Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Schools) Share this | Hansard source

The Minister for Education, near the end of that riveting contribution, said the words 'in conclusion'. This was remarkable because he hadn't actually begun to talk about the subject matter of the debate. To be fair to him, though, it was a balanced speech we just heard. He spent five minutes reading out Labor transcripts and five minutes reading out departmental documents. This isn't good enough. What we need to be doing in this place, as lawmakers, is talking about freedom from discrimination, not licensing further discrimination.

I want to set out my values and views, as the minister has seemed reluctant to do and the Prime Minister has refused to do. I believe that everyone should feel proud to be who they are, especially so at school. I think everyone understands how important that is for children at school, for young people finding their way in the world, who are finding out about their sexuality and gender identity and whose relationship status should not shape the quality of the education they receive. It's also, of course, true for teachers and staff. They should not be discriminated against in the course of their employment.

What we heard today in question time from the Prime Minister, though, was no statement of his values, no statement of how he sees these issues. He talked about the Ruddock report, of course, and I'll come back to that. He said of that report that there are many views on these issues, but he did not say what his are. That is unacceptable. We shouldn't be licensing hurtful and harmful discrimination against children or against adults, and the Prime Minister should clearly set out what he thinks about this.

It is also utterly inappropriate for the government to hide this question of discrimination behind the Ruddock review, for two reasons. One is that this is a secretive process that has sat in government for five months—for five months! And, fundamentally, the Ruddock review, the Ruddock investigation of so-called religious freedom, should not be the basis upon which we decide whether or not to continue discrimination against LGBTI young people or LGBTI workers. Their rights should take prominence. Their rights should be pre-eminent in this debate.

It is also disappointing in circumstances where we have seen some movement from the Prime Minister in response to the Leader of the Opposition's letter and in response to the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition reaching across the aisle so this parliament can join together in rejecting discrimination. We welcome the Prime Minister's movement as far as it goes, but it could, should and must go further, for plenty of reasons that go to the principle here but also to the standard that we set in this place.

I was disturbed by comments today by the member for Petrie, who talked about this issue as being an absolute beat-up. How callous, how wrong and how hurtful not to recognise the harm that is being done to lives—to the lives of young people and to the lives of teachers, some of whom have been discriminated against in the course of their employment by reason of their sexuality or by reason of their gender identity. It is utterly shameful that a member of this place would describe this issue as an absolute beat-up. Of course it is not. It is a challenge for all of us who are lawmakers to respond to. It is a challenge for the leadership of this government, in particular the Prime Minister, to clearly set out what his views are, what is right and what is not right. What is not right in this place is to allow continued discrimination for children or adults.

The minister in his contribution talked about context. What he means by 'context' is giving us a history lesson. What we are talking about here are provisions which have been substantially in place since 1984 and which were amended in 2013 by all of us. This is a law on the statute books that belongs to all of us as lawmakers. It is a law that is no longer fit for purpose. It is a law that should be changed. I invite government members to think about whether they can continue to stand up for this discrimination, whether it's in education directly or in employment.

The last point I want to make is to respond to something the minister said. He said the government is focused on protecting the best interests of children. Well, he's got a chance to make that right. He's got a chance to actually ensure that discrimination in schooling comes to an end. When he talks about teachers, too, it's fine for him to talk about the work that he's doing, but he could not once mention in a 10-minute contribution whether he is concerned about discrimination against LGBTI teachers. That isn't good enough.

See this speech in context