Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018. Many Australians were horrified to learn that schools across Australia had the power to discriminate, expel and fire students and teachers simply on the basis of who they are, simply on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity. Australians were horrified to learn through the Ruddock review, a review that was intended to increase discrimination, that this discrimination existed in laws right across the country. We heard the Prime Minister say, during the course of that national debate, that he would introduce legislation to ensure that this area of discrimination in law would be removed so that no child is discriminated against, so that no student is expelled for simply being who they are. We want to give force to those words because we're yet to see any action from the government with regard to legislation that would make sure that no child and no teacher spends another day without these basic protections that should be afforded to them.

We have to accept that this discrimination has a real and harmful impact on many people right across the country. Firstly, we know that it has a direct and material impact, because this discrimination does happen and these laws are enforced by some religious schools and educational facilities. Just this week we heard the story of Craig Campbell, a teacher in Western Australia who lost his job after telling his school he was in a same-sex relationship. Craig was a practising Christian and had been teaching at the school for two years. The school mentioned nothing about his performance as an educator. It was a straightforward case of discrimination. He was sacked because he was gay. Those actions have no place in modern Australia. They have no place in any decent or civilised modern democracy.

In the lead-up to the Wentworth by-election, when there is a level of engagement on this and many other issues, it is one of those rare moments that political parties are listening to the Australian community about what their wants and desires are for this country—for the sort of community that their children grow up in, for the sort of environment that they live in, for what their workplaces look like. Today, through this debate, we've got the opportunity to end discrimination against those kids and, indeed, teachers who right now are struggling with their gender identity or sexuality. If this bill is passed, we will achieve something significant for all of those people. It's not just about where these laws have been enacted and enforced by individual schools. It is about the message that simply the existence of these laws sends, particularly to young people who are coming to terms with their own sexuality and hearing from their communities that the way they feel is somehow wrong, that it's morally repugnant. That's what these laws do; they send that message.

Only recently we went through a national debate on the marriage equality plebiscite, where the very worth of these young people was questioned. Their worth was questioned in a national debate so that they were made to feel somehow abnormal—that their rights, the way they felt, somehow did not fit the values we expect from members of our community. Well, that's got to stop, and that's what this bill will do. It will send a very strong statement whereby once again we will come together as a community and say that discrimination of this sort has no place in modern Australia.

The Prime Minister now has an opportunity to support this legislation and give force to the words he uttered only a few days ago, when he said he didn't support this sort of discrimination. But let's be very clear about this. We need to end discrimination not just for young people but for people in the workplace. We won't accept changes that simply deal with the issue of young students. It must be wholesale reform that also addresses the issue of discrimination directed at teachers. If we pass these changes today, it means that the Sex Discrimination Act will be amended once and for all across the nation to ensure that unfair exemptions against students, teachers and indeed contractors in religious schools would no longer exist.

Many people across the community haven't been aware that this is an issue that obviously impacts on the LGBTIQ+ community. They haven't been aware of it because it's not something that we as a nation have had the courage to discuss. Well, that's what we're doing today, right now. As a result of the Ruddock review, the whole nation is aware of these discriminatory exemptions, and the reality is that most people object. It is heartwarming to know the outrage that so many decent Australians felt when they became aware of this legislation. People right across the country reacted with anger at the thought that a teacher given the privilege of educating young children would be sacked simply because of the sort of relationship that they're in.

The government knew that the community would be appalled to learn this. They knew, given the result of the marriage plebiscite, that there would be that sort of response. They knew that Australians would be angered that LGBTIQ teachers could be sacked not because of their performance but because of who they are, because of their identity. They know because there's a by-election around the corner and they're hearing it from the people of Wentworth. But, rather than take action, they are simply mouthing empty promises. They've refused to put legislation before this parliament.

We know that the only reason that this legislation has been met with the reaction it has been met with is the Ruddock review and the coverage that it got. The government tried to bury that report. We had the spectacle where the Leader of the Government in the Senate refused to provide that report so that there could be some transparency and so that we knew the full impact of discrimination across a whole range of areas in law. He refused to provide that material to the Senate, citing cabinet confidentiality. The Prime Minister belled the cat only a few days later when he made it clear that, indeed, the cabinet had not considered the Ruddock review, so the basis for denying that report to the Australian community was proven to be a falsehood.

That's why we're concerned when the Prime Minister says, 'We're going to move to change discrimination in law,' on the eve of a by-election, without presenting legislation. That's why we're sceptical, and that's why it's so important that we have this debate today and that we hear from the Leader of the Government in the Senate, from members of the Morrison cabinet and from senior members of the government on the record that they are going to move to end discrimination against students and against teachers.

