|
representatives vote 2022-02-09#6
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-02-18 12:52:32
|
Title
Bills — Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021, Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021; Consideration in Detail- Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 - Consideration in Detail - Aged Care
Description
<p class="speaker">Mark Dreyfus</p><p>by leave—I move opposition amendments (5) to (9) and (11) to (15) together:</p><p class="italic">(5) Clause 7, page 10 (line 18), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".</p><p class="italic">(6) Heading to clause 8, page 11 (line 30), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".</p><p class="italic">(7) Clause 8, page 12 (lines 1 and 2), omit paragraph (a), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(a) establishing, directing, controlling or administering a hospital; or</p><p class="italic">(aa) if the religious body solely or primarily provides aged care services—the provision of the services; or</p><p class="italic">(8) Heading to clause 9, page 12 (line 17), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".</p><p class="italic">(9) Clause 9, page 12 (line 22), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".</p><p class="italic">(11) Clause 9, page 12 (line 28), omit "facility", substitute "service provider".</p><p class="italic">(12) Clause 9, page 13 (lines 4 to 7), omit paragraph (2)(b), substitute:</p><p class="italic">(b) a body (a <i>religious aged care service provider</i>) that solely or primarily provides aged care services in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion;</p><p class="italic">(13) Heading to subclause 9(3), page 13 (line 15), omit "<i>facilities</i>", substitute "<i>service providers</i>".</p><p class="italic">(14) Clause 9, page 13 (line 18), omit "facility", substitute "service provider".</p><p class="italic">(15) Clause 9, page 14 (line 8), omit "facility", substitute "service provider".</p><p>As I'd indicated, this is an amendment which deals with in-home aged care. More than a million older Australians receive in-home service and those Australians deserve to be treated with dignity. Any suggestion that it is acceptable to discriminate against them, these older Australians, for any reason should be rejected by this parliament, and yet that is what this bill does suggest in a tricky and underhanded way. The bill in its current form would allow a religious in-home aged-care provider to discriminate on the basis of religion in the provision of services. The government did not announce this, it has not explained this and the provision in this bill but that would allow this is deliberately obscure.</p><p>We have COTA, a key advocate for older Australians, to thank for identifying this issue. When it was drawn to our attention we assumed it was a drafting error and so when we raised it with the government we thought we would be able to agree on sensible amendments to address COTA's concern. But the government refused our request for an amendment, because apparently it is not a drafting error at all; it is the Morrison government's intention that religious in-home aged-care providers should be permitted to discriminate in the provision of services under this bill.</p><p>We support the right of a religious aged-care service provider to give preference to persons of the same religion in making hiring decisions, in selection of staff. There is no federal law that stops a religious aged-care service provider from doing that now and this bill wouldn't change that. But, since Labor amended the religious exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act nine years ago, no federal law has permitted discrimination by aged-care service providers in the provision of services, and this bill would change that. Under the bill, religious in-home aged-care service providers are treated differently to residential care providers, because in-home care providers will be permitted to discriminate in the provision of services on the basis of religion.</p><p>If there's a good reason for this, the government has not explained it. In fact, those opposite haven't been upfront about the fact of this new basis for discrimination at all, let alone their justification for creating it. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at the government's embarrassment about this provision. After all, this is a government with an appalling track record when it comes to meeting the needs of older Australians. COTA has said that the treatment of in-home aged-care service providers, under the bill, will send a chilling message to older people who are vulnerable that their aged-care provider may no longer treat them with the dignity and respect that the current law ensures they receive.</p><p>Labor's amendment would ensure that all religious aged-care service providers are treated the same under the bill so that no provider will be permitted to discriminate against older, vulnerable Australians on the basis of religion. This should be an uncontroversial amendment. It should really go without saying, and the government should be ashamed of itself for trying to sneak this into the bill and then persisting with it, when COTA, a key advocate for older people across Australia, has drawn the problem to their attention. I would urge the House to support Labor's amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Clare O'Neil</p><p>I want to reiterate and support the words of the member for Isaacs here in relation to the provision of aged care. It's probably not widely understood among people who don't work in government that, actually, the vast majority of aged-care recipients in Australia are not living in an aged-care home but are receiving services within their own home. In the order of 800,000 Australians are today receiving some type of services at home.</p><p>It is going to be truly extraordinary to the Australian public when they understand that the bill that's being proposed by the government today would facilitate religion-based discrimination against people who receive in-home care. There is not a single policy ground for making such a change to Australian law, and Labor is absolutely doing the right thing in trying to defend people who receive these services.