the way for the rights of Australian citizens to be recognised in law for those international covenants. In some respects, some earlier governments had bound Australia to those covenants in a somewhat cavalier fashion to be introduced into the law of the nation, to be implemented with effect so that Australian citizens could benefit from these international agreements between countries which are designed to improve and increase human rights throughout the world.
I think people with disabilities will benefit significantly from this legislation. For too long they have been without a mechanism at the Federal level to deal with discrimination against them. Many people with disabilities are amongst those most marginalised in this country. The Bill will go some way towards redressing the inequalities which people with disabilities have to suffer.
I conclude by congratulating all those people who have worked long and hard
in preparing this legislation: the people who have prepared reports along the
way and the people who have contributed to the legislation, particularly disabled
people who have been involved in the preparation of the legislation. To all
those people I say thank you for the enormous amount of work that has been undertaken.
I think this is a very good Bill and, undoubtedly, it will lead to a much better
quality of life for many thousands of people in our nation. That is what the
task and objective of this Parliament should be. Because of that, I commend
the Bill to the House with great enthusiasm.
I will mention the comments of the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling). If I recall her words earlier in the day, she talked about the work which was undertaken in order to build towards this legislation. All the work was undertaken to make sure that we built legislation that was sensible and reasonable at the end of the day. Honourable members should bear in mind that we are not banning discrimination; we are banning unfair discrimination.
If people can grasp that concept, I think all their worries about this matter will fade away. We should address the Opposition's amendment in some detail, which I will do, but the Government does not support the Opposition's call to send the Disability Discrimination Bill to a joint select committee.
The Opposition has raised questions about the assessment of outcomes. The Government has made a thorough assessment of the outcomes of the Bill for people with disabilities. It has undertaken a large number of reports and consultations on the issue. These include the Ronalds report, Human Rights Commission consultations, the Shelley report, the disability discrimination legislation secretariat discussion papers and national consultations, and a dissemination of the Bill and explanatory memorandum in print, audio and braille formats. These consultations have given us an excellent understanding of the likely outcomes of the Bill.
State and Territory disability anti-discrimination legislation has been in operation for over 10 years. We have consistently and carefully been monitoring the operation of this legislation. We are well aware of how legislation of this type impacts on people with disabilities. What we are attempting to do here is to build on the existing State and Territory initiatives and to create a uniform national standard.
The Opposition also raised the question of exemptions. It is true that all anti-discrimination legislation contains some exemptions. There is always a need to balance competing interests in this area. For instance, the special measures exemption in this Bill is designed to allow programs and initiatives targeted at people with a disability to continue their current focus and assist people with a disability to overcome the effects of past discrimination.
The exemption in relation to telecommunications is only for a period of three years. The Government is separately looking at the key issue of providing access to people with a hearing impairment through its Budget announcement of a pilot telephone-typewriter relay system. The project will be run by the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs in conjunction with its language translation facilities. The pilot project will initially operate in Sydney and Melbourne. We have committed $300,000 to that project in its first year.
In relation to the exemption for the Defence Force, the Government recognises the need for a fit and able Defence Force, but we believe that the skills of people with a disability can be utilised to great effect in appropriate areas of the forces. There is no need for any broadening of the exemptions. The operational concerns of the defence forces are adequately met in the provisions of the Bill.
Questions have been raised about health policy. The exemptions relating to infectious diseases and public health represent a reasonable balance between the rights of all health professionals and people with disabilities. The Bill will make only unreasonable or unfair discrimination unlawful, not discrimination based on reasonable and valid medical practice and scientific information. The provisions of the Bill with regard to unjustifiable hardship cover all legitimate concerns in the area.
The definition of `disability' concerned a number of speakers from the Opposition. `Disability' has been broadly defined to ensure that people with legitimate grievances do not fail to have their complaints addressed because of an unduly narrow legislative definition.
It must always be remembered that people can only make a complaint under the legislation when they have been discriminated against on the basis of disability. If they have been unreasonably discriminated against, we should ask: why should they not have a remedy? It seems to me that the more restrictive a definition you have, the more people you knock out, and the more debate you will have before the Commissioner about the definition, rather than getting on with the merits of the nature of the unfairness of the discrimination itself, and that is what we are concerned with.
