Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Website

Note: Official parliamentary records are available at www.aph.gov.au . This page is provided by HREOC to provide more convenient access.

Senator TAMBLING (Northern Territory-Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia) (4.51 p.m.) --I rise to speak on the Disability Discrimination Bill 1992. I begin by reminding the Senate of speeches made in relation to this Bill in the House of Representatives on 19 August of this year. My shadow Ministry representative, Mr Bruce Scott, led the debate for the Federal coalition and was followed by the Liberal MP Mr Russell Broadbent, who spoke of his extensive work in the disability field. Another Liberal member of parliament, Mr John Bradford, told the House:

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.

The Labor member for Kalgoorlie, Mr Graeme Campbell, took an arm's length position when he called the Bill `a heyday for the social engineers' and expressed frustration with its aims. While his views may be extreme, they do reflect widespread scepticism in the community about the so-called politics of difference and the need to legislate for social change. Mr Campbell's colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services, Mr Gary Johns, tried to make up lost ground for the Government.

I would like to remind honourable senators of the words of Minister Howe in May this year when he told the House of Representatives that the Bill `represents a landmark in receiving human rights for all Australians'. He said:

This Government has a long term commitment to achieving a better deal for people with disabilities.

The Minister then invited interested parties to comment on the legislation over the winter recess. Several months later the Minister and his Bill are now 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 concern about this Bill have poured into my office over recent months. I have brought a number of the submissions to the attention of the Minister's office. However, the Minister remains unconcerned and unmoved. I am appalled that there is not one backbench Labor member listed to speak in the debate in this chamber today. I am surprised that Senator Zakharov and Senator West, who have normally been champions in this area for many constituencies, are not speaking and we are to hear only from the Minister in charge of the Bill, in summary--in a similar way to the way the issue was dealt with by the Parliamentary Secretary, and probably with the same briefing notes that Mr Johns used in the House of Representatives in August.

On the other hand, the Federal coalition is seeking to obtain details of all submissions made to the Government so that the concerns raised in them may be properly addressed. We have asked for a full list of people and groups who have made submissions. I remind you, Mr Acting Deputy President, that it was Minister Howe who publicly invited community organisations and groups to make submissions on this legislation to the Attorney-General's Department. I have been informed that the Attorney-General's Department has been precluded from making available the numbers of people who made submissions, the list of names and the comprehensive issues raised. I have been provided only with a summary of the main issues that have been addressed.

We need to ask: why is the Government refusing to disclose the numbers of submissions and the details as requested? Back in August the Federal coalition was so concerned about the Government's lack of cooperation that we asked the House of Representatives to refer this very important Bill to a joint select committee for proper parliamentary scrutiny. Our second reading amendment, moved in the House of Representatives, read in part:

. . . that . . . a Joint Select Committee, to be known as the Joint Select Committee on the Disability Discrimination Bill 1992 . . . be appointed to inquire into and report . . . 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.

Our amendment was rejected. Various peak bodies have made representations to me, as well as to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, and they are the tip of the iceberg in relation to concerns about the Bill. For example, the Confederation of Australian Industry strongly opposed the legislation, saying that employment decisions should be taken on the grounds of merit. The Law Institute of Victoria questioned why the burden of proof in disproving the exemption 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's own Scrutiny of Bills Committee found that the legislation failed to set out the qualities and attributes needed for a person appointed to preside over a compulsory conference.

Reading the representations, I find a common concern relates to exemptions, particularly 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.

The definition of `disability' covers physical, sensory, cognitive, neurological, intellectual and psychiatric impairment, mental illness or disorder and the presence in the body of organisms causing or capable of causing disease. It is worth noting that cognitive and neurological impairment were not included in the original explanatory memorandum. The Liberal and the National Federal coalition took up the issue with the Government in the House of Representatives in August. I am pleased that it has finally agreed to it.

Controversy continues to surround the definition of `disability' and the fact that it includes `the presence in the body of organisms capable of causing disease'. I received a barrage of criticism about this definition. The Australian Medical Association rightly pointed out that virtually all Australians carry organisms in their body capable of causing disease. The need to protect personal or private health was also raised in 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 have not been thought through, particularly in regard to the medical profession.

The cost of establishing the Office of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner, funding public education programs, support agencies, additional staffing and legal aid is also contentious. The explanatory memorandum provided to the House of Representatives predicted that this cost would be $5.5m in the first year. Yet the memorandum now provided to the Senate forecasts just $2.3m. The reason for this massive $3.2m discrepancy lies in the Federal Budget Papers. Far from delivering the expected $5.5m, the Federal Government came up with only $1.553m in the first year, $1.032m in 1993-94 and $0.761m recurrently. Such evidence exposes the rhetoric of this Federal Labor Government and again calls into question its much publicised bona fides.

I now turn to the principles of this 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 that process is unsuccessful, the Commission can inquire into complaints and make determinations. The determinations, which are not binding on the parties, but enforceable in the Federal Court, include remedial action and payment of compensation. The legislation specifies that damage can cover injury to a complainant's feelings or for humiliation that the person might suffer. The Federal Human Rights Commissioner, Mr Brian Burdekin, illustrates this point with the case of a Tasmanian footballer banned from playing because he was HIV positive. Speaking on ABC radio on 17 July this year, 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 necessarily involves unjustifiable hardship. Similarly, an employer can argue that a person with a disability is unable to carry out the inherent requirement of the job. The Bill provides for the introduction of disability standards should the Government and relevant parties decide that 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, the telecommunications industry for three years, pensions and allowances, migration, combat duties and peacekeeping services by the Australian Defence Force and peacekeeping services by the Australian Federal Police. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission may also grant temporary exemptions.

Originally, this Bill defined `de facto 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 `de facto spouse' to homosexual couples for the first time. Last month the House of Representatives amended the legislation by deleting the definition of `de facto 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.

Unfortunately, too few of the Federal coalition's concerns have been addressed by the Government. In fact, the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary gave a less than convincing response on 19 August. We believe the issues raised in the submissions sent to us and in some of those that I have since seen sent to the Senate Committee are fundamental and deserve thorough consideration by the Senate Committee. I am pleased to note that that Committee will be meeting this coming Friday.

The funding discrepancies outlined earlier must be pursued to ensure that the Government is not creating false expectations, then dashing hopes through Budget shortfalls. Similarly, we have asked for a full list of all of the issues identified in the submission sent to the Attorney-General's Department and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission which the Minister for Community Services himself invited. Why should any of those issues be withheld? I can certainly understand that some of the names might be withheld on the basis of privacy, but there should be no withholding whatsoever of any of the details or the issue. What hypocrisy--inviting the major players to request and suggest amendments to the legislation, and then filing their suggestions in the bottom drawer. They had better be available to the Senate Committee in full detail on Friday. Exactly how many submissions is the Government hiding and what details are not being disclosed? Until the Senate Committee sees this full list of suggested amendments and the Government's reasons for rejecting them, the Minister makes a mockery of the parliamentary process.

The objects of this Disability Discrimination Bill are highly commendable. I recall reading a 1990 speech by the United States President, George Bush, in which he told the National Leadership Coalition on Aids:

We're in a fight against disease--not a fight against people.