Of course, this bill doesn't say that religion doesn't matter. Of course, it matters to many, many Australians. It is central to the lives of many Australians, and we respect their right to practise their religion in the way that they see fit. Indeed, there are still provisions in this bill which exempt bodies established purely for religious purposes who are responsible for the ordainment of priests, ministers of religion or members of any religious order. We respect the freedom of those institutions to be able to educate those practitioners in a way that is consistent with their faith. We believe in the right to freedom of religion, but that freedom is not the freedom to discriminate. It's not the freedom to say to a young person, 'You are not valued in the same way as somebody else who might not express their sexuality or gender identity in the way that you do.'

We've stood by many communities in the name of equality and fairness, be they cultural, religious or LGBTIQ+ communities. Why? Because it's the right thing to do and because we have integrity. But a party that strategically suppresses documents so that discrimination, in law, continues to remain protected is not a party that has integrity. A party that promises to do one thing before an election but doesn't provide a commitment to this chamber that it will do it after the election is not a party with integrity.

It is critical that this bill be debated today and over the course of the next two days. It is the pressure of a by-election that is forcing this government to act. These are rare moments, when parties are too busy focusing on themselves, too busy settling old scores, too busy seeking vengeance and payback and too busy settling vendettas. This is one of those rare moments where a party with a very slim majority has got an ear out to what the electorate is saying. That's an opportunity to ensure that we get this legislation passed and that we hear very clearly from senior members of the government that they will end all forms of discrimination. We need action now. We need politicians from all persuasions to stand for what is right and what is decent.

I have to say that the support of the Labor Party and crossbench to ensure we have this debate is something that we appreciate, and we want to put on the record our thanks to members of the Labor Party and the crossbench for ensuring this Greens bill is debated at a moment when people right around the country are listening and when the opportunity for change is here. I say to you that if you stand for decency, if you stand for respect and if you stand for fairness and equality, then you should support this legislation

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Vice-President of the Executive Council) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not be supporting the Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018, as the Prime Minister has previously indicated. In fact, as the Prime Minister announced on Saturday, the government will be introducing our own bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to ensure that no student of a non-state school can be expelled on the basis of their sexuality. As part of our consultations with the opposition, the Attorney-General is meeting today with the shadow Attorney-General to discuss our proposed draft amendments to give effect to that commitment. Subject to agreement between the government and the opposition in relation to our proposed amendments, we would be in a position to introduce those amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 as soon as possible during this sitting fortnight. Subject to agreement, it could be as early as tomorrow but certainly no later than next week.

I should also make very clear, as the Prime Minister has and other members of the government have, that our government does not support the expulsion of students from religious and non-state schools on the basis of their sexuality. This is a view that is widely shared, incidentally, by religious schools and communities across our country. The government is very happy and very keen to work with the opposition, with other parties and with other senators and members of parliament. We don't want to play politics with this. We just want to address the issue.

We are of the view that it is very sad that the inaccurate way the Ruddock review, in particular, has been reported has caused unnecessary anxiety amongst parents and amongst children. So we do want to see this issue addressed over this sitting fortnight. We will continue to work with the opposition and other interested members of parliament to help ensure that happens. I can again confirm on behalf of the government that the Attorney-General will be meeting today, or may have already started a meeting, with the shadow Attorney-General to discuss our proposed draft amendments to give effect to that commitment. We are in a position to move very swiftly and certainly during this sitting fortnight.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor welcomes the opportunity to address these issues, and I note Senator Cormann's remarks about moving forward with respect to them. Australia is a tolerant and accepting nation, and discrimination against LGBTI Australians has no place in our national laws. Equally, the right of our churches and churchgoers to live by their traditions and beliefs is also part of our national identity. Balancing these two things can be complex, and we know that there are many strong views in the current debate about how best to balance freedom of religion with the right of all Australians to live free from discrimination. We respect all of those views. We had hoped that this debate could be carried out in a mature and measured way. But, unfortunately, the government has had the review into religious freedom since May and has so far refused to release it so Australia can have a proper debate about these important issues. It's clear that they are doing this to hide it from the voters in Wentworth. Why else would they continue so consistently to refuse to release it?

Many religious education institutions have made it clear that they do not use these exemptions. However, we respect their view that they should be allowed to run their organisations in line with their beliefs. We respect the right of parents to send children to the school of their choice and to have their children educated in accordance with their religious convictions. We know that many parents choose religious schools because they want their children to be grounded in the identity and mission of a particular religious faith. We also understand that the mission of a religious school is delivered not just in religious education or scripture classes but also throughout the culture of the school via religious services, sporting activities, community service, student leadership and in many areas of the education curriculum.

When it comes to employment, we understand that religious schools and parents of students expect that teachers and staff support the ethos, values and principles of the particular faith, and not act in ways that undermine the school's mission. The reality is that staff who choose to work in religious schools understand this too, and that is why there are very few examples of faith based schools needing to rely on exemptions from the discrimination law based on identity when making employment decisions. We also believe that in 2018 these exemptions from discrimination for gender identity, sexual orientation and relationship status are out of step with community expectations and are no longer the best way to safeguard the mission and identity of religious schools.

