House debates
Tuesday, 16 October 2018
Matters of Public Importance
Discrimination
3:24 pm
Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Minister for Education) Share this | Hansard source
Can I make very clear at the outset that the government believes that no student should be discriminated against on the basis of their sexuality. I would like to provide some background to this MPI today. In 2013, the Gillard government amended the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to provide an exemption for religious schools to discriminate against students and employees on the basis of their sexual orientation in certain circumstances. The explanatory memorandum of Labor's bill, circulated in March 2013 by then Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus, said:
The Bill will extend the exemption at section 38 of the SDA, so that otherwise discriminatory conduct on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity will not be prohibited for educational institutions established for religious purpose. Consequently, the Bill will not alter the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion or belief in respect of the new grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.
This was reiterated in the second reading speech to Labor's bill, where, on 21 March 2013, the now shadow Attorney-General said:
The bill also amends existing exemptions as appropriate to reflect the new grounds. This includes exemptions for religious bodies in relation to employment and the provision of education that have been in place for many years. These exemptions will continue under this bill and encompass the new grounds.
I think it's very important that we put this in context. This was the question that was put by David Speers to the shadow education spokesperson on Sunday in the interview which got a bit of publicity today: 'Well, that's true, and certainly those I've spoken to this week agree. That's true, but it still leaves the question as to why Labor did this at all in 2013.' 'But, look, anyway, it's 2018,' the shadow education spokesperson said, 'so let's talk about 2018.' They then go on, and David Speers says: 'Okay, all right. On Friday morning, you said it's not Labor's plan to reduce any of the existing exemptions. Then a few hours later Bill Shorten said it was, and, as you've just articulated, you're going to back the changes. What happened there? Were you on the same page on Friday morning?'
The shadow spokesperson then says: 'Well, we've been talking about this for some time. We hadn't made a decision at the time. We were looking particularly at exemptions for teachers, which is something that is raised with us a lot—all the time, in fact—so we're talking to school communities about how kids—
No comments