Once disease strikes, we don't blame those who are suffering. We don't spurn the accident victim--he didn't wear his seatbelt. We don't reject the cancer patient who didn't quit smoking. We try to love them and care for them and comfort them. We don't fire them. We don't evict them. We don't cancel their insurance.

The speech by President Bush covers a wide range of issues that ought to challenge us. I therefore seek leave of the Senate to incorporate in Hansard the text of his remarks of 2 April 1990 for the information of honourable senators and other interested people.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows--

Official Text

United States Information Service

April 2, 1990

Bush wants law passed banning AIDS discrimination

Washington--President Bush called on the U.S. House of Representatives to pass a law that would ban discrimination against persons infected with the AIDS (acquired immune deficiency syndrome) virus.

He told the National Leadership Coalition on AIDS meeting March 29, "We're in a fight against a disease--not a fight against people. And we won't tolerate discrimination.

The legislation the president referred to is the Americans with Disabilities Act, which has been passed by the Senate and is now pending before two House committees.

The president said he was encouraged that the projected AIDS infection rate will not be as high as estimated a year ago. He said that the effort to combat AIDS includes research into a class of virus that might cause not only AIDS, but also such other diseases as muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis and at least two forms of leukemia.

Following is the text of the president's remarks:

I am delighted, and I really mean that, to be here with you today, the leaders who guide American business as it helps those suffering with HIV and AIDS. You make our hearts glad, and you make your country proud.

Other generations have faced life threatening medical crises, from polio to the plague, and this virus is our challenge--not a challenge we sought, not a challenge we chose--but today, our responsibility is clear: We must meet the challenge, we must beat this virus, for whether talking about a nation or an individual, character is measured not by our tragedies but by our response to those tragedies. And for those who are living with HIV and AIDS, our response is clear. They deserve our compassion, they deserve our care, and they deserve more than a chance, they deserve a cure. America will accept nothing less. We are slashing red tape, accelerating schedules, boosting research, and somewhere out there, there is a Nobel prize and the gratitude of planet Earth waiting for the man or woman who discovers the answer that's eluded everyone else.

We pray that that day will come soon, but until that day, until this virus can be defeated by science, there is a battle to be waged by society.

Because in 1990, the most effective weapon in our arsenal against AIDS is not just medication, but also education.

Our goal is to turn irrational fear into rational acts. And every American must learn what AIDS is and what AIDS is not. And they must learn now.

Every American must learn what AIDS is--and what AIDS is not. And they must learn. You in this room already know. The HIV virus is not spread by handshakes or hugs. You can't get it from food or drink, coughing or sneezing or by sharing bathrooms or towels or conversation.

The transmission of HIV is as simple as it is deadly. In most cases, it's determined not by what you are, but by what you do and by what you fail to do.

Let me state clearly: People are placed at risk not by their demographics, but by their deeds--by their behaviour.

And so it is our duty to make certain that every American has the essential information needed to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS. Because, while the ignorant may discriminate against AIDS, AIDS won't discriminate among the ignorant.

Like many of you, Barbara and I have had friends who have died of AIDS. And our love for them, when they were sick and when they died, was just as great and just as intense as for anyone lost to heart disease or cancer or accidents. And probably, everyone here has read the heartbreaking stories about AIDS babies and those infected by transfusions.

When our own daughter was dying of leukemia, we asked the doctor the same question that every HIV family must ask. Why--why this was happening to our beautiful little girl. And the doctor said, "You have to realise that every well person is a miracle. It takes billions of cells to make a well person and all it takes is one cell to be bad and to destroy a whole person.'

In this nation, in this decade, there is only one way to deal with an individual who is sick. With dignity, with compassion, care and confidentiality and without discrimination.

Once disease strikes, we don't blame those who are suffering. We don't spurn the accident victim--he didn't wear his seat belt. We don't reject the cancer patient who didn't quit smoking. We try to love them and care for them and comfort them. We don't fire them. We don't evict them. We don't cancel their insurance.

Today, I call on the House of Representatives to get on with the job of passing a law, as embodied in the Americans with Disabilities Act--that prohibits discrimination against those with HIV and AIDS. We're in a fight against a disease--not a fight against people. And we will not and we must not, in America, tolerate discrimination.

The disease is attacking our most precious resource--our people, especially our young. And the statistics are numbing; you know them; you heard them this morning. Just look at the quilts, the amazing quilts hanging here on the walls today. They prove that no one is a statistic. Every life has its own fabric, its own colours, its own purpose, its own soul. And like the quilts, no two are alike.

When Barbara and I left Washington for Christmas, our last stop was out there at that marvellous clinic at NIH. And we were impressed by the determination of the people there--the doctors, researchers, nurses, health care workers--and especially the brave people who are living with HIV. We learned a lot about caring, a lot about family, a lot about hope, and we saw the face of humanity in the face of AIDS. And you, too, are in a powerful, unique position to influence the response to HIV and AIDS. Washing our hands of it won't help solve the problem, rolling up our sleeves will.

The roster of participants at this conference is an honour roll. Allstate sponsored a landmark conference on HIV and work; Fortune magazine launched a survey on CEOs' response to HIV; General Motors pledged to conduct an education program; others are fighting the spread of HIV by fighting to keep schools and workplaces drug free. And this is America responding to a crisis, and this is America at its best.

This epidemic is having a major impact on our health care system. The federal response is unprecedented. In 1982 we knew little about AIDS and spent only 8 million dollars, but this year I have asked Congress for almost 3,500 million dollars to battle HIV; money for basic research, for HIV treatment and education, for protecting civil rights.

From Seattle to Boston, from Dallas to Detroit, federal grants have helped coordinate the efforts of care providers, business and community organisations to set priorities and pool resources to meet the treatment needs of people with AIDS.

We have initiated clinical trials for promising new therapies for HIV, expanded the availability of experimental drugs, approved three new therapies that for the first time offer help to HIV-infected people before they become sick with AIDS. We started a toll-free number where HIV patients and doctors can get state of the art information on new treatments; worked with the PTA to distribute hundreds of thousands of copies of the AIDS Prevention Guide for use in schools and families nationwide.

And our 10,000 million dollar war on drugs is also a war on AIDS. IV drug use now accounts for some of the fastest growing infection rates afflicting Americans that are often among those least able to get adequate medical help.

America has the most sophisticated health care system in the world, but it is not without its problems. We face many challenges, our system depends on private insurance and individual payments, as well as government programs. AIDS magnifies these challenges, including the challenge of expanding access, bringing costs under control and overcoming obstacles to quality care. With these concerns in mind, I asked Dr. Louis Sullivan to lead a Cabinet-level review of health care in the 1990s, and businesses like those you represent must play a major role in helping to improve our health care system.

The crisis is not over. We report tens of thousands of new cases every year, and many predict we can expect to continue to do so in this decade and even into the next century.

And yet, "where there is life, there is hope." There are hopeful signs. To begin with, we can be encouraged by the news that current projections of the infection rate will not be as high as we thought just a year ago.

My administration recently acted to extend AZT coverage to help HIV-infected people not yet sick with AIDS. And all 50 states now provide Medicaid coverage for AZT treatments. Thanks to these actions, more and more people will be able to live and work with HIV. Keep them in your work force, as I know many of you are already doing, as leaders in this effort. They can serve many, many more productive years with no threat to you, your other workers or your companies. It will reduce costs for everyone. And it is the right thing to do.

