|
representatives vote 2022-02-09#8
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-02-24 08:38:54
|
Title
Bills — Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021; Consideration in Detail- Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 - Consideration in Detail - Teachers
Description
<p class="speaker">Rebekha Sharkie</p><p>I move Centre Alliance amendment (2):</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 10), at the end of the Schedule, add:</p><p class="italic">10 At the end of section 37</p><p class="italic">Add:</p><p class="italic">(3) Paragraph (1)(d) does not apply to an act or practice of an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed if the act or practice is in connection with employment, education or training provided by the educational institution.</p><p class="italic">11 Section 38</p><p class="italic">Repeal the section.</p><p>I am pleased to see that amendments to sections 37 and 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act have been put forward by the government and the opposition. However, I would argue that those amendments do not go far enough. We should not cherrypick and provide protections for students while the teachers who teach those children are left with no protection from sexual discrimination. What message does that send to the students if they see that their teacher is dismissed because of their sexuality, gender or marital status? Think about it. The young people see the hypocrisy here—protection for some and not for others.</p><p>We need to ensure that teachers and contract workers in educational settings are protected from sexual discrimination in their employment. We need to make sure that students are protected. So this amendment will rightly protect students and teachers and contract workers in religious schools from being subjected to discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or indeed pregnancy status by amending section 37 and removing section 38 in its entirety.</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Dreyfus</p><p>I understand this is the first of two amendments that the member for Mayo is moving. This one, the one we are going to deal with first, would repeal the whole of section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act. I have to indicate that Labor is opposed to the repeal of the whole of section 38, although we are in favour of the repeal of section 38(3), which is what the next amendment deals with. I want to explain Labor's reasons for that position.</p><p>Before the last election the Prime Minister promised to make it unlawful to discriminate against all students. He should deliver on that promise and he should deliver on the promise now, in the early hours of 10 February. If Labor is successful at the next election, Labor will change the law to protect teachers or school staff from being sacked because of who they are too—because they're divorced or pregnant or gay, or because of their gender or similar. Most religious schools don't sack teachers or other staff because of who they are, and they never want to, but Labor absolutely recognises that religious schools have a right to give preference to hiring school staff of their own faith. Because the two rights that I just referred to interact in a complex way, we believe this issue should not be addressed in the way that is proposed here, with the greatest of respect to the member for Mayo, but rather will need to be considered carefully by the Australian Law Reform Commission. This issue should already have been considered by the Australian Law Reform Commission. The Law Reform Commission was commissioned by this government in March 2019 and was due to hand its report to the parliament in March 2020, but the government, regrettably, has on multiple occasions extended the reporting date. We intend to continue to consult with schools, teachers, legal experts and religious organisations while waiting for the Law Reform Commission to report back on this complex matter and the balancing of competing rights that it requires.</p><p>If Labor are successful at the next election we will address these important issues, but this sweeping amendment is not the right way of doing it. There needs to be consideration of the very complex interaction between the Fair Work Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and, if these bills become law, the religious discrimination legislation. For that reason, it shouldn't proceed in this rushed way but, rather, should await consideration by the Australian Law Reform Commission. As I've indicated, Labor opposes this amendment, which would repeal the whole of section 38.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>I inform the House that the government does not support these amendments, which would have the effect of removing existing exemptions under section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act for religious educational institutions to discriminate against employees, contract workers and students in good faith and in accordance with their religious doctrines. These amendments would also mean that section 37 of that act, which provides exceptions for religious bodies, as opposed to religious educational institutions, to provide that the exception does not apply to the conduct of religious educational institutions in relation to employment, education and training.</p><p>I make it clear that the government believes that discrimination against students in education is unacceptable in all of its forms. Issues relating to the employment of staff at religious schools are more complex than issues relating to students, and raised particular legal issues. They require careful consideration of the interaction between the Sex Discrimination Act and other relevant legislation, including the Fair Work Act, as has been recognised by a number of stakeholders, including the Australian Human Rights Commission. I make the point that the government's proposed amendments, which I trust I'll move shortly, give effect to our commitment to ensure that no child is expelled from his or her school due to his or her sexual orientation.</p><p>The government has referred an inquiry to the Australian Law Reform Commission to consider the current framework of religious exemptions in Commonwealth, state and territory antidiscrimination law, including the Sex Discrimination Act. We think that is the better way to address these matters.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Wallace</p><p>The question is that amendment (2) moved by the member for Mayo be disagreed to.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p> -
- The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-02-09.176.2) introduced by Mayo MP [Rebekha Sharkie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mayo/rebekha_sharkie) (Centre Alliance), which means the amendment failed.
- There were three rebellions, with Bass MP [Bridget Archer](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bass/bridget_archer) (Liberal), Reid MP [Fiona Martin](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/reid/fiona_martin) (Liberal) and North Sydney MP [Trent Zimmerman](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/north_sydney/trent_zimmerman) (Liberal) crossing the floor to vote 'No' against the rest of their party, who voted 'Yes.'
- ### What would this amendment do?
- MP Sharkie [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-02-09.176.2):
- > *We should not cherrypick and provide protections for students while the teachers who teach those children are left with no protection from sexual discrimination. What message does that send to the students if they see that their teacher is dismissed because of their sexuality, gender or marital status? Think about it. The young people see the hypocrisy here—protection for some and not for others.*
- >
- > *We need to ensure that teachers and contract workers in educational settings are protected from sexual discrimination in their employment. We need to make sure that students are protected. So this amendment will rightly protect students and teachers and contract workers in religious schools from being subjected to discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or indeed pregnancy status by amending section 37 and removing section 38 in its entirety.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(2) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 10), at the end of the Schedule, add:*
- >
- > *10 At the end of section 37*
- >
- > *Add:*
- >
- >> *(3) Paragraph (1)(d) does not apply to an act or practice of an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed if the act or practice is in connection with employment, education or training provided by the educational institution.*
- >
- > *11 Section 38*
- >
- > *Repeal the section.*
- ### What does the bill do?
- According to the [bill homepage](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6820), the bill was introduced with the [Religious Discrimination Bill 2021](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6821) and [Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6819) 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](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6820) 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](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6820) 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](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.
-
-
|