The more restricted United Nations definition of `disability' has been recognised as being outdated. This was discussed at the recently held second meeting of the United Nations working party for the development of standard rules for the equalisation of opportunities for people with disabilities, which was held in Vienna in May this year. The definition in the Bill is similar to that contained within existing State or Territory anti-discrimination legislation, but overcomes some recognised difficulties that have arisen from the operation of that legislation over time.
The definition does cover cognitive and neurological disorders, which was raised by the Opposition in its amendments. Clause 4(g) of the Bill defines `disability' as follows:
A disorder, illness or disease that affects a person's thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour.
It seems to me that this definition adequately covers all concerned. The second reading speech and the explanatory memorandum in the Senate will include references to cognitive and neurological disorders. I think that will put the matter beyond all doubt.
In relation to the question raised about unjustifiable hardship, it is untrue to say that there is no measure by which to judge unjustifiable hardship. This concept has been well recognised and has a long history in State legislation. There is no need for us here to further clarify provisions relating to unjustifiable hardship. The existing provisions offer the flexibility necessary to deal with the range of individual cases that may come before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. I think they provide an appropriate mechanism to balance the competing rights of all the parties, including those of business and industry.
We reject the need to further clarify the action plan provisions. They are designed to allow service providers and education authorities the opportunity to formulate strategies which allow organisations to deal with issues impacting on people with disabilities in a logical and coordinated manner. It is recognised that the lodgment of action plans is entirely voluntary, but it will work as a positive incentive which will bring about gradual changes in the long term. The provisions allow service providers to work on their own solutions to particular problems without the need for a major supervisory agency to oversee the plans.
Further, on the question of the relationship with the existing antidiscrimination legislation, the procedures in this legislation are based upon those set out in existing antidiscrimination legislation, both State and Federal. We see no reason to make changes to a system that has stood the test of time. We need to remind the House--and I do not want to undersell it--that we are not breaking new ground; we are making sure that a system that we are well used to will apply to those with disabilities.
As to the questions raised about possible costs, there has been concern expressed by others about the possible costs that might be incurred because of the implementation legislation. But our experience, and State governments' experience, suggests that such fears are without foundation and that the costs to employers are minor. In fact, the cost to employers to make accommodations to employ a person or persons with a disability is most often less than $1,000.
Experience, particularly in those Australian States which have had this sort of legislation for some time, indicates that the possible costs are often wildly exaggerated before the legislation has come into force. In fact, when a balancing exercise is undertaken between the small costs involved and the benefits to all--especially to those with disabilities--the overall costs are, in our view, insignificant.
As to the practicalities of implementing this legislation, the Bill needs to be taken in the broad context of our overall initiatives in relation to people with disabilities. The Bill of itself, of course, will not and cannot overcome all existing discrimination--this is somewhat of a straw man that was raised by a number of Opposition speakers--but it does form a significant part of our approach to the issues.
There are also some practical measures to assist people who wish to raise a complaint under the legislation. The Bill requires the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission to assist people in making their complaints. The Government has provided some $750,000 to community legal centres to assist people with disabilities to exercise their rights under this legislation.
The Commonwealth believes that this legislation has been the subject of extensive consultation and is based upon existing State and Federal legislation. It is not a radical departure from existing measures already in place, and we believe it is a significant social justice initiative which will stand the test of time. People with disabilities have been without Commonwealth legislative recourse to address discrimination which they experience for far too long. There is no reason to refer this major piece of legislative reform to a joint select committee.
I want to address a question raised by the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles). He gave an example of a Tasmanian footballer who is HIV positive. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is currently involved in a working party established by the Australian Sports Commission and the Australian Sports Medicine Federation, which includes Basketball Australia and the Confederation of Australian Sport, to develop guidelines for sports administrators regarding HIV positive players who wish to participate in sport.
