Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and the related bills. Last September I was sitting on a chair outside Brisbane Airport when I saw a taxi in the queue, with other cars shuffling around the car and going to the front of the queue. I was a little intrigued. Had the car broken down? What was going on? Then I saw a man on his knees, on his prayer mat, on the pavement. He was praying. He was uninterrupted; he quietly and earnestly practised his faith. The man then rolled up his prayer mat, opened his car door, started the car and rejoined the taxi queue.

I smiled. I remember at the time being so proud of our Australian community, thinking that in so many countries of the world such an open act of faith could face persecution and perhaps even death. I don't believe there's a single person in this place who does not support the concept that a person should be able to practise their faith and not incur fear, abuse or obstruction. I think that view is also universally shared across the Mayo community. I note we have many churches and Christian schools held in high regard by my wider community because of their inclusive culture and the care they've provided to our whole community. This was particularly seen during the bushfires and, more recently, during COVID.

I consider myself a person of faith. I don't attend a specific church with regularity, but I do believe that it's a determinant of the depth of my faith or relationship with God. I attended a Catholic secondary school and all three of my children have attended faith based schools.

Firstly, I would like to thank the hundreds of people from Mayo who have written to me to express their views about this bill. Some were campaign emails for and some against. Many were heartfelt and personal, and I thank them for helping me to shape my position in voting on this bill. While I support protection against discrimination on the basis of religious belief or activity, I do hold a number of concerns about this bill. It will privilege some and yet weaken existing protections for others. Specifically, this bill has the potential to cause a real harm to women, to people with disabilities, to people from the LGBTQIA community and to people who rely on other anti-discrimination laws to protect them from offensive, insulting, humiliating and intimidating conduct. In short, I cannot support this bill in its current form.

I'd like to mention to the House the particular clauses that I have concern with. Clause 9 gives licence for religious hospitals, aged-care facilities, accommodation providers and disability service providers to discriminate by allowing such bodies to have a hiring policy that would privilege employment of those of the same religion or denomination. Essentially, a Catholic aged-care facility could have a policy of only hiring Catholic employees. Effectively, we are saying to institutions that sit within a secular society, which effectively operate due to government funds for the delivery of services, that they can take secular dollars and create an exclusive club on the grounds of religious belief. I believe this is harmful and unnecessary. Surely the threshold should be that the employee hired—whether that be a nurse, a careworker or indeed a doctor—is qualified and competent? Surely those employed could be more representative of the people they serve and of Australian society?

Clause 11 is another clause that I have particular issue with. It provides powers to override some state and territory laws. Effectively, this clause gives schools the right to discriminate in their employment practices, which would override state and territory antidiscrimination laws that prohibit such schools from terminating employment or refusing employment based on sexuality or gender.

The following are some examples of discrimination that have occurred in the past. These were highlighted by the Independent Education Union and detailed in their submission to the bill. I think it's important to mention some of these examples, as discussed, but I have to say that they are difficult to hear:

A male primary school principal in western NSW was contacted by the Catholic Education Office to advise that they "had become aware" that his marriage had broken up and that he was reportedly in a new relationship, as was his wife. The view of the employer was that his current lifestyle was no longer compatible with that of leadership of a Catholic school and that he needed to move.

Another example:

Two women teachers had been in a same sex relationship for over ten years. One was in a co-ordinator role in a metropolitan Diocese secondary school and the other worked in a Catholic independent school. They decided to have a baby and were subsequently reported to the Diocese Bishop after being seen with the baby at a shopping centre (not in area of the school). CEO said that it had no other option than to move their employee to another school and remove her co-ordinator's allowance. She did not accept the offer and resigned …

…   …   …

A teacher at a Christian school had been associated with the school for over 25 years and three of her four children were also at the school. When her marriage broke up, with some associated—

family violence—

issues which required time for medical, counselling and legal appointments … the Principal spoke to the member about the responsibilities of Christian marriage. The implication was that the member's current marital status was no longer consistent with her role at the school and that she should consider moving on——

So, effectively, there was the loss of a marriage, domestic violence and the loss of a job—

A teacher at a Brethren school in WA was separated from his wife an in the process of obtaining a divorce. He commenced a relationship with another partner. He was dismissed by the school.

A teacher employed by a Catholic diocesan school was dismissed as a consequence of becoming pregnant via IVF.

…   …   …

… regional diocese is currently requiring applicants for employment to fill in a form that the union says would permit discrimination on the grounds of disability as a detailed medical history, which is not limited to issues relevant to the requirements of the job, is required to be disclosed.

…   …   …

Regional diocese. Divorced teacher. A male colleague's car was seen outside her house. The member was formally warned and lost her position of leadership. There were no consequences for the male colleague.

In an Islamic school, an issue arose concerning a lesbian teacher whose partner is pregnant. The employer advised her that she could not claim leave. In the event that she does seek leave she has confirmed with school that dismissal will follow.

One of the arguments, I think, that is missing from the conversation is that a teacher, a nurse or a student can be a person of faith and can be divorced, gay or transgender, and many people of faith are single parents. These are not mutually exclusive elements, and surely the threshold for employment for a teacher or a nurse is for that person to hold appropriate qualifications, and with respect to a teacher that they can willingly and competently teach the curriculum as presented to them.

Clause 12 is, I believe, perhaps the most concerning element of this bill: the statements of faith. This effectively will create, I believe, open mic night for some organisations and perhaps some people of faith to say and do whatever they like no matter how hurtful, no matter how discriminatory. It is an incredibly powerful clause that allows such a statement of faith to override existing federal, state and territory laws. I'm always concerned in this place when we seek to override state or territory laws. It is an overreach by the Commonwealth, and in this case it seeks to water down the protection of people in some states and territories. The statement of faith will ensure that discrimination will flourish and bigotry will prosper. As mentioned by the Australian Lawyers Alliance, this statement of faith is:

… effectively legislated bigotry, by enabling religious statements of belief to be used as a cloak for sexism, racism, homophobia and other prejudices.

Many others have touched upon the concerns for same-sex attracted students. We must ensure that all children, all young people, are loved and supported in their school environment. It is supposed to be a nurturing place. Many students do not have a choice of where they are educated and, sadly, for many children and many young people school is the safest place. We need to ensure that it remains so.

Whether you look at the Commonwealth anti-discrimination statutes—the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984, the Age Discrimination Act 2004 or the Disability Discrimination Act 1992—the one element that all of those bills share is that they are set up to be shields, and the main purpose is to provide protection from discrimination. However, I don't believe this bill is the same. It does provide a shield and it does protect people to practise their religion, which is widely supported, and, again, the greatest merit in this bill is that factor. However, in equal measure, it provides a sword—many swords—in the ability to discriminate against others and it privileges the freedom of religious expression above other freedoms from discrimination. Is that the Australia we want to create—a society that places some people's rights and beliefs above others? I don't believe so.

After listening to the debate and reading through many, many submissions, I cannot support this legislation as it currently stands and call on the government to instead introduce a universal bill of rights. We are, I believe, the only Western democracy that doesn't have one. We need to ensure that everyone shares the same freedom and protections. Thank you.

See this speech in context