The pace of progress is promising. The HIV virus has been identified, isolated and attacked with experimental treatments in a span of less than 10 years. The normal centuries-long evolution of disease and treatment compressed into a decade.

And this race against time has produced an explosion in knowledge and basic understanding about the nature of disease and immunology. Like the unexpected technological boons from Apollos's race to the moon, some physicians predict the race to cure AIDS may even lead to a cure for cancer.

Dollars spent for AIDS research are dollars spent for the better health of all Americans. AIDS research strikes at the heart of many human health problems from infectious disease to ageing and cancer. It includes research on a class of viruses now increasingly believed to be the cause of not only AIDS, but also incurable diseases like muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis and at least two of the forms--two of the strains of leukemia.

We're on a wartime footing at NIH and CDC--the Centre for Disease Control. Tonight, like every night, the lights out there will burn late in Bethseda and Atlanta as a group of American pioneers, selfless, dedicated workers work to solve this problem. And if they do, I should say--rather, put it when they do--it will be one of the greatest things our nation could do for the entire world.

We are going to continue to fight like hell, but we're also going to fight for hope. America has a unique capacity for beating the odds and astounding the world.

During my own childhood, the silent whispered terror was a mysterious killer called polio. Like HIV, the virus ignored class distinctions and geographic boundaries. Monday would come and kids who'd been in school on Friday were simply never seen again. Theatres were closed, you remember all that, summer camps, swimming pools.

As with AIDS, regarding polio there was a lot of ignorance, thousands of stray cats and dogs put to death, kids sleeping with camphor inhalers. And at least one town was fumigated with DDT.

There were terrifying outbreaks in the teens and the `30s and the `50s, a cure was so far distant, the experts refused to speculate. And then suddenly, it was over. The dreaded iron lung unused, cluttering hospital hallways, children again growing up in a world without fear.

Many comparisons have been made to epidemics past, cholera, smallpox, yellow fever--none of them perfect. So, let me boil down the lessons of polio to two: There was a lot of ignorance, let's learn from that. And in the darkest of hours, hope came unexpectedly, powerfully and with finality. Let's work hard to see that that day comes to pass.

Together we will make a difference for those with HIV and AIDS--and for all Americans.

Senator TAMBLING --I thank the Senate. I remind honourable senators that Minister Howe told the House of Representatives that this legislation was an effective means of overcoming the most significant barrier facing people with disabilities in this country--the attitudinal barrier. I believe that the Bill in its present form will not overcome that barrier. This Bill has been referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs for consideration after this second reading debate in the hope that the many submissions and issues finally receive proper scrutiny. I reiterate our determination to ensure that people with disabilities in Australia are not discriminated against. The Opposition's final position on this Bill must necessarily be reserved until the Committee's report is available to the Senate.

Senator LEES (South Australia-Deputy Leader of the Australian Democrats) (5.11 p.m.) --Before I begin to look at the substance of the Disability Discrimination Bill 1992, I make an observation about the time it has actually taken to get to this Bill this week. We are now well into Wednesday afternoon and this is the first piece of legislation that this chamber has been able to deal with.

The Disability Discrimination Bill does represent a very positive and significant step forward for Australians with disabilities. Though we do share many of the concerns that have already been expressed and we do have major reservations about this piece of legislation, the Democrats will be supporting the Bill. We congratulate the Government on finally acting to put in place at least some Federal disability discrimination legislation. I make the point here that virtually all States already have some form of disability discrimination legislation, with the exception of Tasmania. I note that the ACT has such legislation, but unfortunately the Northern Territory does not.

This Federal legislation is putting some national uniformity, some national standards, in place right across the entire country. It is picking up a number of issues that the State Bills cannot touch, such as the Commonwealth departments and instrumentalities on which the State legislation has no bearing. This legislation is also trying to come to grips with some of the problems between the various States' legislation. For example, in some States--New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia--there is no cover for people who have a psychiatric disability.

Unlike the Opposition, our concerns mainly relate to our belief that the Bill does not go far enough in protecting and advancing the rights of people with disabilities. We have discussed this legislation with a range of interested groups and individuals and virtually all of them in the disability area agree that this Bill is nowhere near as good as it could have been. But we understand the desire of people with disabilities, their friends, advocates, relatives and carers, to at least see the anti-discrimination mechanism established in this parliamentary session, rather than risk losing this legislation altogether. Therefore, the Democrats will be supporting the Bill.

Despite our reservations we have continually told those who have been in touch with us that, yes, we will support the legislation. Because despite their concerns--and very genuine concerns already discussed by Senator Tambling--not one disability group has asked us to do anything other than make sure this Bill gets through as quickly as possible and not to even let it lapse through until the end of December. That was one of the reasons that we decided we would agree to a referral only to the Senate Standing Committee and not see this Bill move off to a joint committee with the possibility that it could have taken months and months to actually put the Bill back before this place.

The Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs will look at this Bill on Friday and hopefully will, in a very focused way, be able to examine some of the problems that have already been mentioned. It is certainly true that a good deal of dissatisfaction has been expressed and I stress again here that the Democrats certainly do not believe the legislation is perfect. But the general view coming through from the community is, `Despite the shortcomings of this legislation, let us see at least something passed'.

I have no doubt there will be some problems to be ironed out in the future, but we cannot reasonably expect legislation such as this to swing into operation without any technical or practical difficulties. Similarly, it would be ridiculous to spend months and months to try to tighten legislation to the point that it is virtually set in concrete, a totally static, unbending law, never to be amended or never expecting any changes. That is simply not going to be the case.

As the Minister has said, this legislation is to be a framework for change. Indeed, the Democrats see it as being not much more than a starting point, and I am sure changes will be required in the future. If we are going to successfully build upon this framework there will probably be, over the years, a number of changes and perhaps some full committee references to look at how exactly it is working in practice.

What is crucial about this Bill is its very clear symbolic value. The mere existence of this legislation on the Federal statute books is an indication to Australians with disabilities of a national refusal to tolerate any discrimination against them. It is a signal to Australians with disabilities that, as a society, we value them and their contribution and we do not believe it is fair or just or acceptable to discriminate against them because of their disability. It is a signal I would hope Australians without disabilities would be very keen and very pleased to send. From that symbolic perspective, the Australian Democrats certainly welcome and support the Bill.

I move on to look at some of the concerns that we do have. Some of the concerns expressed to us in letters and faxes reflect somewhat of a misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge of what exactly is in the Bill and what its purpose is. Some of them, unfortunately, are fairly blatant attempts by certain groups to avoid any obligations that might fall their way under the Bill. Some are very genuine and, indeed, the vast majority are very accurate observations about shortcomings, from minor to major, in the legislation.

A lot has been said already about some of the cost implications and I do not believe these concerns are warranted. The organisations and individuals voicing them should really be looking more closely at two things: firstly, the intent of the Bill which is to look beyond people's disabilities and focus on what individuals can do, and what is realistic assistance to help them actually do that. In other words, it is about shifting attitudes. Secondly, they should be looking more closely at the potential of the Bill to provide employers with valuable employees. In relation to employment, we are basically talking about a pool of talent that, at the moment, is largely untapped, but a pool of talent that can be tapped with very little expense.