While every employer is entitled to require employees to act and perform their duties in accordance with the stated policies and mission of their organisation, in the absence of such exemptions it is necessary to ensure that religious schools are positively entitled to teach and operate in accordance with their faith and mission.

We propose an affirmative position for religious schools that upholds their exercise of religious freedoms and freedom of association. Our approach to legislation on this issue would remove exemptions from the Sex Discrimination Act that would allow schools to discriminate against children and staff on the basis of sexuality or gender identity. We would also like to see in legislation a recognition that religious schools are entitled to require employees to act in their roles in a way that upholds the ethos and values of that faith, and that this requirement may be taken into account when a person is first employed and in the course of their employment.

This is where we have some concerns about the narrowness of the Discrimination Free Schools Bill that the Greens have introduced this week. Our concern is that, while the bill does appear to address one side of the equation—that is, removing discrimination—it appears to do so without addressing the other side of the equation that I've already talked about: the right of religious communities and their institutions, such as schools, to educate in accordance with the doctrines of their faith. We do not say that finding the right balance between these two principles is easy. I've already indicated that we respect that that's quite complex, particularly in the legislative context, but we are concerned that this bill does not appear to grapple with the problem and addresses only the question of removing discrimination.

Another concern we have about the bill is that it would appear that it might remove the right of religious seminaries—as opposed to religious schools—to discriminate. So while we in Labor will work to amend our laws so that religious schools are no longer able to discriminate against students and their staff on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status, we do not believe that this change to the law should extend to religious seminaries. As we have done previously, we call on the government to come to the table and work with the opposition and the crossbench on a suitable way forward. As I've previously noted, Senator Cormann has indicated some elements of that path. It is disappointing, though, that despite saying they were willing to do so earlier in the week, the government had so far refused to do so—so some benefit of the Greens introducing this bill has been to assist in bringing the government to the table. The government could start by releasing the religious freedom report so that we can discuss these issues constructively. Whilst the recommendations of the report have been leaked, we still lack the consideration, the discussion and the logic that the panel put to reaching those recommendations which address those very issues of balance in this area. We firmly believe that it is possible to protect religious freedom and protect people from discrimination. We call on the Senate, the government, the crossbench and the Greens to work together to do that in a respectful way.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm proud to rise to speak on this Greens bill, the Discrimination Free Schools Bill, which would remove exemptions from our federal anti-discrimination laws that currently allow religious schools to expel lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or gender-diverse students and to fire LGBT teachers and staff members simply because of who they are. The Greens have been fighting for years to end these exemptions. They were written into our anti-discrimination laws by the Labor Party and have persisted for far too long. These exemptions must be removed.

Imagine being a student at a religious school and knowing that, if you come out as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, gender-diverse or non-binary, you risk being expelled. Imagine the extra stress and burden that that places on you at a time when you're already feeling particularly vulnerable. The majority of Australians have been unaware of these discriminatory exemptions, but for LGBT+ people working at religious schools, many of them have gone to work each day knowing that, should they come out or let slip something that they shouldn't, or somehow have their sexuality or their gender identity discovered, they risk being fired and losing their job—just because of who they are. These exemptions have a devastating impact on people's lives.

Over the past week, so many people have come forward sharing their stories. We've heard how some teachers and staff members have been forced back into the closet as soon as they've been offered a job. We've heard how they've feared holding their partner's hand in public in case they bump into a colleague or a student who could out them, which would see them lose their job and their livelihood. We also know that LGBT+ people already suffer worse mental health than their heterosexual and cisgendered peers, because of the stress of things like these exemptions, which mean they could be expelled from their school or fired from their workplace.

Rainbow Families Victoria have collected stories of LGBT+ families whose lives are being affected by our current discriminatory laws and have shared them with members and senators. A future stepmother of five children, who's engaged to her same-sex partner, spoke out this week saying:

I teach at a conservative Catholic primary school. I am constantly afraid that someone will find out and that I will lose my job. I am the main income earner and my employment is incredibly important. I worry that I will lose my job. I worry that my employer won't give me a good reference if she finds out. This could affect my future employment opportunities. I feel like a criminal and I have done nothing wrong.

For others, these discriminatory exemptions have prevented them from applying for their dream jobs. Tim Hoffmann in my home state of Victoria shared his story with The Age earlier this week:

I have a Masters in Theology and want to teach in religious schools. However, I will never apply. I have absolutely no chance as, though I'm Christian, I am an openly gay man.