Any discrimination in this area has to be reasonable. The Australian Sports Medicine Federation already has an infectious diseases policy which makes particular reference to HIV AIDS and hepatitis B. It is recognised that there are a range of procedures which should be undertaken to minimise the risk of infection. The working party will develop detailed guidelines for sporting administrations which will further minimise these risks. If sporting administrators take reasonable steps to minimise the risk of infection in accordance with these guidelines, they will not be seen as acting in a discriminatory manner under the Act.
A decision to simply ban HIV positive people from participation in sports without reference to the already established procedures to minimise risks would be likely to be inappropriate and unreasonable. To illustrate the point, Dr Sheridan, an epidemiologist with the Queensland Department of Health, stated in the March 1992 issue of the Australian Sports Medicine Federation's Sports Medicine News that the risk of HIV infection in contact sport could be expected to be one in 4,000,000. This should be viewed against the risk of infection of hepatitis B of one in 20,000. No sport is devoid of risk and all the Bill will ensure is that any measures to reduce such risks on the basis of disability be reasonable.
Finally, the Opposition made reference to the fact that we have made amendments to the Bill. It suggests that these amendments indicate that we are ill-prepared and introduced the Bill without giving it careful consideration. Of course, the opposite is the truth. We clearly indicated when we introduced the Bill into the House on 26 May of this year that we were going to disseminate it widely and seek comment from interested individuals and organisations. We distributed over 1,000 copies of this Bill and the explanatory memorandum to people with disabilities and to other interested parties.
As I mentioned previously, we also made copies of the Bill available in braille and on audio tape. I understand that this is the very first time that a Bill has been translated into these formats. That shows our commitment to facilitating the maximum amount of consultation and input on this question. I thank those members of the Department of Health, Housing and Community Services who have undertaken that work and those who have undertaken work on their behalf.
As a result of that process, the Government has received a number of representations and submissions on the Bill. We have made a number of amendments to take account of the issues that were raised with us. The amendments are not a sign that the Bill was not carefully considered; I would have thought that they are a measure of our commitment to community consultation. Taking into account all of the responses to the amendment proposed by the Opposition, we find that we cannot support its call for the Bill to be sent to a joint select committee.
Question put:
That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Bruce Scott's amendment) stand part of the question.
The House divided. [9.23 p.m.]
(Mr Deputy Speaker--Hon. G.G.D. Scholes)
Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 57
----
Majority . . . . . . . . . 10
----
AYES
Baldwin, P. J. Beazley, K. C.
Beddall, D. P. Bevis, A. R.
Blewett, N. Brereton, L. J.
Brown, R. J. Campbell, G.
Catley, R. Charlesworth, R. I.
Cleary, P. R. Courtice, B. W.
Crawford, M. C. Crean, S. F.
Crosio, J. A. Darling, E. E.
Dubois, S. C. Duffy, M. J.
Duncan, P. Edwards, R. F.
Elliott, R. P. Fatin, W. F.
Ferguson, L. D. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J.
Free, R. V. Gear, G.*
Gibson, G. D. Grace, E. L.*
Griffiths, A. G. Hand, G. L.
Hollis, C. Howe, B. L.
Hulls, R. J. Humphreys, B. C.
Jakobsen, C. A. Jenkins, H. A.
Johns, G. T. Jones, B. O.
Kelly, R. J. Kerin, J. C.
Kerr, D. J. C. Langmore, J. V.
Lavarch, M. H. Lee, M. J.
Lindsay, E. J. Martin, S. P.
Melham, D. Morris, A. A.
Morris, P. F. Newell, N. J.
O'Keefe, N. P. O'Neil, L. R. T.
Price, L. R. S. Punch, G. F.
Sawford, R. W. Sciacca, C.
Scott, J. L. Scott, L. J.
Simmons, D. W. Snow, J. H.
Snowdon, W. E. Staples, P. R.
Theophanous, A. C. Tickner, R. E.
Walker, F. J. Willis, R.
Woods, H. F.
NOES
Aldred, K. J. Anderson, J. D.
Andrew, J. N.* Andrews, K. J.
Atkinson, R. A. Bailey, F. E.