When the Americans with Disabilities Act came into force in the United States, the business magazine Industry Week had this to say to employers who were anxious about the impact of the Act on their businesses:

. . . employers are missing an opportunity to tap into a group of workers previously ignored except by the most enlightened employers who . . . have already begun using common sense, inexpensive workplace changes to employ workers with disabilities.

The trouble is that employers think it is going to cost a fortune to employ people with disabilities. If they look to the United States--and it is much stronger legislation there--it has not had any of those experiences and it has not had those problems. Indeed, the results from what is happening in the States are very enlightening indeed.

The results generally show that compliance with disability discrimination legislation can be inexpensive and quite easy and there can be some really great pay-offs for employers who make that change. For example, the US News and World Report of July this year talks about a small business in Carolina where one-half of the firm's 18 employees have disabilities. Since employing people with disabilities--in this particular instance, mainly people with learning disabilities--the owner of the business has discovered that absenteeism has dropped, work performance is higher, productivity is up and accidents and carelessness on the factory floor are down. The report quotes the owner as saying, `Any manager who does not look first for a disabled person is leaving gold sitting on the back porch'. The owner goes on to say, `Employers are just afraid of taking the time to be a little bit creative'.

The key to this whole piece of legislation is to promote a more creative approach to employment and to encourage greater workplace flexibility and diversity. The Bill simply says that one cannot discriminate against people with disabilities when one is hiring, firing or promoting people or providing a service to them. It contains two general exemptions: firstly, where the action one would have to take in order to accommodate the person with a disability would impose unjustifiable hardship; and secondly, where the person with a disability is not able to perform the inherent requirements of the job or the position concerned.

These are sensible exemptions which make it quite clear that the Bill is not about forcing employers to take on people with disabilities regardless of their skills or abilities. It is not about taking away the right of employers to employ people on merit. It is not about forcing employers to incur unreasonable expenses or any unnecessary hardship in taking on employees with disabilities. It is not about quotas and it is not about affirmative action law. It is primarily about changing the attitudes of employers, co-workers and service providers towards people with disabilities--and I do not believe employers have any great cause to be anxious about the cost implications. Indeed, they need to be aware that from the opposite perspective many organisations representing people with disabilities are concerned that the notion of `unjustifiable hardship' is too vague and could be used by some as an easy way out where employers or business organisations are not interested in providing equal opportunities for disabled people.

Another side of the cost argument is the potentially significant community savings to be made by improving the rate of participation in employment among people with disabilities. When earlier this year I was looking at some of the data in this area I came across a speech to the New South Wales Chamber of Manufactures by IBM Australia executive, Mark Bagshaw. Mr Bagshaw has quadriplegia, has been with IBM for 13 years, and is the company's international marketing manager. About the costs of the argument, he said:

But rather than look at the problem from just a cost point of view, I prefer to look at the numbers from a cost/benefit point of view. In other words, I believe we should also take into consideration the potential benefits to the community if these people were taxpayers making a valuable contribution to the country's gross national product, rather than recipients of government benefits. If this were done, the total benefit to the community of providing appropriate job opportunities for people with disabilities would, I suggest, go a long way towards addressing the expected balance of payments deficit.

As I think he is giving the right message to Australian employers, I will just quote him again at length. Later in this article he goes on to say:

I believe that employers have a responsibility to understand what disability is all about; to listen to people with disabilities to hear what they can and cannot do.

. . . . . . . . .

I think employers also have a responsibility to match a job to a person's ability rather than their disability. For example, I've been successful in my chosen career partly because the job is well matched to my physical ability. I could say that in a marketing management role I don't do anything; that's not quite true, but I certainly don't do much which requires physical dexterity. I'm therefore 100 per cent productive in the job.

I believe employers have a responsibility to formulate a corporate policy on the employment of people with disabilities, and most importantly to put a plan in place to identify suitable positions and make them known to the disabled community.

Many employers adopt what I call a "passive acceptance" view of employing people with disabilities. If approached, they are likely to be reasonably open-minded about employing people with disabilities, but they mostly do little or nothing to communicate their willingness to listen.

In return, employers have a right to expect that people with disabilities will put the effort in: to contribute to your business, to make the most of their skills and abilities--in other words, to provide you with the same return on investment as all your other employees.

Basically, Mr Bagshaw is saying to employers not to be afraid and that Australian businesses really need to do four things: firstly, employers should investigate their company's policy on employing people with disabilities and, if there is no policy, should set one up; secondly, employers should identify positions which would suit people with disabilities and, if necessary, seek help from disability organisations; thirdly, employers should understand what government assistance is available for employing people with disabilities; and, fourthly, employers should make their positions and policies known by writing to disability groups, by advertising and, when the job ads are actually placed, by making it very clear that they are an equal opportunity employer, and also by advising government departments. The result of all this, Mark Bagshaw says, is a clear classic win-win situation where everybody benefits--people with disabilities, the community and employers. This is the attitude that Australian business should be bringing to this Bill.

Another of the specific exemptions which has already been mentioned relates to Telecom, and this is of great concern to people with hearing disabilities. In a letter to the Attorney-General's Department, the Chief Executive of the South Australia Deaf Society, Damian Lacey, put the case against this exemption. He said:

Deaf people and people with disabilities generally have received a most unsatisfactory level of provision in the past in this arena. Access to telecommunications is a major quality of life issue for people with disabilities in our technological society. We cannot accept that it is unreasonable for telecommunications to be required to meet the provisions of the Bill when other major service industries will be required to meet them.

He goes on:

. . . telecommunications access for deaf people and people with disabilities (is) critically important in our information age. Not only must we attempt to adjust the current inequities, but we must work to ensure that the potential of technological development does, in fact, improve the fit between the individual person with a disability and society.

The Consumers Telecommunications Network, representatives of which will appear before the Committee on Friday--it is a national coalition of organisations concerned with telecommunications issues--has been very outspoken on this issue as well, stating that:

--the exemption contradicts the objects of this particular Bill;

--throws into question the Government's commitment to reducing the barriers for people with disabilities to ensure they are able to fully contribute to and participate in community life; and

--threatens one of the main objects of the Telecommunications Act which is to ensure the standard telephone service is "reasonably accessible to all people in Australia on an equitable basis, wherever they reside or carry on business".

In its excellent submission on this Bill to the Committee, CTN made the critical point that telecommunications is now an essential service providing consumers not only with a cheap and effective means of transacting business and making appointments but also with a vital social network enabling individuals to create communities, maintain contact with family and friends, albeit across potentially vast geographic distances. For people with disabilities the value of a telephone is greatly magnified, and it becomes even more important if it is simply to contact friends and relatives, make doctors appointments or perhaps even in an emergency to ring an ambulance or the police.

If the telecommunications providers really felt that they could not provide a particular service without incurring unreasonable costs, if they really felt that there was a major problem, they could rely on the unjustifiable hardship clause in the Bill. It is already there in the legislation, available to be used by any service provider. As several organisations and individuals have asked: if the framework is good enough for everyone to use, why has the telecommunications industry been singled out? Why is it more special than anybody else? Why is it different from, say, aviation, broadcasting, tourism or, indeed, the banking industry?