It was almost a year ago that the marriage equality postal survey results came in showing that the majority of Australians supported ending the discrimination in our marriage laws and making marriage equality a reality. It was a hard-fought and, for many queer Australians, personally difficult win but it confirmed what we had known for years—that Australian people have opened their hearts and truly embraced their LGBTIQ+ family members, friends and colleagues. For years now the majority of Australians have stood side by side with LGBTIQ members of our community in our fight for equality and against discrimination, and on this issue it is no different. A Fairfax poll released this week showed that an overwhelming majority, 74 per cent, of Australians oppose this discrimination. I am so heartened and unsurprised that the vast majority of Australians do not support this legalised discrimination against LGBT Australians.

Our parliament must support the people we represent and fix up these discriminatory laws. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull ordered the Ruddock religious freedom review last year as parliament moved to legislate for marriage equality. It was said that he did this as a sop to the right-wing hate-filled conservatives who continue to fight against equality until the very end, but it now seems the Ruddock review has not quite turned out the way they thought. It's only through the review's recommendations being leaked that the Australian people have been alerted to these discriminatory exemptions that have sat within our antidiscrimination laws for many years.

This Saturday, voters in the seat of Wentworth will be going to the polls to elect their new representative to replace former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. Despite the Liberals comfortably winning this seat in 2016, there is a very real chance the Liberals will lose Wentworth this Saturday, because the people of Wentworth are shocked by what this Liberal government has done—its devastating inaction on climate change, its ongoing torture of people seeking asylum and its interference with and funding cuts to the ABC. In the Liberals' desperation to cling on in Wentworth we've seen them release some shocking policies in the lead-up to this Saturday, yet we are still to see Prime Minister Scott Morrison release the full report of the Ruddock review, because the Liberals are afraid of drawing more attention to their awful policies towards LGBTIQ people. Ruddock is a former Liberal government minister after all. His review quite reasonably can be seen as a reflection of where this government is currently at with regard to allowing and entrenching discrimination.

We have now heard both Labor and the Liberals speak up big over the last week about how we need to make sure that LGBT students are not discriminated against. I was pleased to hear from Minister Cormann that he is now going to move quickly to amend legislation to stop the discrimination against LGBT students. It has been wonderful to see this backflip in the Liberals' position. It has also been wonderful to see the Labor Party come out to say that their position now is to end discrimination against students and to end discrimination against teachers and other staff. But it has only been because of the intense community pressure that both the Labor and the Liberal parties have changed their positions over the last fortnight.

So, our bringing on this debate today is a very important opportunity. It's an opportunity to get the government and the Labor opposition on the record about ending this discrimination before the pressure comes off after the vote in Wentworth on Saturday. We heard Minister Cormann say that, yes, he was happy and the government are going to move to end discrimination against students. But when it comes to teachers and other staff, he is silent. Despite the impact that this discrimination is having on teachers and staff at schools, the government remain silent. One can only presume that their intention is to continue to prosecute the case for allowing those discriminations to continue on in our antidiscrimination laws, to allow the continuation of discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender teachers and other staff.

We've got the Wentworth by-election coming up, and it's important that the voters of Wentworth know, because they overwhelmingly voted for equality and against discrimination in the marriage equality postal survey last year. Wentworth delivered an 81 per cent yes vote in the postal survey last year. So they deserve to know. Through this debate, they are able to hear where Labor and the Liberals stand before Wentworth goes to the polls this Saturday.

I'm really proud of the bill that we are debating today. It would remove exemptions not just for students at religious schools but for all teachers and staff members as well. And it would not just work to protect students, teachers and staff members on the basis of their sexuality and their sexual orientation but also on their gender identity. Trans and gender-diverse people have hardly been mentioned in the public debate over the last fortnight. We must ensure that trans and gender-diverse students cannot be expelled because of their gender identity and that trans and gender-diverse teachers and other staff members aren't able to be fired.

Yesterday Prime Minister Morrison said, and I quote: 'We must act right now. We can deal with this once and for all.' Well, Mr Prime Minister, you have an opportunity to act right now and remove this unfair discrimination once and for all. To act now and, particularly, once and for all means we've got to remove discrimination against students but also against teachers and other staff. We need to do it now. Labor and Liberal must turn their words into action and vote for this bill, vote for our Greens bill, to protect students, teachers and other staff members from being expelled or fired by religious schools just because of who they are. So I call on both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to work with us in good faith and support this Greens bill today—no ifs, no buts. Together, we can end this unfair discrimination once and for all.

James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to rise to speak on the Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018. I'm pleased to do so because it provides me with an opportunity to reassure people who may have been concerned by inaccurate media reporting in the past week on this issue. Before I get into the detail, I want to start with a broader, more fundamental point. As Australians, we are united by many things, but we also have disagreements. That is completely normal in any free society.