Bradford, J. W. Broadbent, R. E.
Burr, M. A. Cameron, E. C.
Carlton, J. J. Charles, R. E.
Cobb, M. R. Connolly, D. M.
Costello, P. H. Cowan, D. B.
Dobie, J. D. M. Downer, A. J. G.
Edwards, H. R. Fife, W. C.
Filing, P. A. Fischer, T. A.
Fisher, P. S. Ford, F. A.
Gallus, C. A. Goodluck, B. J.
Halverson, R. G. Hawker, D. P. M.
Jull, D. F. Kemp, D. A.
Lloyd, B. Mack, E. C.
MacKellar, M. J. R. McArthur, F. S.
McGauran, P. J. McLachlan, I. M.
Miles, C. G. Nehl, G. B.*
Nugent, P. E. Reith, P. K.
Riggall, J. L. Rocher, A. C.
Ronaldson, M. J. C. Ruddock, P. M.
Scott, B. C. Sharp, J. R.
Sinclair, I. McC Smith, W. L.
Somlyay, A. M. Sullivan, K. J.
Taylor, W. L. Truss, W. E.
Tuckey, C. W. Webster, A. P
Wilson, I. B. C. Woods, R. L.
Wooldridge, M. R. L.
PAIRS
McHugh, J. Moore, J.C.
Wright, K.W. Peacock, A.S.
Keating, P.J. Hewson, J.R.
* denotes teller
Question so resolved in the affirmative.
Original question resolved in the affirmative.
Bill read a second time.
The Bill.
(1)Clause 4, page 2, after the definition of "administrative office" in subclause (1) insert the following definition:
"`associate', in relation to a person, includes:
(a)a spouse of the person; and
(b)another person who is living with the person on a genuine domestic basis; and
(c)a relative of the person; and
(d)a carer of the person; and
(e)another person who is in a business, sporting or recreational relationship with the person;".
(2)Clause 4, page 4, subclause (1), definition of "de facto spouse", lines 15 to 18, omit the definition.
(3)Clause 4, page 6, subclause (1), definition of "relative", lines 15 to 19, omit the definition, insert the following definition:
"`relative', in relation to a person, means a person who is related to the first-mentioned person by blood, marriage, affinity or adoption;".
(4)Clause 4, page 6, subclause (1), paragraph (a) of the definition of "services", line 26 insert, ", superannuation" after "insurance" .
(5)Clause 8, page 8, after paragraph (c) insert the following word and paragraph:
"or (ca) a carer;".
(6)Clause 8, page 8, at the end of the clause add the following word and paragraph:
"; or (d) a carer.".
(7)Clause 15, page 12, subclause (1), line 7, omit "relatives or".
(8)Clause 15, page 12, subclause (2), line 15, omit "relatives or".
(9)Clause 16, page 13, subclause (1), line 4, omit "relatives or".
10)Clause 16, page 13, subclause (2), line 13, omit "relatives or".
(11)Clause 17, page 13, subclause (1), line 39, omit "relatives or".
(12)Clause 18, page 14, subclause (1), line 23, omit "relatives or".
(13)Clause 18, page 14, subclause (2), line 31, omit "relatives or".
(14)Clause 18, page 14, subclause (3), line 39, omit "relatives or".
(15)Clause 19, page 15, subclause (1), line 22, omit "relatives or".
(16)Clause 20, page 16, subclause (1), line 2, omit "relatives or".
(17)Clause 20, page 16, subclause (2), line 12, omit "relatives or".
(18)Clause 21, page 16, subclause (1), line 21, omit "relatives or".
(19)Clause 22, page 16, subclause (1), line 38, omit "relatives or".
(20)Clause 22, page 17, subclause (2), line 3, omit "relatives or".
(21)Clause 23, page 17, subclause (1), line 23, omit "relatives or".
(22)Clause 23, page 17, subclause (2), line 43, omit "unaccessible", insert "inaccessible".
(23)Clause 24, page 18, subclause (1), line 8, omit "relatives or".
(24)Clause 25, page 18, subclause (1), line 26, omit "relatives or".