It is interesting to note that the Americans With Disabilities Act recognises not only the social desirability of ensuring disabled people have access to telecommunications services but also the market potential of providing such services. The American Act contains a separate section specifically covering telecommunications which requires carriers to provide 24-hours-a-day, 365-days-a-year TTY facilities. So why has it proved impossible for the Australian Government to do something different here? Why is it impossible for it to do what the Americans have managed to do? We have asked questions of the Government and, as yet, really have not received a satisfactory response. I look forward to the Committee hearings on Friday when we will be asking a lot more questions on this specific issue.

There are a number of other concerns we have about this legislation which I will quickly list. They relate to areas such as the operations of the Migration Act, the Australian Defence Force in relation to combat duties, peacekeeping services provided by the Australian Federal Police, and employment and accommodation in private households where the employer or provider of that accommodation actually lives. The view has been expressed to me that none of these areas is any different from the general situation of employers or other providers of goods and services and, as such, they should have no blanket exemption at all. I believe this view is correct, I support what these groups are saying, and I think that these exemptions certainly weaken the Bill itself.

Another concern is the need to clarify which party bears the onus of proving or disproving unjustifiable hardship. Both the Villamanta Legal Service and the Law Institute of Victoria have raised this issue. They believe that the Bill needs to spell out very clearly where that burden of proof lies.

In the opinion of the Democrats it should rest on the respondent, that is, the parties seeking to claim unjustifiable hardship as the reason for exemption from the provisions of the legislation. And I ask the Minister whether the Government is planning any amendments to address this issue and to make it clear. If not, I am sure it will also be one of those issues raised at the committee hearing.

Other concerns have been expressed about this Bill and they include: the actual definition of disability, the problems around the complainant's choice of jurisdiction--will they actually look at the State laws in those States that have State legislation or Commonwealth legislation?--and the inadequate investigative powers of the Commissioner. However, as I have already indicated, these concerns will not stand in the way of this legislation passing through the Senate.

Unlike the Opposition, which we suspect would like to see this Bill watered down or dropped out of sight altogether, the Democrats do not think this Bill goes far enough. It does not go far enough in enhancing and protecting the rights of people with disabilities, but at least it is a start. We believe that this legislation will at least have a significant effect on community attitudes. We believe that it will raise public awareness about the barriers confronting people with disabilities, in particular in the work force and other community activities.

I want to finish with a quote from the New Internationalist magazine of July 1992. This is a story written by Vic Finkelstein, an English teacher of disability studies, and is set in a Third World country. And this is a final quote by the main character in this story:

Disability . . . isn't something that you have. It is something that happens when one group of people create barriers by designing the world only for their style of living.

We will not make any progress by keeping disabled people on one side of the river and non-disabled people on the other, with each side creating barriers. What we need is to build up the banks so that the river does not flood and to build bridges across the river so that we can meet, exchange experiences and create an environment where we can celebrate human differences.

Yes, this is a rather idealistic vision but it is the spirit with which we should be looking at this Bill. We should not be looking at it with suspicion, fear or with exaggerated claims about its consequences, but with optimism. We should take advantage of this opportunity to end discrimination against people with disabilities to the ultimate benefit of all of us.

Senator PATTERSON (Victoria) (5.32 p.m.) --The Disability Discrimination Bill which we are discussing this evening is outlined in the explanatory memorandum as providing for `national, uniform legislation to make unlawful discrimination against people with certain disabilities in certain circumstances'. If Senator Lees was talking just then about being idealistic, I suppose that in beginning my speech I could be accused of being idealistic because I have some regrets in rising to speak on this legislation. And my first regret is that we need this legislation at all.

It says something about our society that we have to in fact build the bridges that Senator Lees was talking about through legislation. In some ways it represents our failure, and I mean failure on all of our parts, failure of our institutions which are the agents for passing on our culture, our educational institutions, our schools and our families. It represents a failure on the part of community organisations, many of whom are doing a great deal to overcome the sorts of prejudices that have been shown towards people with disabilities. It represents a failure on the part of employers, the Government and the Public Service. I instance the very poor record that Public Service departments have in employing people with disabilities, and they of all ought to be leading by example. Legislation will not necessarily mean that they will do any better than they are doing now. What internally motivates people is the important thing rather than the external motivation of legislation.

As I said, we ought to look at all the institutions, including the media. We ought also to examine ourselves, our organisations, educational institutions, families, employers, companies and government departments, and ask ourselves: what are we doing to break down those barriers that have been built up towards people with disabilities? Given that and given that the Government has put this legislation before us, and given that there is a sense that we may achieve something through legislation, then it ought to be that that legislation is approached in the most bipartisan or non-partisan way.

My first regret is that we need this legislation at all. My second regret is the way in which this legislation has been handled. I thought that this would be one area in which we could take the politics out and have a non-partisan approach. When I first saw the legislation and read through it, I listed a large number of concerns. Without having looked at any of the submissions, I drew up a list of the concerns which I had, which I discussed with my staff member who was particularly looking at this.

I do not claim to have a legal training. I do not claim to have the sort of experience that the organisations that have made submissions have, but with my untrained eye, my eye with an interest in people with disabilities, I saw a number of problems. It seemed that this legislation had been presented to the House of Representatives in a very ill-prepared form. The number of submissions that we have received and the number of submissions that the committee received illustrates just that point.

The first reading of the Bill raised those problems and it also obviously raised many problems in the minds of others. The burden of my regret lies in the behaviour of Minister Howe and his handling of this legislation. In his second reading speech, the Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services (Mr Howe) said that it was the introduction of:

a major piece of legislation on a matter which so deeply affects the lives and opportunities of people with disabilities.

His very opening paragraph outlines the importance that he appeared to be placing on this Bill. He described it as a piece of legislation that `deeply affects the lives and opportunities of people with disabilities'. Given that, I should have thought that it would have been more carefully thought through and also, again, that there would have been much more cooperation. But that is what the Minister said, and obviously from his behaviour it seems like it was rhetoric.

The Minister said, again in his speech, that he was letting the Bill lie in the House over the winter recess so that `interested parties can make any further comments'. That is what he said in his second reading speech, and I think that is proper. I thought it might have been better when it was first tabled in the House of Representatives but, given that it was not all that good--and maybe that was some admission of that--the Minister was now saying that he would leave time for those submissions.

The Attorney-General (Mr Duffy) sent out a letter saying:

The Bill was prepared after extensive consultation and more particularly takes into account many of the concerns that were raised by people as a result of the distribution of a discussion paper entitled `Disability Discrimination Legislation. An Outline of the Proposed Bill'.

I should have thought that, if the Government had really consulted extensively, we might not have had the number and types of submissions that we have had. Anyway, the Attorney-General tells us that the Government consulted extensively.

The Minister also went on in his second reading speech to say:

The introduction of this Bill is further evidence of the unwavering commitment of this Government to social justice for people with disabilities.

That is fine. But it would have been better if his rhetoric had matched his practice because if we were to believe the rhetoric then we should have seen that reflected in his behaviour. That is not so. Sadly, the Minister showed his real colours, and I suppose some people have already seen those in some of his visits to talk to people who run institutions which work with people with disabilities.