One area where we do disagree is matters of faith and morality. That is to be expected when we come from many different backgrounds. That disagreement, on its own, is not necessarily a problem. We do, however, have to find a framework to manage those differences that allows us to happily co-exist and live alongside each other, even though we disagree on some things. We need to do so in a way that respects the fundamental dignity of every Australian. Every Australian, whatever their beliefs, deserves to be treated with equal respect. They also deserve equal freedom to live their own lives according to their own values. No Australian should seek to impose on other Australians values that they don't share. We can, of course, do our best to persuade each other to our world view. But, if we are unsuccessful, we shouldn't resort to other means to force people to live as we choose to live. Effectively, what that means is that we need to accept our society is pluralistic. We can accommodate people of different views comfortably and happily if we all respect each other's freedom to live our own lives according to our own values. That does not require you to agree with or endorse other people's views. It does mean, though, that if you wish to enjoy your own freedom you have to respect the freedom of others, too. I think this is an intrinsically Australian trait. Almost all of us have a live-and-let-live attitude.

How does this apply to the bill before the Senate today? There are two groups of Australians who take a great interest in this issue. One group is gay Australians and their friends and families. The other group is people of faith. I want to reassure both. Firstly, I say to LGBTI kids: you might have read somewhere that someone wants to kick you out of school because you are gay; nothing could be further from the truth. I've been very actively involved in the religious freedom debate. I've met, corresponded with and heard from more people than I could count about religious liberty. In all that time, no-one, not once, has ever asked me to make it easier to kick gay kids out of school. Never. If they had, I would have told them, politely, where to go. I know that all my colleagues would have done the same. I know that life is not always easy for you. Nobody wants to make it any harder. You deserve to have the same right as anyone else to go to school without the fear of expulsion.

There is no proposal in the Ruddock review or anywhere else to make it easier to kick gay kids out of school. In fact, the Ruddock review actually recommends that the existing powers to do so should be substantially narrowed. The government will go one step further and will get rid of them altogether. We are doing so because a law that singles out gay kids has no place in Australia, and we're doing so with the full support of people of faith, their schools and their communities. They have told us that that this is a power that they don't use and don't want. They are not the intolerant bigots that they are sometimes unfairly made out to be. Incidentally, the law which permitted this at a federal level was in fact introduced by the former Gillard government and by the then Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus. This week, Labor senators have called this outdated. Australia certainly has changed since 2013, but not that much. It wasn't appropriate then, it's not appropriate now and our government will get rid of it.

The second group of people I want to reassure are people of faith. Your rights are no less important than those of any other Australian. Although I'm not personally religious, I know that, whatever your faith tradition, you are good Australians. You are not bigots, you are not reactionaries and you are not monolithic. You disagree with other people of faith as much as any other Australian, and I know you don't like all being put in one basket as if you were all the same. The government will act to protect your religious freedoms. We will do so because religious freedom is one of our most fundamental and cherished freedoms, although, sadly, today it is not well understood.

Religious freedom is the freedom to have faith, to not have faith, to change your faith or to leave your faith if you wish. It is a freedom for all Australians to enjoy equally and not just a freedom for those Australians who choose to worship on a weekly basis. We all have an interest in maintaining this freedom, regardless of our own beliefs. Societies without religious freedom are not societies any of us would want to live in, whether we are believers or not. Some societies have mandated one state religion. Others have banned religion altogether. Others still have made it a crime to change or leave your religion. What they have in common is that individual rights have been horribly trampled. None of us want to see Australia go down that road.

Religious freedom is also not just the freedom to believe in your faith. For people of faith, it is not sufficient just to believe. To live a life of integrity as a person of faith also means to live out those values in the world. Your actions, too, need to reflect your deepest and most sincerely held convictions. Forcing you to act contrary to them does limit your religious freedom. In this way, religious freedom is not really just about religion; it also encompasses free speech, freedom of association and freedom of conscience. That's not a coincidence. All of those fundamental freedoms—speech, association and conscience—were developed in the West in conjunction with, and as a result of, our evolving ideas about religious freedom. Philosophers like John Milton and John Locke developed our ideas about free speech in an explicitly religious context. For them, the question of the day was whether they should be free to speak about and debate religious questions. As Milton says:

Give me the liberty to know, to utter and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.

Obviously, our understanding of free speech today is much broader. It is not just for religious debates but for all issues of concern to Australians. But free speech remains an essential freedom for the maintenance of religious freedom. How can any of us exercise our right to believe, not believe or change our beliefs if we don't have the opportunity to hear competing ideas about faith?

Freedom of association is a particularly relevant component of religious freedom in the context of this bill. In a pluralistic society, freedom of association is a vital freedom that people use to come together with others who share their values in order to give expression to those values. Religious schools are a good example of that. Parents send their kids to faith based schools for many reasons. One important reason is that they want to ensure that their children are raised in their faith tradition and according to their values. It's a right that all parents share.