(25)Clause 25, page 18, subclause (2), line 37, omit "relatives or".
(26)Clause 26, page 19, subclause (1), line 37, omit "relatives or".
(27)Clause 27, page 20, subclause (1), line 7, omit "relatives or".
(28)Clause 27, page 20, subclause (2), line 17, omit "relatives or".
(29)Clause 27, page 20, at the end of the clause add the following subclause:
"(4) Neither subsection (1) nor (2) renders it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the ground of the person's disability if membership (however described) of the club or incorporated association is restricted only to persons who have a particular disability and the first-mentioned person does not have that disability.".
(30)Clause 28, page 20, subclause (1), line 34, omit "relatives or".
(31)Clause 28, page 21, paragraph (c), lines 4 and 5, omit "a disability or".
(32)Clause 29, page 21, line 14, omit "relatives or".
(33)Clause 30, page 21, line 17, omit "a provision of Division 1 or this Division", insert "another provision of this Part".
(34)Clause 36, page 23, lines 6 to 36, omit "a relative or" (wherever occurring), insert "an".
(35)Clause 38, page 24, line 13, omit "a relative or", insert "an".
(36)Clause 40, page 24, line 30, omit "a relative or", insert "an".
(37)Clause 59, page 31, definition of "service provider", line 40, omit "or an instrumentality of a State", insert ", an instrumentality of a State, an educational institution".
(38)Clause 71, page 35, paragraph 2(c), line 28, omit "if", insert "in a case where".
(39)Clause 71, page 35, paragraph (2)(c), lines 29 and 30, omit ", a period", insert "--a period" .
(40)Clause 71, page 35, paragraph (2)(c), line 31, insert "and the complaint was made to the Commission" after "done".
(41)Clause 71, page 35, paragraph 2(d), line 32, omit "if", insert "in a case where".
(42)Clause 71, page 35, paragraph 2(e), line 35, omit "if", insert "in a case where".
(43)Clause 71, page 35, paragraph 2(g), line 42, omit "if", insert "in a case where".
(44)Clause 74, page 37, subclause (1), line 25, insert "or (2A)" after "subsection 2".
(45)Clause 74, page 37, subclause (2), lines 36 to 41, omit all the words from and including "have done" to the end of the subclause, insert "have done the act.".
(46)Clause 74, page 37, after subclause (2), insert the following subclause:
"(2A) Directions under subsection (1) to attend a conference in relation to an act may be given to any person who in the opinion of the Commissioner, is likely to be able to provide information relevant to the inquiry or whose presence at the conference is, in the opinion of the Commissioner, likely to be conducive to the settlement of the matter to which the act relates.".
(47)Clause 79, page 40, subclause (2) lines 8 to 16, omit the subclause, insert the following subclauses:
"(2) The Commission must not hold, or must discontinue, an inquiry into a complaint or matter referred to it under subsection 76(1) if:
(a)the complainant or the person aggrieved by the act notifies the Commission that the complainant or the person does not wish the inquiry to be held or to continue; and
(b)the Commission is satisfied that the complainant or person:
(i)fully understands the consequences of notifying the Commission that he or she does not wish the inquiry to be held or to continue; and
(ii)did not notify the Commission as a result of the undue influence of, or under the duress of, another person.
"(2A) The Commission must not hold, or discontinue, an inquiry into a complaint or matter referred to it under section 78, if the Minister notifies the Commission that the Minister does not wish the inquiry to be held or to continue.".
(48)Clause 90, pages 42 and 43, subparagraphs (2)(a)(i) and (ii), lines 38 to 4, omit the subparagraphs.