Senator Tambling appropriately and reasonably asked for copies of the submissions made to the Government. Senator Tambling indicated there might have been some privacy issues, but, surely, the Minister could have asked the people who made the submissions, `Do you mind if we give them to the Opposition so it can examine them and we can work together to make this legislation the best it can be and also to ensure that it doesn't have any unintended consequences built into it that we regret later on?'.

Senator Tambling asked and the answer was no. The Minister tells us that he has put it on the table so that it can be looked at over the winter recess. We asked for submissions and they are not available to us. It just makes the Minister's statement sound very hollow. I am not asking Senator Zakharov to agree, but it does make the Minister's statement sound very hollow when, on the one hand, he says, `We want as much consultation as we can get' then, on the other, he precludes this half of the Parliament and, I presume, the Democrats. I do not know whether Senator Lees asked for the submissions, but I would have thought that it might have been appropriate for the submissions to be forthcoming after consultation with those who made them.

Senator Tambling finally resorted to putting on notice a question to the Minister asking from whom he had asked comments. We got a summary of those comments. Senator Tambling approached a large number of organisations and I thank those people--and I am sure Senator Tambling has thanked them, too--for those very extensive and thoughtful submissions which have enabled us to examine this legislation more carefully. It would have been easier for them had the Minister given them to us so they did not have to do it all over again. They might question why their limited resources had to be used in that way.

We suggested that this Bill go to a joint committee and be examined in detail because we had so many concerns, but that was not to be, and it will go to a Senate committee. Let me say, for the information of people who happen to be listening to the broadcast or who may read about it, that this is a case which reflects very well on the new procedure that the Senate has adopted. After the last election, the Senate adopted a procedure of referring Bills where there was some concern to the appropriate Senate standing committee. Previously, when we had concerns like this, we would make a speech during the second reading debate, then we would go to the committee stage and sometimes that committee stage, as in the case of the Family Law Bill, would go on for four days in this chamber, on a Bill on which we all agreed. We went through four days of debate backwards and forwards across the chamber. To facilitate and to speed up that process, it was decided that Bills could be referred to a committee and that that sort of level of debate could go on in the committee.

One of the other benefits, of course, of the new procedure is that groups can put their case on the public record. Prior to that, it was the Government's interpretation of the groups' submissions and it was the Opposition's, the Democrats' and the Independents' interpretations of the submissions that were made to them, and it was often difficult for us to have evidence which was on the public record. On Friday, we will be seeing groups who have expressed their concerns about this Bill.

Senator Tambling --Some of them.

Senator PATTERSON --Some of the groups; we will not have time to speak to them all. As I said, there are many concerns associated with this Bill and they should receive due consideration. In some ways, I do not believe that that Senate Committee has the time to go through them all which a committee would have had if it had been a full reference. I believe that this Bill is so important that it should have been a full reference to make sure that we do not have any other unintended consequences. That is especially so when a number of organisations which are specifically for people with disabilities have said that the Bill discriminates against people with disabilities. That is of great concern. Hopefully, we will be able to tease that out on Friday, but if we start at 9 o'clock and finish at 5 o'clock, it does not leave a great deal of time to consider a Bill which I think has a number of flaws and a number of problems. We will do our best, and I hope that it does not mean that we will have a Bill which we regret later on.

This Bill should not be hurried through the Senate. I find it quite interesting that none of my colleagues on the other side, other than the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate), have chosen to speak on this Bill. Government senators say that they want social justice for people with disabilities, that they are concerned and they do care. And where are they? There is not a speaker.

Senator Tambling --What did Graeme Campbell say in the House of Representatives?

Senator PATTERSON --And rightly so, Senator Tambling. Some members on the other side have considerable concern about this Bill. Maybe that is why they are absent from the chamber. But I call on the Democrats and the Independents to ensure that it is examined thoroughly and that we do not hurry the Bill so that the Government can get short term kudos from getting this Bill through, because it is too important an area. I would hate to see us legislate in haste and repent at leisure.

Senator CHAMARETTE (Western Australia) (5.45 p.m.) --I rise in support of the speedy passage of the Disability Discrimination Bill 1992. If all other senators were lobbied as effectively as I was, they would be aware that this legislation is regarded as an extremely important step in the empowerment and assistance of people with disabilities. I quote an extract from a letter received from Mr Robert Altamore, who summarises succinctly the reason why this legislation should receive support:

I am a member of the Council of the National Federation of Blind Citizens of Australia. The experiences of our members suggest to us that Commonwealth discrimination legislation is necessary to address discrimination against people with disabilities in aspects of their everyday life such as education, employment, running a home, raising a family and enjoying entertainment and recreation. In particular, we believe that this legislation is necessary to--

set national standards of social conduct;

raise the expectations of people with disabilities;

Enable people with disabilities to enforce their rights;

Support existing programs for people with disabilities;

and

Give people with disabilities equality before the Law wherever they live in Australia.

While I agree with Senator Patterson that internal motivation is far better than external motivation driven by legislation, and I commend her comments in this regard, nevertheless, in every case, legislation can be seen as an indication of a society's values or standards. On that basis, it would actually be a very strange omission and it would be very remiss of us, when we have set up a Human Rights Commission that has looked to the rights of many different groups within our community--it has tackled sexual discrimination, racial discrimination, and use of privacy in damaging ways--not actually to put in place disability discrimination legislation. So we can say that, while we would want to be far in advance of the legislation in our community action, nevertheless, we have a standard which shows our society's values.

However, this legislation is not perfect and some of the inadequacies have been pointed out by others. There are several areas in which improvement can be made. Hopefully, the committee process will be useful in this regard. I seek to point out four problem areas that can be noted with suggestions for improvement. Firstly, a link could be made between this Bill and the Disability Services Act 1986 so that both pieces of legislation can be seen as complementary in their wording. I would like to ask the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) to respond to my suggestion that paragraph (iii) of the clause of the Bill headed `Objects', which refers to existing laws, could actually include reference to the specific legislation regarding disability services.

Secondly, I suggest that a lead-in time and an action plan could be tabled with the Human Rights Commission not only by service providers in a voluntary capacity, but also as part of the special and temporary exemptions or exceptions from this legislation that various groups may be seeking. I am thinking particularly of the three-year exemption for Telecom. An action plan within those three years I think would receive quite a degree of approval from people with disabilities who could benefit.

Thirdly, consultation with the public should be incorporated into the exemption procedure. When people are seeking either special and temporary exemptions, or even in relation to the general exemptions which are related here, the public are consulted. Fourthly, the legislation could have gone further and specifically required that all material relating to the regulation, promotion and implementation of the Act, and all proceedings under the Act, be freely available in formats which meet the needs of people with disabilities to assist the process of consultation. I note that for the first time a Bill has been translated into the alternative formats of brail and audio tape to allow for maximum consultation and input. I commend this action heartily.

As I said, this legislation is not perfect. Nevertheless, it would be extremely damaging and counterproductive if the Committee process delayed or postponed the passage of this Bill. I would be more than happy to support the Bill now prior to its referral to the Committee process. I express concern on behalf of many people who value this legislation that it not get bogged down either now or in the committee stage. It is a start, a good start, and much better than the vacuum present up to now in terms of disability legislation. I think it would be very irresponsible to ignore this area and let it slip away. I am sure Opposition members feel they could improve on it and may be if they get their way in another election, they will be able to improve on it. However, I would like to support it now.

