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

My question is to the minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Cormann. Before the lead-up to the Wentworth by-election, Mr Morrison declared:

… I believe it's very important that we act in this parliament over the next fortnight to deal with the unnecessary anxiety that has been created for children and their parents in relation to potential discrimination and expulsion of students on the basis of their sexuality.

So why did the Morrison government vote to prevent the parliament from doing what Mr Morrison said he would do urgently?

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

The government is absolutely committed to resolve in a fair and balanced way the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act to remove discrimination against students before the end of the parliamentary sitting year. I would refer Senator Pratt to a statement that I made in the chamber on behalf of the Prime Minister before the Wentworth by-election. As the Prime Minister announced on Saturday, the government will be moving amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to ensure that no student of a non-state school can be expelled on the basis of 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 as soon as possible during that sitting fortnight.

The shadow Attorney-General has been absolutely unprepared to pursue reasonable compromise—absolutely unprepared to pursue reasonable compromise! We want to ensure that we protect students by also making sure that religious schools are not exposed to the inappropriate risk of vexatious litigation by activists in this field. We want to ensure that religious schools can continue to apply reasonable rules and teach children consistent with the tenets of their faith. That is not unreasonable.

The government stands ready to deal with this this week. The government, in fact, is keen to deal with it this week. We have put forward some very reasonable amendments to ensure that we pursue this change in a way that is appropriately balanced. We call on the Labor Party and we call on everyone in the Senate to join in with the government to ensure—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He said one thing before Wentworth and then instructs—

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

I completely reject that interjection! We were very clear that we would—

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's the—

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

I'm very disappointed that the Labor Party wants to use this as a political weapon instead of pursuing a policy solution that has broad support. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pratt, a supplementary question.

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

Mr Morrison also told Australians on this issue:

We think that needs to be addressed, and we think it needs to be addressed urgently.

So why did the government vote to prevent the parliament doing what Mr Morrison said he'd do urgently?

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

Because the Labor bill was an inadequate bill. Our job is to pass good legislation, not inadequate legislation.

The thing I'm really disappointed about is that there was an opportunity here for us to pursue, in a genuinely bipartisan fashion, a resolution that would have broad community support. Instead, what the Labor Party is clearly intent on doing—they're not interested in a policy solution—is using this as a partisan political weapon. That is what you're trying to do!

If you were interested in pursuing an actual policy solution you would sit down with the government to explore opportunities for a reasonable compromise. If the Labor Party hasn't got it in it to pursue a compromise, then I would urge the crossbench to rise to the occasion and come together with the government to ensure that the reforms we pass here, removing discrimination against students before the end of the parliamentary sitting year, can be done in a way that doesn't expose religious schools to inappropriate risk in terms of litigation. (Time expired)

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pratt, a final supplementary question.

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

The Prime Minister voted against the banking royal commission 26 times before claiming it was his idea. He supported the National Energy Guarantee before opposing it. He promised to urgently remove discrimination against LGBTIQ kids but has voted to push the legislation into next year. How can Australians know when this Prime Minister is actually committed to something or if he's just pretending?

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

We are doing the right thing by the Australian people. We want to remove discrimination against students before the end of the parliamentary sitting year in a way that is also fair and reasonable in terms of the job done by religious schools across Australia who are teaching about a million Australian kids. It is very important that this is done the right way. The amendments that we've put forward are entirely reasonable. They're appropriately calibrated. And if the Labor Party were genuinely interested in resolving this issue, they would come on board with us rather than seek to use this as a political weapon. The thought that you should have rammed this through with a gag is entirely inappropriate.

Senator Jacinta Collins interjecting—

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Collins, I've called you to order on a number of occasions.

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

It was entirely inappropriate for you to seek to ram this through with a gag in the absence of a broad consensus in support of the legislation. If you were actually interested in the issue you would sit down with the government, even at this late stage, to find a compromise that is in the public interest. (Time expired)