(49)Clause 100, pages 45 and 46, lines 25 to 3, omit the clause, insert the following clause:
Commission may dismiss trivial etc. complaints
"100. The Commission may, at any stage of an inquiry, dismiss a complaint if:
(a)the Commission thinks that a complaint is trivial, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance; or
(b)the Commission is satisfied that the complaint relates to an act that is not unlawful under a provision of Part 2; or
(c)in a case where some other remedy has been sought in relation to the subject matter of the complaint--the Commission thinks that the subject matter of the complaint has been adequately dealt with; or
(d)the Commission thinks that some other more appropriate remedy in relation to the subject matter of a complaint is reasonably available to the person aggrieved by the act; or
(e)in a case where the subject matter of the complaint has already been dealt with by the Commissioner or by another statutory authority--the Commission thinks the subject matter of the complaint has been adequately dealt with; or
(f)the Commission thinks that the subject matter of the complaint could be more effectively or conveniently dealt with by another statutory authority.".
(50)Clause 101, page 46, subclause (1), lines 6 to 30, omit the subclause, insert the following subclause:
"(1) If a complaint is referred to the President under subsection 71(5), the President may, without holding an inquiry, dismiss the complaint if:
(a)the President thinks the complaint is trivial, vexatious, misconceived, lacking in substance or stale; or
(b)the President is satisfied that the complaint relates to an act that is not unlawful under a provision of Part 2; or
(c)in a case where some other remedy has been sought in relation to the subject matter of the complaint--the President thinks that the subject matter of the complaint has been adequately dealt with; or
(d)the President thinks that some other appropriate remedy in relation to the subject matter of the complaint is reasonably available to the person aggrieved by the act; or
(e)in a case where the subject matter of the complaint has already been dealt with by the Commission or by another statutory authority--the President thinks that the subject matter of the complaint has been adequately dealt with; or
(f)the President thinks that the subject matter of the complaint could be more effectively or conveniently dealt with by another statutory authority.".
(51)Clause 101, page 46, subclause (3), line 38, insert "and the complaint was made to the Commission" after "done".
(52)Clause 119, page 52, line 17, omit "days of", substitute "days or for".
(53)Clause 132, page 57, subclause 2, line 18, insert "or 47" after "section 31".
Note:1.If amendment (34) is passed, the heading to clause 36 is to be altered by omitting "relatives and".
2.If amendment (35) is passed, the heading to clause 38 is to be altered by omitting "relatives and".
3.If amendment (36) is passed, the heading to clause 40 is to be altered by omitting "relatives and".
The Government introduced this Bill on 26 May 1992 and agreed that it would not proceed further with it until interested parties had had an opportunity to comment on the details of the legislation. This follows a very extensive process of consultation already undertaken on behalf of the Government by the Disability Anti-Discrimination Legislation Committee, established to advise the Government on the need for, and possible scope of, the legislation. In response to those comments, the Government has decided to make some amendments to the Bill.
On the question of definitions, the first change has been the insertion of a definition of `associate' and the use of that term to now encompass all those who would have been covered by the definition of `relatives and associates' in the existing Bill. Some concerns had been expressed in relation to the definition of `de facto spouse' in the existing Bill as part of the definition of `relative'. That definition was intended to cover genuine domestic relationships between persons, whether of the same sex or not.
Concern has been expressed that by using this definition of de facto spouse unintended consequences could have flowed into other areas of personal relationships covered by Commonwealth legislation, such as marriage. Whilst the Government does not agree that that would or could have been the result, it is prepared to make these changes to prevent an issue which is not central to the legislation from clouding the debate.
The bulk of the amendments proposed--some 30 in all--relate to this change. The Government wishes to make it clear that everyone who would have been covered by the existing definitions has now been covered by the new provisions on associates. `Relative' has now been defined without reference to spouses who are covered separately under `associates' and there will no longer be a definition of de facto spouse.
In the definitions section, the Government has also agreed to add the term `superannuation' to the definition of services. On the matter of clubs, it has also been pointed out to the Government that there are a number of clubs and associations which are set up either exclusively for people with disabilities or where certain categories of membership have been reserved for people with disabilities. These clubs are designed to give people with disabilities a chance to share recreational and other pursuits in an atmosphere free from discrimination. It is the intention of the Government that the operation of these clubs and associations not be interfered with. Therefore, a provision is to be inserted into the existing clause 20 of the Bill to make the Government's intention clear.
