Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (5) to (9) and (11) to (15) together:

(5) Clause 7, page 10 (line 18), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".

(6) Heading to clause 8, page 11 (line 30), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".

(7) Clause 8, page 12 (lines 1 and 2), omit paragraph (a), substitute:

(a) establishing, directing, controlling or administering a hospital; or

(aa) if the religious body solely or primarily provides aged care services—the provision of the services; or

(8) Heading to clause 9, page 12 (line 17), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".

(9) Clause 9, page 12 (line 22), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".

(11) Clause 9, page 12 (line 28), omit "facility", substitute "service provider".

(12) Clause 9, page 13 (lines 4 to 7), omit paragraph (2)(b), substitute:

(b) a body (a religious aged care service provider) that solely or primarily provides aged care services in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion;

(13) Heading to subclause 9(3), page 13 (line 15), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".

(14) Clause 9, page 13 (line 18), omit "facility", substitute "service provider".

(15) Clause 9, page 14 (line 8), omit "facility", substitute "service provider".

As I'd indicated, this is an amendment which deals with in-home aged care. More than a million older Australians receive in-home service and those Australians deserve to be treated with dignity. Any suggestion that it is acceptable to discriminate against them, these older Australians, for any reason should be rejected by this parliament, and yet that is what this bill does suggest in a tricky and underhanded way. The bill in its current form would allow a religious in-home aged-care provider to discriminate on the basis of religion in the provision of services. The government did not announce this, it has not explained this and the provision in this bill but that would allow this is deliberately obscure.

We have COTA, a key advocate for older Australians, to thank for identifying this issue. When it was drawn to our attention we assumed it was a drafting error and so when we raised it with the government we thought we would be able to agree on sensible amendments to address COTA's concern. But the government refused our request for an amendment, because apparently it is not a drafting error at all; it is the Morrison government's intention that religious in-home aged-care providers should be permitted to discriminate in the provision of services under this bill.

We support the right of a religious aged-care service provider to give preference to persons of the same religion in making hiring decisions, in selection of staff. There is no federal law that stops a religious aged-care service provider from doing that now and this bill wouldn't change that. But, since Labor amended the religious exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act nine years ago, no federal law has permitted discrimination by aged-care service providers in the provision of services, and this bill would change that. Under the bill, religious in-home aged-care service providers are treated differently to residential care providers, because in-home care providers will be permitted to discriminate in the provision of services on the basis of religion.

If there's a good reason for this, the government has not explained it. In fact, those opposite haven't been upfront about the fact of this new basis for discrimination at all, let alone their justification for creating it. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at the government's embarrassment about this provision. After all, this is a government with an appalling track record when it comes to meeting the needs of older Australians. COTA has said that the treatment of in-home aged-care service providers, under the bill, will send a chilling message to older people who are vulnerable that their aged-care provider may no longer treat them with the dignity and respect that the current law ensures they receive.

Labor's amendment would ensure that all religious aged-care service providers are treated the same under the bill so that no provider will be permitted to discriminate against older, vulnerable Australians on the basis of religion. This should be an uncontroversial amendment. It should really go without saying, and the government should be ashamed of itself for trying to sneak this into the bill and then persisting with it, when COTA, a key advocate for older people across Australia, has drawn the problem to their attention. I would urge the House to support Labor's amendment.

See this speech in context