|
representatives vote 2022-02-09#9
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-02-24 09:07:29
|
Title
Description
-
The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-02-09.180.1) introduced by Mayo MP [Rebekha Sharkie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mayo/rebekha_sharkie) (Centre Alliance), which means the amendment failed.- The majority voted in favour of *not disagreeing* with an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-02-09.180.1) introduced by Mayo MP [Rebekha Sharkie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mayo/rebekha_sharkie) (Centre Alliance). However, this doesn't mean the amendment passed. Instead, [another vote](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/divisions/representatives/2022-02-09/10) will take place on whether the House *actually agrees* with the amendment (rather than simply agreeing to *not disagree* with it).
- There were five 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), North Sydney MP [Trent Zimmerman](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/north_sydney/trent_zimmerman) (Liberal), Higgins MP [Katie Allen](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/higgins/katie_allen) (Liberal) and Wentworth MP [Dave Sharma](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/wentworth/dave_sharma) (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=2022-02-09.180.1):
- > *This amendment repeals subsection 38(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act. Repealing subsection 38 (3) will remove the exception that allows religious educational institutions to discriminate in connection with the provision of education or training. This is a small amendment in size but is an incredibly important amendment. It will go some way towards protecting LGBTQIA students from sex and gender discrimination in religious educational institutions.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(3) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 10), at the end of the Schedule, add:*
- >
- > *10 At the end of section 37*
- >
- > *Add:*
- >
- >> *(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(d), it is unlawful for an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed to discriminate against a student or prospective student on the ground of the student's or prospective student's sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy.*
- >
- > *11 Subsection 38(3)*
- >
- > *Repeal the subsection.*
- ### 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.
-
-
|
|
representatives vote 2022-02-09#9
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-02-24 08:48:26
|
Title
Bills — Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021; Consideration in Detail- Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 - Consideration in Detail - Students
Description
<p class="speaker">Rebekha Sharkie</p><p>I move amendment (3), standing in my name:</p><p class="italic">(3) 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) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(d), it is unlawful for an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed to discriminate against a student or prospective student on the ground of the student's or prospective student's sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy.</p><p class="italic">11 Subsection 38(3)</p><p class="italic">Repeal the subsection.</p><p>From listening to the speeches in this place today and yesterday, I know there are many members who are deeply concerned about the wellbeing of LGBTQIA student. LGBTQIA students experience far higher rates of bullying and depression than their peers, and are significantly more likely to attempt suicide as young adults. Research has found that faith based schools that discourage the disclosure of sexual diversity and which fail to establish safe and inclusive learning environments for students with diverse sexualities exacerbate these statistics.</p><p>This amendment repeals subsection 38(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act. Repealing subsection 38 (3) will remove the exception that allows religious educational institutions to discriminate in connection with the provision of education or training. This is a small amendment in size but is an incredibly important amendment. It will go some way towards protecting LGBTQIA students from sex and gender discrimination in religious educational institutions.</p><p>I urge all members in this place to consider this amendment thoughtfully, and I seek their support for vulnerable children and young people.</p> <p class="speaker">Anthony Albanese</p><p>I thank the member for Mayo for moving this important amendment. I indicate that Labor will be supporting this amendment.</p><p>The Prime Minister said to me that there's no place in our education system for any form of discrimination against a student on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity when he wrote to me in December, asking me to support the basis of this legislation. This amendment fulfils the spirit of that legislation.</p><p>Of course, this was also a promise that was made during the Wentworth by-election in 2018 and was something I'm sure that the various candidates for Wentworth will remind the current member of in the coming period. The truth is that no student should be discriminated against because of who they are. Labor will protect all students, here in this chamber, in the Senate and, if need be, after the next election. We are absolutely committed to this. What we will do in government, if we're not successful here—but we would prefer for this to be carried—is for religious schools to be prohibited from discriminating against students on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, relationship or marital status, or pregnancy.</p><p>No child should be discriminated against. Overwhelmingly, Australians of faith would agree with this too. Australian families are going to wake up in a few hours and look on, with sadness and anger, if this does not occur. This is something that should unite the parliament, and the entire parliament should support this amendment.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>The government does not support this amendment. The government's proposed amendments, which I will move shortly, give effect to our commitment to ensure that no child is expelled from their school due to their sexual orientation. In considering the ongoing appropriateness of other existing religious exemptions, it's necessary to balance the rights of all people to be free from discrimination in education with the rights of religious institutions to conduct their affairs in a way which is consistent with their religious ethos. Such a task is complex and requires consultation across all sections of the community. In particular, we must protect against unintended consequences to ensure that religious single-sex schools are able to operate in accordance with their purpose and their religious ethos. Practical matters, such as appropriate facilities and pastoral care must also be considered.</p><p>This is why 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 anti-discrimination law, including the Sex Discrimination Act. In the government's view that is the appropriate forum in which to consider these important matters.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Wallace</p><p>The question is that the amendment 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=2022-02-09.180.1) introduced by Mayo MP [Rebekha Sharkie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mayo/rebekha_sharkie) (Centre Alliance), which means the amendment failed.
- There were five 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), North Sydney MP [Trent Zimmerman](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/north_sydney/trent_zimmerman) (Liberal), Higgins MP [Katie Allen](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/higgins/katie_allen) (Liberal) and Wentworth MP [Dave Sharma](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/wentworth/dave_sharma) (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=2022-02-09.180.1):
- > *This amendment repeals subsection 38(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act. Repealing subsection 38 (3) will remove the exception that allows religious educational institutions to discriminate in connection with the provision of education or training. This is a small amendment in size but is an incredibly important amendment. It will go some way towards protecting LGBTQIA students from sex and gender discrimination in religious educational institutions.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(3) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 10), at the end of the Schedule, add:*
- >
- > *10 At the end of section 37*
- >
- > *Add:*
- >
- >> *(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(d), it is unlawful for an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed to discriminate against a student or prospective student on the ground of the student's or prospective student's sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy.*
- >
- > *11 Subsection 38(3)*
- >
- > *Repeal the subsection.*
- ### 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.
-
-
|