Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (12):

(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 10), after item 5, insert:

Fair Work Act 2009

5A Section 12

Insert:

educational institution means a school, college, university or other institution at which education or training is provided.

5B Paragraph 153(2)(b)

After "institution", insert "(that is not an educational institution)".

5C Paragraph 195(2)(b)

After "institution", insert "(that is not an educational institution)".

5D Paragraph 351(2)(c)

After "institution", insert "(that is not an educational institution)".

5E Paragraph 772(2)(b)

After "institution", insert "(that is not an educational institution)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (lines 4 to 7), omit subsection 47C(4).

(3) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 10), at the end of the Schedule, add:

10 At the end of section 23

Add:

(4) Paragraph (3)(b) does not apply to accommodation provided by an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed:

(a) in connection with the provision of education or training by the educational institution; or

(b) in connection with employment by the educational institution.

11 After subsection 37(2)

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:

(a) the act or practice is connected with the employment of a member of the staff of the educational institution; or

(b) the act or practice is connected with the position of a contract worker that involves the doing of work in the educational institution; or

(c) the act or practice is connected with the provision of education or training by the educational institution; or

(d) without limiting paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of this subsection—immediately before the commencement of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Act 2022, the act or practice:

(i) was not unlawful under this Act; but

(ii) would have been unlawful apart from section 38.

Note: Former section 38 provided that certain provisions of this Act did not render it unlawful for a person to discriminate in certain circumstances connected with an educational institution conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed if the person discriminated in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.

12 Section 38

Repeal the section.

These amendments do one thing and one thing only, and it's a very simple thing that has been identified by a number of members during this debate as being of great concern with the bill. These amendments remove the statement of belief provision. That is all they do. They don't insert anything else. They remove the statement of belief provision from the bill.

That needs to be done for two important reasons. The statement of belief provision, firstly, is the most novel provision of this bill and, secondly, is the most pernicious. It's the most novel in that this bill is supposedly about protecting people from victimisation on the basis of religion. Now, the principle of including religion as a prohibited attribute, as it were, on the basis of which you can't discriminate or victimise is something that I think most people in this parliament would agree with. It would probably have universal agreement in this parliament. But this bill does something that other discrimination legislation doesn't do: it inserts a new provision, a statement of belief provision, that is not found in other pieces of discrimination legislation. It is novel, it is unnecessary and it's gravely concerning. And this goes to the point about it the most—or a—pernicious aspect of this bill. Not only will it allow things to be done that will override state legislation—and we've heard about that and about how it would take away protections that are enshrined in legislation in, for example, Tasmania.

What it also does, this statement of belief provision, is open up new grounds for discrimination to occur. We've heard example after example, from members from both sides, of statements that could be made that now might offend other provisions, other discrimination provisions, but will become lawful. These are the statements that will cause a lot of harm. These are the statements that are made when someone working in a healthcare area says to someone else, 'I think that your condition, your illness that your suffering, is a punishment from God because you're gay.' Or statements that are directed at a transgender student or staff member that might not be about expelling them, but might be something that is designed to make, or has the effect of making, their life a misery. These are the statements that would currently not be protected, but are going to open up a whole new suite of discriminatory and harmful behaviour.

What this amendment does is remove that provision that opens up a whole new suite of discrimination. It still allows other provisions in the bill to continue, including protections for religious belief against victimisation and against discrimination, so those are untouched; however, what it does is very simply say one thing: 'This new statement of belief provision is unnecessary. It's new and untested and broad. And it's harmful.' I would say to the House that I know there might be some others who will move amendments around the statement of belief section, but there is a reason this one is first in order of proceedings, and that is because it does a very simple job. It just says that statement should be removed. We can still have the rest of the legislation, which includes protection on the basis of religion, if that's what people want to vote for, but it removes the ability to introduce what has been called a sword into this legislation. So the shield will remain, but the new provisions that open up a range of potential new harm will go.

I say to the House, with respect to others who are moving amendments, this is the simplest way to do it. This new, untested and potentially harmful provision should not survive in this legislation. We can have a debate or a discussion another day, about whether something like this is needed, but lets now, for those who want to support this legislation, allow it to proceed on the basis of other forms of legislation, to stand side by side with other protections in discrimination, but without this harmful provision.

See this speech in context