Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018, a bill put forward by my colleagues from the Greens, and particularly Senator Siewert, that seeks to amend the Sex Discrimination Act and the Fair Work Act. The objective of this bill, as we know, is to ensure that independent schools cannot reject either a student or a teacher based on their sexuality.

It's funny, I was reflecting as I was preparing for this how just over two years ago I came to this place thinking that my most valued and considered contributions would be economic—that I would stand in this place and speak with knowledge, authority and experience on tax, on superannuation, on investments, on banking or on property rights—and I find myself just over two years in, and here I've been talking about same-sex marriage and euthanasia and freedom of speech and now religious freedoms. It has taken me by surprise just how many of these issues have arisen in such a short space of time. I suppose, as a daughter of ageing parents, as a single woman who deals with the prejudices and preconceptions that that itself brings, as a sister of a teacher, and as a mother of school-aged children also on the cusp of adulthood, I find that—like all of us—even on issues in which I never used to think of myself as an expert, I have a contribution to make and a perspective to give. What an extraordinary privilege that is. I was particularly proud to contribute to those debates, and most particularly, I think, the same-sex marriage debate with Senator Smith. Some of those debates were highly emotional and emotive and very personal.

But I am also very proud to contribute to this debate, and I commend the sentiment of this legislation. Let me acknowledge the intent of Senator Siewert and the Greens in bringing this legislation forward today, because, of course, our priority here is children. Acting Deputy President, in approaching a debate such as this, it would be difficult to not first point out the profoundly meaningful statement of Harvey Milk—you will recall he was the first openly gay, publicly elected official in the state of California—who in 1977 said:

All young people, regardless of sexual orientation or identity, deserve a safe and supportive environment in which to achieve their full potential.

I genuinely appreciate the concern we all share for our children; indeed, my concern for my own is never far away. Australia's education system must secure our children from discrimination. That is why the government has worked very effectively already to reach this outcome—because, like Harvey Milk, like the most reasonable and fair-minded citizens, we seek an education system where our young people have the opportunity to reach their full potential. The suggestion otherwise—that they might not be protected—is unacceptable and, indeed, it is unthinkable. We all agree on this, and the suggestion that we don't agree on this is, quite frankly, an insult.

It is imperative to protect children from acceptance or rejection from a school on the basis of their sexuality. Such a notion is out of step with the values of parents, with school communities, with religious communities and with society. As a government, our first responsibility, we must remind ourselves, is to generations to come, and on this we can, mercifully, all agree.

It's worth reflecting on what led us here. The Ruddock review was commissioned by this government to examine where religious freedoms may be limited in contemporary legislation. Many of the arguments regarding the Ruddock review have been well canvassed. It requires re-emphasis, though, to remind the chamber that this was a report to government, not a report by government, that advocates protections for students from discrimination. That report has not yet been released. It has not yet been published. It has not yet been considered by cabinet. I personally haven't read it. What we have seen of the Ruddock review proposes restrictions to the laws introduced by the previous Labor government, which gave religious schools greater ability to expel students where the school considered it was necessary according to the doctrines of the religion in question.

I remind the Senate again that I have not read the Ruddock review in full; however, it is potentially worth drawing the attention of the chamber to recommendation 8, which we have seen published. It says:

Jurisdictions should abolish any exceptions to anti-discrimination laws that provide for discrimination by religious schools with respect to students on the basis of race, disability, pregnancy or intersex status.

Few people would find disagreement with that view because it goes to the heart of ensuring that Australia remains a tolerant and cohesive society, and a cohesive democracy. This government aims to balance the rights between religious freedom and freedom of conscience fairly with the right of our children to be free from discrimination. So let me reiterate my colleague Senator Paterson's sentiments that it's time to consider the report holistically and that's the only responsible response to the Ruddock review.

I'd also like to briefly reflect on the educational environment in Australia. We are so extraordinarily lucky in this country to have the education system that we have, not that it's perfect by any stretch. There is still much work to be done to ensure that our educational standards reflect our prosperity, our opportunity and the modern economy and flourishing democracy that we enjoy. But we are very lucky, largely because we have choice. We have a state education system that guarantees every child a quality education from prep right through to year 12, complimented by an independent education system that provides families with alternatives that better suit their personal priorities, objectives and values. Those schools have different fee structures and are subsidised to better ensure that they are accessible to families and communities that align with them. That choice is a very precious thing; not all countries have it. It is something that we cherish, and it is something that we should continue to nurture. It reflects the fundamental truth that parents and families are the people best placed to make decisions on behalf of their children. Parents know what's best for their children, not government.

As many in the chamber would know and as I mentioned earlier, I have three children—three teenagers all at various stages of adolescence, some of it uglier than others. They are all of school age. Their father and I made the decision a long time ago to send them to an independent school that reflected the values we held dear, and we've been very happy with that decision. The schools they go to are quite old and traditional, but their values are timeless and their attitudes are contemporary. They seek to create an environment of not just tolerance, which is a word I actively dislike—tolerance is something that you have for something you find distasteful or ugly. I prefer that my children's school creates a culture of acceptance and understanding, and values the contribution of every member of that school community. So my boys are at an Anglican school. They have a chapel and they have a chaplain. They also have a gay-straight alliance, which is a senior school student-led group. It works to break down stereotypes and build inclusiveness across peer groups, and that's something I value. Like many other contemporary schools, their faith is quite central to their values, but the school community makes it clear that it appreciates that diverse viewpoints and identities are what connect us all to the lives and experiences of others. They build our capacity for empathy and understanding, and they're what challenge our ideas about people and society, and that's what I want for my children. It may not be for every family. That's fine. That's what choice is all about, and that was the choice for my family. I don't believe it's an ethos that's particularly uncommon in contemporary independent schools.