Like any other organisation with a mission, it is vitally important that faith based schools are able to ensure that their staff share the values of the school and are willing and able to teach those values to their students. Not every teacher will want to do this. In a pluralistic society, that's okay. There are lots of other schools where that will not be a problem. But it would be wrong to force a school to hire teachers who do not support, or were unwilling to teach, the values of the school. It would undermine their mission. It would undermine school choice—something that the Liberal and National parties strongly support. Any organisation founded with a purpose deserves that same freedom. It would be equally wrong, for example, to force an LGBTI organisation to employ someone who was opposed to gay rights. The government understands how important this freedom is to faith based schools. We will ensure that this freedom remains protected in Australia.

I want to make one final broader observation about the Ruddock review and the process of addressing concerns Australians have about religious freedom. For some weeks now, people have demanded that the review should be released in full. Then, unfortunately, it appeared in a partial form in the media. The inaccurate reporting we have seen since and the concern that this has created in the community demonstrate exactly why a cautious approach is warranted. This is a complex area of law. It is not easily reduced to a sound bite. It understandably attracts strong views. It's entirely appropriate that the report be released in conjunction with the government response to that report, to ensure that there's no unnecessary panic about what the government might do in responding to that report. That's a process our Attorney-General, Christian Porter, is leading. I have complete confidence in his capacity do so. It would be unwise for any government to rush its response in order to meet on artificial political deadline. The best policy which resolves the sincere hopes and concerns that Australians have about this issue is most likely to come from careful consideration and proper process, not kneejerk responses to media-induced panics.

It's unfortunate that the heat and light of this debate so far has largely been confined to one recommendation. It gives the misleading impression that this is the only area of interest or concern to people of faith when it comes to religious freedom. The truth is that there are much broader and often less contentious areas which are also of very significant importance. We cannot and will not allow this to derail our efforts to better protect religious freedom in Australia. There will be plenty of time for a proper public debate about these broader issues, and the normal government and parliamentary consultation processes, to ensure that all Australians have input into the final outcome. Ultimately, what we seek to do is ensure that all Australians are able to live with dignity and respect according to their own values. That should not be beyond our ability.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In starting my remarks today, I want to reflect on some of the experiences of discrimination and bullying that Australian students in our nation have, unfortunately, experienced. This quote comes from a young trans person:

If my school had been even remotely LGBTIQ-friendly, my entire life would have been different. If it had not been overtly homophobic, even that would have been a good start. But it was not and I had a very rough time and felt there was no way out. Feeling increasingly disconnected with my body and distressed by the way it was changing, in Year 10 I stumbled across a YouTube video of a transgender man and I thought I might have finally found my answer—but I also knew there was little I could do about it. I stopped eating in the hope that I could stop puberty and I was cutting myself. I cried in the back of the classroom each day, but no one noticed. In Year 12, I tried to kill myself for the first time.

When we think about these issues before the parliament today, we need to think of the educational and, even more importantly, very personal outcomes and the wellbeing of children in our nation's schools.

I'm glad that this debate has now come to the fore. It seems that, as Senator Paterson said, the government wants to wait before putting anything substantive on the table—to wait for the Ruddock review to be formally released and to release its legislative response then. On that note, I very much question why, if they want to do this in a holistic, meaningful way, they rushed out their statements regarding the protection of students, frankly, in the context of the Wentworth by-election. The government's reluctance to release the Ruddock review speaks very loudly. You've continued the covering up of the review, and, to my mind, you're trying to keep all bases covered, both the homophobic and transphobic content in the report, perhaps, and the need to keep religious organisations on side. But we now have an opportunity for a mature debate around these issues.

I note the recommendation of the Ruddock review that has been leaked. Notwithstanding the fact that it narrows the grounds for discrimination that schools might seek to apply, it does allow religious schools to continue to discriminate against students. From what I can tell from the recommendations—although we can't see them in their full context—it would allow them to expel students based on their sexuality or gender identity. As I have highlighted with the quotes from the young person that I have quoted today, students should not have to face the brunt of this discrimination based on their gender identity, on their sexuality or on any facet of their identity.

I am pleased that the government has come forward and said it will go further in terms of preventing discrimination against all these young people. Our young people in Australia deserve to have the opportunity to socialise and learn in a school environment without the fear of being discriminated against, without the fear of being bullied or harassed—and they should not be exposed to bullying and bigotry. As the quote I put forward highlights, we know that LGBTIQ children and young people suffer from higher rates of poor mental health and engaging in self-harm. This is due to the bullying they experience and the stigma attached to their sexuality and gender. As the report I quoted from just now highlights, young people themselves say that there's nothing intrinsic about being lesbian, gay or transgender that makes them feel that way; it is the prevailing views of society in regard to the way they present themselves and the stigma and discrimination they receive for their identity. So we have a very important duty of care to protect young people and not expose them to these kinds of harms.

I note that the Ruddock report also wants to provide religious schools with an ongoing ability to discriminate against staff or contractors on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity. Labor does not believe that schools should have an automatic, innate right to do this. An innate attribute should not be a ground for discrimination. I have seen many cases where LGBTIQ teachers have faced hidden and unspoken pressure to hide their sexuality lest they be found out and risk losing their jobs over their identity.