</p><p>The member for Isaacs has talked about the fact that the issue that's being debated here emerged through the Council on the Ageing raising the issue with us. Of course, we believe this to be some sort of drafting error. Why on earth would the government put forward an antidiscrimination bill that in fact facilitates discrimination against 800,000 Australians? It makes absolutely no sense at all. And yet nothing has been resolved about this critical problem that the law contains.</p><p>The member for Isaacs referred to the government's consistent track record in how it deals with the elderly, with senior Australians, in this country. Unfortunately, this is just one of a litany of failures that the government has committed against elderly Australians. We've had the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which has shown that most people who are using aged-care services today are experiencing some form of neglect. There is the political neglect of a government which continues to ignore the needs of elderly people in this country. Two-thirds of aged-care residents today are malnourished—literally starving—under the care of this government, and yet nothing is done about it.</p><p>Unfortunately, this complete disrespect towards older Australians who are receiving in-home care is perfectly consistent with the government's record. It also reflects what we understand to be a general set of issues with the Religious Discrimination Bill, which we are debating today. It's sloppy, ill-thought-through and rushed—somehow rushed, when the government has had three years to draft this and get it right. When we've got nine sitting days left, why are we here debating this legislation in such a rushed manner?</p><p>We could have worked together across the parliament to develop a law that actually enriched our lives as Australians. Instead, here we are trying to plug holes—basic holes—in the bill in consideration in detail. It didn't have to be like this. It shouldn't be like this. And that's why the government should accept Labor's amendments.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>The set of amendments that the shadow Attorney-General has moved would have the effect of extending existing provisions relating to religious aged-care facilities to include aged-care service providers. The government does not support these proposed amendments. Discrimination in the administration of religious aged-care facilities is explicitly carved out of the religious exceptions in the bill. As such, the bill does not allow religious bodies to discriminate in service delivery to residents in their aged-care facilities.</p><p>The government notes concerns raised by some stakeholders that this carve-out does not apply to in-home aged-care providers. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights explicitly considered this issue and did not recommend that any amendments be made to these provisions.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Wallace</p><p>The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Isaacs be disagreed to.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p> -
- The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-02-09.168.1) moved by Isaacs MP [Mark Dreyfus](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/isaacs/mark_dreyfus) (Labor), which means the amendments failed.
- There was one rebellion, with Bass MP [Bridget Archer](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bass/bridget_archer) (Liberal) crossing the floor to vote 'No' against the rest of her party, who voted 'Yes.'
- ### What do the amendments do?
- MP Isaacs [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-02-09.168.1):
- > *... this is an amendment which deals with in-home aged care. More than a million older Australians receive in-home service and those Australians deserve to be treated with dignity. Any suggestion that it is acceptable to discriminate against them, these older Australians, for any reason should be rejected by this parliament, and yet that is what this bill does suggest in a tricky and underhanded way. The bill in its current form would allow a religious in-home aged-care provider to discriminate on the basis of religion in the provision of services. The government did not announce this, it has not explained this and the provision in this bill but that would allow this is deliberately obscure.*
- ### What are the amendments:
- > *(5) Clause 7, page 10 (line 18), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".*
- >
- > *(6) Heading to clause 8, page 11 (line 30), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".*
- >
- > *(7) Clause 8, page 12 (lines 1 and 2), omit paragraph (a), substitute:*
- >
- >> *(a) establishing, directing, controlling or administering a hospital; or*
- >>
- >> *(aa) if the religious body solely or primarily provides aged care services—the provision of the services; or*
- >
- > *(8) Heading to clause 9, page 12 (line 17), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".*
- >
- > *(9) Clause 9, page 12 (line 22), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".*
- >
- > *(11) Clause 9, page 12 (line 28), omit "facility", substitute "service provider".*
- >
- > *(12) Clause 9, page 13 (lines 4 to 7), omit paragraph (2)(b), substitute:*
- >
- >> *(b) a body (a religious aged care service provider) that solely or primarily provides aged care services in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion;*
- >
- > *(13) Heading to subclause 9(3), page 13 (line 15), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".*
- >
- > *(14) Clause 9, page 13 (line 18), omit "facility", substitute "service provider".*
- >
- > *(15) Clause 9, page 14 (line 8), omit "facility", substitute "service provider".*
- ### What does the bill do?
- According to the [bill homepage](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6821), the bill was introduced with the [Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6819) and [Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6820) 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](https://www.sbs.com.au/news/religious-discrimination-bill-passes-lower-house-as-five-liberal-mps-cross-the-floor/1418953a-e34d-4606-bb7e-89413596ac40) of the more controversial parts of the bill, including an explanation for each rebellion that occurred during the long debate. According to [this summary](https://www.sbs.com.au/news/religious-discrimination-bill-passes-lower-house-as-five-liberal-mps-cross-the-floor/1418953a-e34d-4606-bb7e-89413596ac40), 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.
-
-
|