Senator HARRADINE (Tasmania) (5.52 p.m.) --Last week a young man from the Beni Abbes Community in Hobart died. He was a person with disability. He was respected by those who loved him, lived with him and cared for him. He was loved because of his uniqueness and because he had an intrinsic value, as each individual person has. He was respected and cared for because of that fact, but he had a lot to give. Those who had the eyes to see the gifts he had were the ones who benefited from his living in that community. His passing was a matter of deep grief for those with whom he lived and for those outside of that community who supported that community. Such people abound in this community. Yet, sadly enough, their talents and gifts are very much overlooked.

It all comes back to the questions that we mortals ask about why there is suffering and disability. Before we had to live for many years with the suffering, and in some cases death, of the one closest to us, we generally have the reasons for suffering all neatly worked out. It is all to do with free will. We are created with the gift of free will, otherwise we would be slaves. People make wrong choices and those wrong choices have consequences. Rulers decide to go to war and there are horrific consequences as a result. Aeroplane manufacturers make mistakes and do not fully understand metal fatigue, and there are terrible consequences.

There is famine, starvation and injustice in the world and almost always that comes down to man's inhumanity to man. There is a very sound argument to suggest that something did go awfully wrong at the beginning and we are suffering the consequences of that. I come back to the point that, before we ourselves face pain and the loss of one who is closest to us, the answer seemed simple. However, when faced with that pain, faced with that disability and faced with the daily effort of coping--and after we have gone through the cries of `why?'--then we begin to focus on the meaning of suffering and begin to seek what good can come out of it.

What I am saying is nothing new. It has all been said before. For example, Job said it in the Bible. It is a most interesting and illuminating piece. After having survived all the dreadful things that befell him, Job was able to say that he had been holding forth on questions that he neither recognised nor understood and that before he knew God by hearsay and now, since God had journeyed with him through the loss and pain, he saw Him face to face. Indeed, from the Christian perspective it was Jesus himself who, by word and example, corrected the view that those with disabilities should be blamed for them, or their parents should be blamed for them.

Unfortunately, now we have come to the stage where we have to debate a Bill which in a way will require people to give acknowledgment to that very fact. If we were perfect there would be no need for this Bill, no need at all. Obviously, we have not been able to recognise the inherent value of persons with disabilities, their enormous talent and what they have to give. Better off dead, or least never been born, is the attitude to some persons with disabilities, particularly those with inherited disorders. It would be ironic indeed if we carried this legislation, and then in a subsequent piece of legislation--which the Minister presented in his second reading speech the other day--we entrench a system which will inevitably take the view that it is better if persons with inherited disabilities were not born. That is precisely what the outcome will be of the National Health and Medical Research Council Bill.

I know it would be contrary to Standing Orders for me to debate that particular aspect, but I flag it now. When the time comes to debate it, no doubt the Senate will be reminded not only by me but also by a number of people who appreciate the problems that will emerge from that Bill if it goes through unamended.

Returning to this particular measure, I believe it is essential that the gifts of persons with disabilities be given full recognition. It might take a bit of time. I know that when I had a person with a very severe disability on my staff it took time for the office to adjust. It took time for me to adjust but, looking back on it, the adjustments ultimately really were minor. The gifts, the expertise and the deep understanding of problems that person brought to the office were something that will be appreciated not only by me, but also others in my office for a considerable time to come.

Very often persons with disabilities, because they cope with those disabilities, have the patience, the tenacity and the dedication to see things through to their end. This was the case in respect of that employee in my office. He has now gone on to higher things--namely the Taxation Office. He went with my very strong support and I am sure he is doing well. No doubt he will give the same amount of dedication to collecting taxes as he gave to the work of my office.

The measure that is currently before us certainly is imperfect as of course any legislation is imperfect. The legislation will go to the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs. I notice that the Secretary, Dr Pauline Moore, has sent out letters seeking submissions. No doubt there will be considerable input.

I would like to commend to the Senate the matter that was mentioned by Senator Tambling. I think he was quite justified in seeking from the Government a list and details of the range of issues which were raised by community groups and by individuals in relation to this particular Bill--at the request of the Minister for Health, Housing and Community Services (Mr Howe). It is most unusual, I believe, for the Minister to publicly ask for submissions on a draft Bill and then, when all of those submissions are in, not provide on request to other members of the Parliament the details of the issues raised. I would have thought it would have been better for the Minister to have supplied full detail. I am not necessarily talking about names if there is some concern of privacy; I am talking about the issues. What are the issues and what are the details of those issues which were raised in those submissions?

Senator Tambling --And how many were there?

Senator HARRADINE --As Senator Tambling says, how many were there? I am interested to note that Senator Tambling will pursue this matter, presumably before the Senate Standing Committee. There are problems; there are definitional problems. I think those have been canvassed before in this debate, both here and in the House of Representatives.

There is the question of exemptions. I am not too sure whether the reason that the telecommunications exemption was so generous was Optus coming into the field. It would be interesting for the Committee to follow that through, and no doubt it will. The ability to communicate is an area of great importance to people with disabilities. Many of them are not very mobile at all and they need to be able to communicate, as others do.

I agree that there should be provisions in the Bill for a wider range of consultations. I have another problem--I am not sure whether this has been raised in the debate thus far--and that is the problem of another big bureaucracy and the money going into that rather than into cutting through red tape, getting things done for persons with disabilities and bringing down the handicaps that they face in our society. Some very good ideas are often floated, but very often as well the bureaucracies that are established, with considerable expenditure on them, are too top-heavy. I know this occurs in some departments.

We have program budgeting and some people run away with that idea. Departments set up all of these units to run certain programs. Ringing in their ears is the catchcry `Let the managers manage'. So they appoint all of these managers for all of these small units--all, of course, at a higher rate. Then the people to lose their jobs when the cuts come are those down at the other end. So some of these very good ideas, program budgeting and the like, can become a source of concern to those of us who want to see the money go where it is designed to go.

I will not deal now with a number of other issues that I would like to raise in relation to the Bill. I will wait until the Committee has examined the Bill. We will have another opportunity to discuss this matter further when the Committee reports to the Senate. We will then have the benefit of the input of the members of the Committee. I wish the members of the Committee every success in examining this measure and coming back before the chamber with recommendations which will hopefully correct some of the imperfections that are in this Bill.

Senator POWELL (Victoria) (6.11 p.m.) --I rise briefly to express strong support for the Disability Discrimination Bill 1992 and the accompanying Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Legislation Bill 1992. This legislation represents an important forward move for disabled people in this country; indeed, an important move for our society as a whole. I look forward to its speedy passage.

The Disability Services Act 1986 is a landmark piece of legislation for disabled people. It was one of the first pieces of legislation that I dealt with when I came into the Senate in 1986. As with this legislation, that legislation was not perfect either but it did move disabled people forward. As I have said, when that happens the whole community moves forward. The legislation now before us does that as well. I think it is appropriate--it is indeed essential, as Senator Chamarette has said--that the human rights and equal opportunity standards that we apply in other areas of our community should also apply with regard to disabled people, and this legislation satisfies that requirement.

