9th Feb 2022, 1:40 AM – Representatives Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 - Consideration in Detail - Statements of belief

The majority voted in favour of disagreeing with anamendment introduced by Melbourne MP Adam Bandt (Greens), which means it failed.

What does this amendment do?

MP Bandt explained that:

These amendments remove the statement of belief provision ...

That needs to be done for two important reasons. The statement of belief provision, firstly, is the most novel provision of this bill and, secondly, is the most pernicious. It's the most novel in that this bill is supposedly about protecting people from victimisation on the basis of religion. Now, the principle of including religion as a prohibited attribute, as it were, on the basis of which you can't discriminate or victimise is something that I think most people in this parliament would agree with. It would probably have universal agreement in this parliament. But this bill does something that other discrimination legislation doesn't do: it inserts a new provision, a statement of belief provision, that is not found in other pieces of discrimination legislation. It is novel, it is unnecessary and it's gravely concerning. And this goes to the point about it the most—or a—pernicious aspect of this bill. Not only will it allow things to be done that will override state legislation—and we've heard about that and about how it would take away protections that are enshrined in legislation in, for example, Tasmania.

What it also does, this statement of belief provision, is open up new grounds for discrimination to occur. We've heard example after example, from members from both sides, of statements that could be made that now might offend other provisions, other discrimination provisions, but will become lawful. These are the statements that will cause a lot of harm. These are the statements that are made when someone working in a healthcare area says to someone else, 'I think that your condition, your illness that your suffering, is a punishment from God because you're gay.' Or statements that are directed at a transgender student or staff member that might not be about expelling them, but might be something that is designed to make, or has the effect of making, their life a misery. These are the statements that would currently not be protected, but are going to open up a whole new suite of discriminatory and harmful behaviour.

Amendment text

(1) Clause 3, page 3 (line 2), omit “beliefs; and”, substitute “beliefs.”.

(2) Clause 3, page 3 (lines 3 to 6), omit paragraph (1)(d).

(3) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 24 to 26), omit “circumstances. Certain statements of belief also do not constitute discrimination for the purposes of specified legislation, including this Act”, substitute “circumstances”.

(4) Clause 5, page 5 (line 3), omit “, 14 and 15”, substitute “and 14”.

(5) Clause 5, page 5 (line 4), omit “1”.

(6) Clause 5, page 5 (lines 7 and 8), omit note 2.

(7) Clause 5, page 7 (line 21) to page 8 (line 2), omit the definition of statement of belief.

(8) Clause 12, page 16 (line 21) to page 17 (line 21), omit the clause.

(9) Clause 15, page 19 (line 8) to page 20 (line 5), omit the clause.

(10) Clause 16, page 20 (line 8), omit “section 15 and”.

(11) Clause 18, page 22 (lines 17 to 19), omit subclause (4).

(12) Clause 68, page 56 (line 5), omit the note.

What does the bill do?

According to the bill homepage, the bill was introduced with the Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 and Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 in order to:

• prohibit discrimination on the basis of a person’s religious belief or activity in a range of areas of public life, including in relation to employment, education, access to premises and the provision of goods, services and accommodation;
• establish general and specific exceptions from the prohibition of religious discrimination;
• provide that certain statements of belief do not constitute discrimination for the purposes of certain specified Commonwealth, state or territory anti-discrimination laws;
• create offences in relation to victimisation and discriminatory advertisements;
• establish the office of the Religious Discrimination Commissioner;
• confer certain functions on the Australian Human Rights Commission; and
• provide for miscellaneous matters including delegation of powers or functions, protection from civil actions and a review of the operation of the Act.

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.