9th Feb 2022, 4:41 AM – Representatives Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 - Consideration in Detail - Agree with amended bill

The majority voted in favour of a motion that this bill, as amended, be agreed to. In other words, they voted in favour of the bill as it currently reads after being amended by Mayo MP Rebekha Sharkie (Centre Alliance). Because this vote was successful, the House can now decide on whether to pass the bill.

There were five rebellions, with Bass MP Bridget Archer (Liberal), Reid MP Fiona Martin (Liberal), North Sydney MP Trent Zimmerman (Liberal), Higgins MP Katie Allen (Liberal) and Wentworth MP Dave Sharma (Liberal) crossing the floor to vote 'Yes' against the rest of their party, who voted 'No.'

What does the bill do?

According to the bill homepage, the bill was introduced with the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 in order to amend the following bills:

• Age Discrimination Act 2004,
• Disability Discrimination Act 1992,
• Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and
• Racial Discrimination Act 1975.

The bill's amendments will ensure that, when enforcing these bills:

regard must be had to the indivisibility and universality of human rights and their equal status in international law, and the principle that every person is free and equal in their dignity and rights.

The bill also amends the Charities Act 2013 and Marriage Act 1961 in order to ensure that:

to provide that otherwise charitable entities that engage in lawful activities promoting a traditional view of marriage are undertaking those activities for the public benefit and not contrary to public policy; and to allow religious educational institutions to refuse to provide facilities, goods or services in relation to the solemnisation of a marriage in accordance with their religious beliefs.

SBS News has provided a good summary of the more controversial parts of the bill, including an explanation for each rebellion that occurred during the long debate. According to this summary, the key areas for concern were:

• the parts of the bill that allowed religious schools to discriminate on the basis of sexuality and gender identity;
• the "statement of belief" that seems to protect people expressing religious beliefs even if they're offensive and therefore seem to override existing anti-discrimination protections; and
• the fact that the bill does not outlaw vilification of people of faith.