I don't want to see this debate mirror the toxic debate that came with the marriage equality debate. It stirred up a great deal of anxiety for LGBTIQ Australians, for parents and children, about whether we would ever be accepted and when those attacks would end. Happily, with the passing of marriage equality through this parliament, we did make a great step forward and we know very clearly the views of a majority of Australians on these issues.

We know that the Ruddock review was given to the government in May. It is now October. Supposedly, it's been kept from this place because it's covered by cabinet confidentiality, yet the government say cabinet has not even considered it. The Australian public deserve to know what is in that report. Why keep it a secret if it doesn't contain inflammatory and discriminatory content? The timing of the Wentworth by-election suggestions that this is a ploy by government to cling to the majority in their federal seats. You're trying to manage the potential backlash on both sides. Frankly, we just want to see this place have a mature and proper debate about the substantive issues here. Without the leaks from Fairfax we would never have known about these recommendations.

We have a Prime Minister who has ham-fistedly flip-flopped in his response to this report regarding the power religious schools would have to discriminate on the grounds of a student's sexuality or gender identity. The Prime Minister, when first asked about these recommendations, defended them. He defended them by pointing out that there are already existing laws allowing religious schools to turn away LGBTIQ students, and I take great offence at the attacks from those opposite that it was the Labor Party that entrenched this discrimination in the Sex Discrimination Act. These exemptions have existed since the Sex Discrimination Act was first put in place. They didn't exist so that religious schools and other institutions could discriminate against LGBTIQ people, because we weren't even in the act at that time. It was to allow continued discrimination on the basis of marital status, pregnancy and other attributes such as being divorced et cetera. The Prime Minister said nine times that he defended the existing recommendations of the Ruddock review. But I'm very pleased that we have moved on from that, because we don't want to see degrading legislation in our country.

I have to say many states have now moved to prevent discrimination and make it unlawful to allow schools to discriminate on the basis of sexuality or gender. Labor is against discrimination, and our laws should reflect this value. We are a tolerant and accepting nation. Discrimination against LGBTIQ people has no place in our national laws. We are, therefore, also committed to protecting LGBTIQ students and staff from being discriminated against by religious schools. Last year we voted for equality and fairness, not more discrimination. Our laws should apply equally regardless of what your faith is, where you come from or who you love.

I have, over many years, heard very real stories and experiences from LGBTIQ students and students with LGBTIQ parents about the discrimination they have faced in our schools. Let's make it clear: this is not just about the sexuality and gender of young people or the gender identity of children. It is also about the discrimination that young people have suffered because their parents might be trans or their parents might be in a same-sex relationship. I have had friends and family subjected to this kind of discrimination. It has caused great distress, caused significant mental health impacts and, at times, caused young people to leave school and not finish their education, with a lifelong impact on their future. In saying that, I know how real this is. In my own family, I have members who have experienced discrimination way back, a long time ago, in Catholic schools because they had a single mother and they were at a Catholic school. That discrimination then increased when the child turned out to be non-gender conforming and to be a lesbian, and she just didn't fit in with the school. Inevitably, along comes a change in school circumstances; but it has a lifelong impact on people. It undermines their capacity to continue and complete their education.

It has been said that most schools don't actively discriminate. I know of many schools, including religious schools, that have wonderful LGBTIQ inclusion policies and have LGBTIQ students who are very well accepted and supported within that school community. However, it's not the same in all schools, and the fact that schools currently retain the power to discriminate can mean that young people who are having a hard time with bullying don't always come forward to get the support that they need. The quote I started this speech with very firmly illustrates that.

We welcome removing exemptions in relation to children in religious schools, but we are very disappointed that the Prime Minister has rejected our suggestion that we should be removing the exemption for staff. As Labor's shadow assistant minister for equality, as a member of the LGBTIQ community and very much also as a parent who's co-parenting with other LGBTIQ people, I know how important these protections are not only for myself but for my child. I add to the community that no young person should be subjected to discrimination at school. Our children's right to an education must be our first and foremost responsibility. We need strong discrimination laws to ensure equal treatment.

I do acknowledge that this debate has other sides to it. It is about respecting the rights of parents to send children to the school of their choice and to have children educated in accordance with their religious convictions. We want to see young people worrying about their homework not living in fear of mistreatment because of who they are. We want to see Australia's young people protected.