It is the responsibility of government, however, to protect children, and that is exactly what we're doing. Our government does not support the expulsion of students from religious non-state schools on the basis of their sexuality. That is a view that, as I've said, is widely shared across our country. It is a view that is in line with community expectations. As a government, we are taking actions to ensure that amendments are introduced as soon as practicable to make it clear that no student of a non-state school should be expelled on the basis of their sexuality. Prime Minister Scott Morrison has been unequivocal that we are here to ensure children are at the centre of our considerations of these issues. The law that we currently have, which the Labor Party brought in, doesn't do that.

There are wider implications which I wouldn't mind talking through in a little more detail. With the media attention and sensationalism around this topic we seem to have glossed over the reality that religious schools are not campaigning for the freedom to expel students on the basis of sexuality; in fact they have come out in support of amendments to protect against such a thing, rejecting the efforts of certain members of this parliament to sensationalise for their own political agenda, a very disappointing behaviour indeed. Let's imagine in some alternative universe that schools had the luxury of pondering on the sexuality of their students rather than focusing on delivering quality education. Let's imagine that teachers and even principals were out there expelling students willy-nilly on this basis and no other. Do members here genuinely believe the wider school community would accept this? Of course not. Would Australians accept this? Of course they wouldn't. There would be complete and utter outrage, and rightly so. We won't support the politicisation of our school students and we won't allow the Greens to make this an issue. We won't allow them to try to pit Australians against each other.

Independent and religious schools receive public funding and as such have a responsibility to operate in line with community and legal expectations, and they do. The gap in this legislation can be dealt with quickly and effectively, and that's what we will do. I am very proud of the fact that we're working constructively for our children on this issue, because we have that responsibility to determine the boundary to protect our most vulnerable. We have a responsibility to ensure legal protections are in place that protect children from any type of discrimination in a world that's becoming increasingly polarised. I need not labour the point that many children are struggling with their sexual identity and often face incredible pressures and even sometimes violence. Some may not even know that they face this as a result of sexuality, and they face unsafe and unsupportive environments that are confusing and quite traumatic. It would be unthinkable that this government or any would allow this to continue. That's why we're taking the steps that we are taking to end the right of any school to discriminate against students.

This is a consensus that we have reached. It is unfortunate that the Greens persist in waging a divisive campaign of identity politics. It is also our duty to respect parental choice. This is particularly important. The legislation that we have before us today seeks to go further than just protecting children; it seeks to compel religious schools to either hire or not release teachers who may not adhere to the religious values of that school. Let me go back to my own children's experience. There are so many different types of schools with hundreds of variations represented, but every school wants the same thing from their staff: passionate teachers that share the school's values and are committed to shaping students' futures, preparing our children for fulfilling and meaningful lives in which they are able to make a contribution. I know that my children's school, an Anglican school that values its faith and religion, has a number of teachers that would identify as LGBTIQ. That made no difference to my children's quality of education. Indeed sometimes I believe it may well have enhanced it.

I know that the call to protect teachers comes from a good place, and again I tip my hat to the Greens. I know their intentions here are good if not a little bit politically opportunistic, but teachers are adults, and they choose to work at the workplaces they do, where their values are reflected and their skill sets are valued. School communities are made up of adults who choose their teachers based on their values and skill sets, and teachers are adults who make that choice as well. This legislation treats both teachers and school communities not like the adults that they are but like the children that they teach, in need of protection by the state through rules set out by those who know better. I object to that patronising assumption that, without this legislation, suddenly LGBTIQ teachers will be persecuted or at risk, and that, unless the government and Big Brother comes in and prevents it, schools and school communities who today have shown no signs of discrimination in the hiring and firing of staff and value their teachers for the skills that they bring will suddenly tomorrow become laden with prejudice and intolerance, in need of laws to restrain their newly discovered bigotry and homophobia. As Liberals, we are always reluctant to legislate for a problem that doesn't exist. I am genuinely concerned that this is one of those times.

More importantly, though, I object to the implication in part of this legislation that there is an us-and-them mentality, that Australia is divided somehow into those who are tolerant and those who are waiting on the opportunity to persecute those of whom they disapprove. I have a much higher opinion of the common sense of school communities, religious groups and, indeed, all Australians than do my colleagues in the Greens. The government's position is that we need not conflate protecting young children from expulsion with the employment practices of adults. That conflation is opportunistic, it is intolerant and it is contemptuous.

The Ruddock review still hasn't been made public. It hasn't been considered appropriately by cabinet and, when it is considered, we will make recommendations in an objective and fulsome manner. The government will then choose which recommendations it agrees with and which it does not and it will act accordingly. It is not unreasonable, as the coalition asks, that we are given appropriate time and space in which to do this. Australians hold their freedoms very dear, whether it be freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of the press or freedom to pursue the faith of their choice without retribution or obstruction. Legislating for or against freedoms is not something that should ever be done lightly, hastily or thoughtlessly or, dare I say, motivated solely politically.

My personal position is that teachers play such an important role in the lives of our children. They are educators, they are the tough cop on the beat and they are boundary setters, role models, mentors and inspirations. They are the bows from which are children, as living arrows, are sent forth. A person's sexuality should not be a consideration when judging somebody's moral worth. On this, we can agree. And, on this, independent schools already agree. Protecting our children is a clear responsibility of government and, indeed, it is a responsibility of society as a whole. The government is taking action to ensure that there are amendments introduced to the Sex Discrimination Act as soon as possible to make it clear that no student of a non-state school should be expelled on the basis of their sexuality. The Attorney-General is preparing those amendments right now, and the opposition will be consulted as a part of that process.

There are plenty of issues in this place on which our politicians across the divide disagree.