XN000022-1979-04-11 — Page 16

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 1979

15

+IT WOULD, HOWEVER, BE REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT WITH THE STRONG SURGE IN WAGES OVER THE LAST TWO TO THREE YEARS, THE FACT THAT WAGES HAVE REFLECTED VERY MUCH MORE THAN THE COST OF LIVING INCREASES OVER THE PERIOD, THAT AN INCREASE IN THE CEILING FOR NON-MANUAL WORKERS WOULD NEED TO BE ABOUT 60 PER CENT IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT BROADLY THE CATEGORY OF NON-MANUAL WORKERS PROTECTED BY THE ORDINANCE IN 1974 WERE COVERED BY IT AGAIN IN 1979, + HE SAID.

MR. HENDERSON WENT ON TO SAY THAT HE HAD HOPED TO BRING RATHER WIDER PROPOSALS TO THE COUNCIL INCLUDING POSSIBLY THE REMOVAL OF THE CEILING FOR NON-MANUAL WORKERS FOR MOST OF, IF NOT ALL, PARTS OF THE EMPLOYMENT ORDINANCE.

HOWEVER, AFTER CONSULTING EXTENSIVELY THE LABOUR ADVISORY BOARD ON A NUMBER OF ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITIES IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE AFTER CONSIDERABLE EFFORTS BY THE BOARD TO REACH AGREEMENT ON THE MATTER.

+ I WOULD THEREFORE REGARD THE PRESENT PROPOSAL AS SOMETHING OF AN INTERIM ARRANGEMENT TO PREVENT FURTHER EROSION OF THE POSITION OF LOWER PAID NON-MANUAL WORKERS. ABOUT A 60 PER CENT INCREASE ON THE PRESENT FIGURE WOULD SUGGEST A CEILING OF THE ORDER OF $3,200 PER MONTH, HE SAID.

+HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT WE ARE ONLY DEALING WITH SEPTEMBER 1978 FIGURES AND THAT IT WILL PERHAPS BE A YEAR TO 18 MONTHS BEFORE CAN BRING MORE DEFINITIVE CHANGES FORWARD,

! AM SUGGESTING THE FIGURE OF $2,500 PER MONTH TO HOLD THE POSITION FOR THE TIME NEEDED FOR FURTHER REVIEW AND CONSULTATION, HE ADDED.

BILL TO GIVE PROTECTION OF ANONYMITY

TO VICTIMS OF INDECENT ASSAULT CASES

*****

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE HON, JOHN HOBLEY, INTRODUCED THE CRIMES (AMENDMENT) BILL 1979 IN THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TODAY (WEDNESDAY).

THE BILL PROPOSES TO GIVE COMPLAINANTS OF INDECENT ASSAULT CASES THE SAME PROTECTION OF ANONYMITY AND RESTRICTION FROM CROSS-EXAMINATION ABOUT PREVIOUS SEXUAL HISTORY AS AFFORDED TO COMPLAINANTS IN RAPE CASES.

MR. HOBLEY SAID IT WAS PUT FORWARD BECAUSE OF REPRESENTATIONS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY.

→THE STEP NOW PROPOSED WAS NOT TAKEN IN 1978 (WHEN AMENDMENTS WERE MADE TO THE CRIMES ORDINANCE) SIMPLY BECAUSE WE FOLLOWED THE CORRESPONDING ENGLISH PROVISIONS WHICH ARE LIMITED TO RAPE OFFENCES, + MR. HOBLEY SAID.

+! NOW CONSIDER THAT THERE IS NO SCUND REASON FOR DISTINGUISHING IN THIS RESPECT BETWEEN RAPE AND THE LESSER SEXUAL OFFENCE OF INDECENT ASSAULT.+

DEBATE ON THE BILL WAS ADJOURNED.