The debate has exposed that there are fundamental rights and freedoms of Australians that are lacking recognition currently. I really want to thank the leadership of Bill Shorten and Tanya Plibersek for bringing forward this debate in relation to the discrimination faced by students and teachers. It is not only for students to be protected from discrimination but also for teachers. I know of too many teachers that have feared for their job security not just because of their LGBTI status but also because they are pregnant and unmarried. These are teachers who have conducted themselves in the school environment within the ethos of the school—totally within the ethos of the school. It just happens that in their personal and private lives they might be LGBTI, they might be unmarried or they might get pregnant outside of marriage, and it causes them great concern for their job security. This should not be the case in today's day and age. People should not have to be secretive about their personal life and identity at school. Work is such a major part of your life. You should not have to hide such fundamental parts of your life for fear of losing your job. These are wonderful teachers, dedicated to their school community, their students and their profession.

All schools need procedures for hiring and firing teachers and maintaining the quality of their teachers. There's a great deal of conduct that our schools cannot and should not tolerate, and the ethos of that kind of conduct will vary from school to school. Schools will have varying policies, and the ethos of each will vary based on its morals and educational ethos. For example, a religious school might need to sack a teacher because they refuse to stop teaching creationism in science classes—it might be outside the school's curriculum—or you might have a Scientologist teacher trying to recruit students at a Catholic school. There's nothing wrong with being a Scientologist or anything else—actually I don't like Scientology much—but if you don't overstep the mark, if you don't bring those attributes to the classroom, then you should stay out of harm's way within the ethos of that school.

There are many much worse ways in which teachers might create very real moral perils for school students. It could be because their conversations with students about sex are too overt, a female teacher talks about being attracted to male students or a teacher talks about, I don't know, visiting a sex worker. There are plenty of things that are morally wrong.

For some schools, promoting something like marriage equality within the school community might very much be outside the ethos of that particular school. But the intrinsic identity of a teacher or a student—who you are as an individual person—should not be grounds for discrimination, dismissal or the need to be performance managed in any way. There are many examples where the conduct of an otherwise good educator might fall outside a school's ethics and ethos. I remember when a male teacher formed a relationship with a female student at a school I attended, and both left the school. I know of an incident where someone I knew was kissed in a state school by a teacher of the same sex at a school formal. I think that at the time the secrecy attached to that teacher's lesbian identity within the school only contributed to her poor behaviour: 'you and me against the world'. If people can't be open about their identity and who they are within a school environment, then that's where risk comes from.

None of these very real moral perils can be dealt with by carve-outs in antidiscrimination law for non-government schools. Schools already need to manage these kinds of workplace and classroom performance issues for students who have teachers with poor boundaries or a poor moral compass or people who actively promote things that are in contradiction with the school's morals and ethics. But what is very clear to me is that the mere fact that someone speaks in an ordinary sense about themselves and their family, if they're acknowledged as being unmarried, divorced, gay, lesbian, transgender, intersex or in a same-sex relationship—that their family and status is known within the school community—should not be grounds for discrimination. (Time expired)

Tim Storer (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Discrimination Free Schools Bill 2018. Late last year Australian voters overwhelmingly backed the abolition of laws preventing marriage equality. It was a reminder that on many issues the voters are well ahead of their elected representatives. A few months ago a YouGov Galaxy poll found that 82 per cent of those surveyed opposed laws currently allowing schools to expel students because of their sexual orientation. Nearly as many—79 per cent—opposed the ability of schools to sack teachers if they married people of the same sex. It is another sign that the voters are well in front of their elected representatives. As I've said before, I oppose any moves to increase discrimination against students and teachers based on their sexual orientation, and I am supporting this bill because it seeks to scrap current exemptions allowing some schools to discriminate against students, teachers and other staff on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identification.

This is not a theoretical problem. We have heard today, and I myself am aware, of schools where teachers, even principals, have had to hide their sexual orientation to avoid the sack. These were people who in some cases were committed Christians. These were teachers who were loved by their students and whose teaching and insights are remembered long after by the pupils they taught. This is not acceptable in a nation where gay marriage is now legal. Even so, there are still cases where teachers are being sacked for acknowledging that they are gay. One of these cases, reported by the ABC, involved Craig Campbell, a practising Christian who was employed as a teacher at a Baptist college south of Perth. He had previously been a student at the school, but his employment was terminated last year after he told the school that he was in a same-sex relationship. Speaking to the ABC, Mr Campbell wondered—legitimately, in my view—what existing laws allowing discrimination said about these schools and their attitude to religion. After all, as the Bible states in Paul's letter to the Galatians:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Mr Campbell asked:

What's the ultimate goal in not allowing these kids within your school?

Religious schools, their bigger purpose is to provide environments where kids can interact with their faith and so by excluding the students they lose that opportunity. To me, it seems nonsensical.

I could not agree more. It is beyond time to bring all schools in line with the prohibitions on sexual discrimination that operate elsewhere in society. It is high time that the laws allowing schools to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identification, martial status and pregnancy for students and staff are amended. I do hope that the Senate passes this legislation and that the government has the good sense to allow it to be debated in the other place so that it can become law. We do not want a repeat of the extreme words and actions that arose out of the marriage equality debate last year.

Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the debate has expired.