On the question of persons to be given directions to attend a conference, this provision has been inserted to make it clear that the Commissioner is to have a discretion as to whether to require a person to attend a conference where that person may be able to provide relevant information. On the question of inquiries into complaints, clause 79 of the Bill requires that the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission discontinue dealing with a complaint where the aggrieved person notifies the Commission that he does not wish the complaint to proceed. It has been pointed out that before the Commission does discontinue dealing with a complaint it ought to satisfy itself that a decision to notify was a fully informed decision and that there was no duress placed on the person to give the notice. The additional provisions proposed give effect to that suggestion.
On the question of representative complaints, the current wording of clause 90 precludes a person bringing a complaint on behalf of a group of persons where that person is not a member of that group. This is inconsistent with the provisions relating to individual complaints which allow for complaints to be brought on behalf of others. The deletion of subparagraphs 2(a)(i) and (ii) will allow complaints to be brought on behalf of persons within a particular group who may be suffering from an unlawful act by someone who was not a member of that group.
On the question of regulations, under the existing Bill the Governor-General is required to take account of comments made by State and Territory Ministers to the Minister responsible for this Bill before making regulations to be known as `disability standards'. This provision is designed to ensure that consultation with State and Territory Ministers takes place prior to the making of such regulations. It has been pointed out to the Government that a decision to prescribe laws which may continue to discriminate after the time limit of three years under clause 47 will have considerable impact on State and Territory laws.
Whilst the Government would have consulted, it is appropriate that provisions be set out in this Bill to require such consultation. In addition to these changes, a number of minor technical problems have been pointed out in the consultation process and the Government has agreed to address many of these. Full details of these amendments are contained in the supplementary explanatory memorandum which has been circulated to honourable members. I table a copy now. I commend these amendments to the Committee.
Before I conclude my remarks on the amendments, I would like to look briefly at some areas where amendments were suggested and where the Government has not agreed to accept those suggestions. Concerns were expressed about a number of provisions in the Bill but the most consistent concerns related to the processes for development of disability standards and to the specific exemptions that have been provided in the Bill.
In relation to the development of disability standards, I wish to amplify the remarks made by the Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services (Mr Howe) when he delivered the second reading speech on the Bill. The Government recognises that the formulation of disability standards should be enacted and it will require major and ongoing consultations with all parties who may be affected. In particular, the Government commits itself to extensive consultation with State and Territory governments and with people with disabilities. The Government undertakes to consult widely prior to the drafting of such standards and to the wide dissemination of such standards for comment prior to their being enacted by regulation.
It is clear that these standards will have the potential to impact extensively on State and Territory governments. This Government is fully prepared to give an unequivocal commitment to ongoing and extensive consultations with those governments prior to any such standards becoming law. The introduction of such standards is a unique initiative which is designed to help in overcoming systemic discrimination. Given their uniqueness and potential impact, the development of such standards requires careful and lengthy consideration.
The Government regrets the need for such exemptions as provided for in this Bill. But the making of legislation of this sort requires balances to be struck and some of those balances are easier to strike than others. The three-year exemption provided for telecommunication carriers is designed to allow the present major reforms that this industry is undergoing to be set in place prior to this legislation having an impact. Legislation of this sort could have quite a significant impact in this area.
I would also like to point to the Government's Budget announcement that a pilot project on a telephone typewriter network is to be developed. The issue of access to those facilities is being dealt with by the Government separately to the legislation.
The exemption in relation to migration has been inserted primarily because
the Government does not wish to provide a further avenue for review of decisions
made in this area where review already exists. The Government is prepared, however,
to provide a commitment to reviewing the operation of these exemptions after
the legislation has been in operation for two years. The legislation needs to
be given a chance to work. This legislation also is only one of this Government's
initiatives in relation to providing social justice for people with disabilities.
It must be seen as but part of an overall program.
We would have preferred to have seen a joint parliamentary committee addressing the concerns that have been raised here. It would have widened debate to allow all members of the House to express further opinions. However, we accept the decision that there will not be a joint parliamentary committee. I reiterate once again that the coalition does have a high priority in this area to ensure that people with disabilities are not discriminated against.
Amendments agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report--by leave--adopted.
