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

My question is to the Attorney-General. In October 2018, the Prime Minister was asked what his message was for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and gender-diverse students who faced being expelled from school simply for being themselves. The Prime Minister said that their PM 'understands and is going to take action to fix it'. Attorney-General, it has been three years. Why, instead of removing discrimination against students, are you rushing through legislation that is a Trojan Horse for hate? Why are you rushing through legislation that is going to increase the ability to discriminate against LGBTIQ students rather than protect them?

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Rice for the question. Senator Rice, the premise that you have put in relation to the Religious Discrimination Bill, which the Prime Minister today introduced into the House of Representatives, is wrong. It is actually wrong. You would be aware that Australia is a religiously and culturally diverse country. We have an age discrimination act, we have a racial discrimination act, we have a disability discrimination act and—as you know, Senator Rice—we have a sex discrimination act. But what we currently don't have in this country is protection for people of faith and those who don't have faith. We seek to fill that gap. Senator Rice, you would already be aware that, under the Sex Discrimination Act, these protections, or exemptions, for religious bodies have been in place for many, many years and supported by both sides of parliament. In fact, in 2013 Mr Dreyfus, when he was the Attorney-General, made amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act but ensured at the same time that the protections for religious bodies were maintained.

In relation to the Religious Discrimination Bill, this is about protecting from discrimination people of faith and those who don't have a faith. The summation you have put to the Senate, Senator Rice, is just wrong.

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rice, a supplementary question?

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

The Prime Minister said he was going to take action to protect LGBTIQ students, yet the only action we have seen is an inquiry by the Australian Law Reform Commission that can't report before 2023. Students who started high school in 2018 will have graduated before the inquiry reports. Minister Stoker on radio this morning was very clear that this bill will continue to allow schools to sack teachers on the basis of their sexuality and gender. Is this yet another time where the Prime Minister has lied to save his political skin?

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz on a point of order?

Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That clearly needs to be withdrawn. It's a reflection on the Prime Minister.

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator McKim on the point of order?

Nick McKim (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, just briefly on the point of order: Senator Rice was asking a question. She was not making an assertion.

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no protection merely in asking a question if something is a direct imputation against the member of another place. I will ask you to withdraw the last part of the question and then I will allow the minister to answer.

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

I will withdraw and reword it—

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, just withdraw, thank you, Senator Rice. The Attorney-General has the call.

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Religious Discrimination Bill would only prohibit discrimination on the basis of religious belief or activity. Its exemptions only operate in relation to that prohibition. It will not in any way affect the current exemptions that religious bodies have and, as I said, that the Labor Party supported. In fact, Mr Dreyfus, when he was the Attorney-General, recognised and we all voted for the fact that when changes were made to the Sex Discrimination Act the exemptions would continue to apply to religious bodies.

In relation to students, the Prime Minister and I have made it very clear to the ALRC that we have a very clear expectation that no student should be expelled from a school because of their sexual identity.

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rice, just before you ask your second supplementary question, you did need to withdraw. However, I should have let you restate the question. I apologise for that, but let's move to your second supplementary.

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

Attorney-General, can you confirm that under this legislation it will be legal for someone to tell their sporting teammate that it's sinful for them as a single-mother to have a child outside marriage or that it's the work of the devil that their lesbian neighbour is lesbian and needs to find a husband and that it will be legal for someone to say that they don't recognise their trans-woman colleague as a woman and insist on referring to them as male?

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill provides, and I hope we can all agree with this, that simply stating in good faith one's religious beliefs or, in the case of an atheist, the fact that you don't have a belief in and of itself is not discrimination. If, Senator Rice, by the way you have put it, you're implying that it would be a malicious statement, it would be a statement perhaps with intent to intimidate, threaten or harass, then that clearly is not acceptable. But I would believe in Australia that the ability of people of faith and not of faith to freely discuss their religion or lack of religion, to freely be able to explain their religion or lack of religion is something that each and every one of us can support. But if it is malicious, as you say, Senator Rice, then no.

Hon. Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

Slade Brockman (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I remind senators on both sides of the chamber that interjections are always disorderly. I do need to be able to listen to both the question and the answer.