Think tank questions basis of anti-discrimination legislation

That’s what proposed anti-discrimination legislation in effect currently presents, says a right-leaning think-tank.

The Guernsey Policy and Economic Group said it strongly supported the concept of legislation to protect members of society from discrimination and, in particular, to protect the disabled.

‘The island could benefit from pragmatic improvements in anti-discrimination legislation. However, we believe that a proportionate response should be considered, based on the population size and diversity of our community,’ said the think-tank, publishing its initial research.

GPEG said it was a requirement of procedure that all policy letters brought to the States’ attention should include fully costed implications.

‘Whilst some consideration was given to the cost of appointing a legally qualified chairman of the new tribunal and training, neither a cost benefit analysis nor an impact assessment were considered by the States. This remains outstanding.

‘Accordingly, the proposed legislation is, in effect at present, a blank cheque for unquantified benefits for unknown beneficiaries.

‘This, at a time of considerable economic difficulty and great pressure on the public and private purse.’

Multimillionaire business leader Jon Moulton, one of the founders and directors of GPEG, argued in 2019 against ‘gold-plated’ anti-discrimination legislation and said the proposed definition of disability was too wide-ranging and could lead to ‘lack of talent’ being deemed a disability.

The think-tank said the States of Guernsey should adhere to its own procedures when introducing new laws, especially in evaluating complex and far-reaching proposals.

‘Sufficient time should be made available for this to be rectified and this process may well show a need for greater proportionality in the legislation.’

While recognising the draft legislation’s good intentions, GPEG said it took no account of the existing Jersey legislation where parallels with Guernsey were ‘obvious’.

‘Indeed, the UK legislation appears to have been overlooked. Instead, the basis of the legislation is a fusion of Australian and Irish law, weaved around a social model, not a medical model,’ said the think-tank.

Questioning why those countries’ models were chosen, it continued: ‘The proposed legislation looks at Australia, a continent of some 25.6m. inhabitants, growing at 321,300 people p.a. It hosts 7.5m. immigrants from such countries as China, India, Philippines, Vietnam, South Korea, Nepal, Malaysia and Hong Kong, with all the cultural and language issues that result.

‘Australia recognises 10 languages in addition to the 20 indigenous languages which are still spoken.

‘All this in a country of 7.9m. square kilometres some 15,400 km from Guernsey. It also relies on Ireland, a country with over 5.1m. inhabitants and very different culture and population make-up.

‘Quite why the academics chose these two countries to form the basis of anti-discrimination legislation for our small island with a population of 63,000 and very different culture and diversity remains unclear.’

Read Employment & Social Security's response here