Like Senator Chamarette, I would like to see a direct link between these two major pieces of legislation in the disability area. I will be interested in the response to her question. As I said, this legislation is not perfect. I have particular concern about the telecommunications exemption. I hope that the Government will pick up any concrete workable suggestions that might come forward by virtue of the Committee's deliberations or that have been put forward in submissions.

I was interested in the suggestion that Senator Harradine made a moment ago that the entry of a competitor in telecommunications in this country might have some bearing on this. I wonder whether the disabled people of Australia, particularly the hearing impaired or the deaf, are directly suffering right now from the deregulationist policies of economic rationalism. I think that is an area that needs further explanation.

I note with pleasure that the psychiatrically disabled are covered in this legislation. This was one of the major problems of the earlier Disability Services Bill--a problem which I was successful in amending so that the psychiatrically disabled could be eventually included. I see this inclusion as a flow-on from that process. I reiterate my strong support for the Bill, and I look forward to it being listed very early on the program of Government business next week when we return after the Committee's deliberations on Friday.

I conclude briefly by informing the Senate that, because I believe strongly in human rights and equal opportunity, I intend to move an amendment to the second of the two Bills in this package--the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Legislation Amendment Bill 1992--when the Bills come back into the chamber for Committee of the Whole deliberations. I will be picking up an issue that I have been pursuing for years, and with some intensity in recent months--the question of the rights of homosexual people to serve in the Australian armed forces. My amendment will ensure that the Australian defence forces cannot discriminate against homosexual people.

I hope that by the time the Bill does come back to the Senate there will be no need for my amendment because Cabinet will have made a decision in favour of the rights of homosexual people, as the Caucus committee has recommended. But should that hope not be fulfilled in that interim period of a few days then I foreshadow that I will move that amendment at the committee stage. Again, I reiterate my support for these Bills.

Senator TATE (Tasmania-Minister for Justice) (6.15 p.m.) --I rise on behalf of the Government to thank those senators who contributed to the second reading debate on these Bills, principally the Disability Discrimination Bill 1992. The discussion on the principle of the Bill has been generally supportive. I need to say that, whilst I am the only speaker from the Government side during this phase of the Senate's consideration of this legislation, it is important to note the major contribution of Senator Olive Zakharov and Senator Susan West to the deliberations of the Government in forming this legislation. I am sure that they will be making a full contribution at other stages--either at the formal committee hearings on Friday or when the Bill is returned to this place for the Committee of the Whole debate.

Some general comments have been made about the nature of disability. As Senator Harradine said, it is very difficult for those of us who are relatively physically and mentally able and well to appreciate the intense suffering--it might be physical; it might be real mental anguish; or it might be simply a sense of isolation--that is a consequence of discriminatory practices that might be visited on a person simply because of his or her disability. Not many of us in this chamber can really speak of that from the point of view of a disabled person, even though many of us would have personal experiences with close relations and even spouses who have been in that situation.

I believe that this Bill does enable us as a society to make it very clear that any discrimination based on disability is to be regarded as unlawful in Australian society. It will be made unlawful. There is a recognition not only of the individual hurt occasioned by such discrimination but also, of course, the social damage that would be done to Australia if such discrimination could occur without the stigma of unlawfulness being attached to it.

This is a matter for society as a whole. That is why it is intended that those Australians with disabilities ought to be able to benefit from the principles which we have recognised over the last several years as being important in relation to the other forms of discrimination. To some extent, this bears on the point I was making in the Senate during Question Time today in so far as the common law has not really protected or sustained particularly minority groups in our sort of society in their attempt to exercise and enjoy rights which are taken for granted by others.

It is up to the Parliament to do the hard work of trying to recognise and formulate in a practical way measures which will ensure that the inherent dignity of each person should be recognised, whether it is in relation to employment, education, sport or entertainment. That is what this Bill seeks to do.

A series of models is available to us in relation to racial discrimination and sex discrimination. Those models have been pretty well tested in Australia within the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission framework. This framework has been suggested as the appropriate one for dealing with any grievances that might be put forward by a person who alleges that he or she has suffered from discrimination based on disability.

Any determinations that are eventually made by the Commission will be as a result of the process that includes the activities of a specially designated commissioner who deals with this legislation. As a result of that process, all sorts of Commonwealth laws and programs which are there for the benefit of citizens, be they in the area of work, accommodation, education, social clubs or sport--the provision of facilities and goods of any kind--will be able to be enjoyed and participated in by all Australians without their suffering improper discrimination.

The question of definition has been raised. This will be more particularly the subject of a more considered detailed examination in the committee process next Friday. Quite clearly, the definition of `disability' itself is of absolutely key importance. Once again, State legislation and experience in Commonwealth legislation has been drawn upon to include the concepts of physical, sensory, intellectual, psychiatric, cognitive and neurological impairment. Without going into the definition of `disability' in toto, I believe that it is sufficiently comprehensive to enable this legislation to benefit from well-tried definitions existing in other legislation not only in Australia but in the world where we can see how other like societies deal with this matter.

It is not true to say that the mere existence of a disability, which will enable this legislation to be invoked, nor discrimination based on that disability in the sense that there can be exceptions and exemptions, is enough if to acknowledge and deal with the disability would create undue hardship for the person who would have to change, for example, the physical conditions of premises. If the inherent requirements of a job militate against accepting that a person with a disability can adequately discharge a particular function, these exemptions will allow the service provider, the business or the employer concerned to discriminate, but not in an unlawful way.

I guess that there will always be very difficult and heart rending cases where the borderline is reached. Deciding what is an inherent requirement of a job which would allow discrimination and what is the boundary line where undue hardship is really such that discrimination can be allowed to continue will prove difficult. For that reason, I believe that the task of the human rights and equal opportunity Commissioner will be the subject of scrutiny by those in this Parliament and throughout the community who are concerned with such matters.

I believe that this legislation will mark a major advance on the part of Australian society in providing a legislative basis to enable people with disabilities to participate in the whole life of the community and thereby to become empowered. I do not always like to use cliches that have become fashionable, but to say that people can be empowered is a well understood term these days. I believe that this legislation will allow people to enjoy a sense of being full participants in the Australian community. It will empower them to undertake various activities as a matter of right and according to their own inherent dignity in a way which may not have been possible without this legislative foundation.

It is important that such legislation be given passage in the very near future. I believe that is the common aim of most honourable senators. I look forward to the very detailed discussion that we are to hold next Friday here in Canberra. I hope that when the legislation returns to the Senate chamber it secures passage so that this important legislative foundation against discrimination, which might be visited against a person on the basis that he or she is suffering from a disability, can be established. I hope that this legislation can be passed in a way which reflects credit on this Parliament and improves the very lives of those who are disabled within our Australian community.

Question resolved in the affirmative.

Bill read a second time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Calvert)--Pursuant to the order of the Senate agreed to on 9 September 1992, the Disability Discrimination Bill 1992 and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Legislation Amendment Bill 1992 stand referred to the Standing Committee on Community Affairs for consideration and report on or before 12 October 1992.

Site navigation

navigation Disability Rights

Footer information