Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak this evening in relation to the Labor government's review of religious educational institutions and anti-discrimination laws, which, to be frank, has become an absolute car smash—an absolute train wreck. The evidence that was presented before the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee during estimates was absolutely gobsmacking. Before I provide some particular comments in relation to the state the Labor government has gotten itself into with respect to this review, I first want to talk about the importance of freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is one of the key individual freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion. It's a freedom that isn't just exercised by an individual. It's a freedom that is exercised in community, and it is well and truly accepted as a matter of international human rights law that people have a right, in community, to practise their religious faith freely. That includes religious schools.

In the last parliament, I participated in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee's review of the proposed legislation from the Morrison government. During that process, my door was open and will always remain open to everyone who has views with respect to this issue. That committee conducted itself, in my opinion, in a very balanced and reasonable way, in terms of obtaining the viewpoints of all stakeholders, as it should. Hence, it is extraordinarily disappointing to see the feedback that has been provided from people of faith in relation to the consultation paper issued by the Australian Law Reform Commission entitled Religious educationalinstitutions and anti-discrimination laws released in January 2023.

I first want to refer to a media release issued by the National Catholic Education Commission. It should be noted that the National Catholic Education Commission's executive director, Jacinta Collins, served in this place for some 21 years. Whilst Jacinta Collins served on the other side of the aisle, I deeply respect her contribution to this place. One would reasonably expect that a person with that experience, when they go to print on matters like this, would do so having carefully considered the issues.

The media release of 31 January 2023 is entitled: 'Proposed reforms to discrimination legislation would make it impossible for Catholic schools to be Catholic'. That's a media release from one of the largest providers of religious faith based schools in Australia. To quote further:

At the National Catholic Education Commission meeting today, our educational leaders across Australia were very concerned by the narrow approach taken in the ALRC paper.

The proposed reforms fail to provide real protections for religious schools to effectively operate and teach according to their religious beliefs and ethos …

Ms Collins said the review has been limited to exemptions in the Sex Discrimination, Fair Work and other Acts and does not address the need for protections for religious rights in Australia.

Changes to anti-discrimination laws must must go hand-in-hand with proactive legislation to protect religious freedom.

International law recognises protections to establish religious educational institutions and the right of parents to choose a school for their children that is in line with their religious values and beliefs.

In a pluralist society, Catholic schools should be free to be Catholic.

I agree wholeheartedly with that proposition, that Catholic schools should be free to be Catholic, just as Anglican schools should be free to be Anglican, Muslim schools should be free to be Muslim and Jewish schools should be free to be Jewish.

That should be a fundamental, important basis for a pluralist society, bearing in mind that many people of many different faiths have come to this country. They've come to this country from lands where they couldn't practise their religious faith, whether individually or in communion. I again quote from the media release of the National Catholic Education Commission:

This is an important tipping point for faith-based schools in Australia … We need to find a fair and reasonable balance to ensure staff and students are not discriminated against on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy, while enabling faith-based educational institutions to continue to express their faith identity, ethos and values.

That is a very measured and balanced view with respect to this topic, the right of Catholic schools to be Catholic.

Subsequently, another letter was received. This letter was sent to the Hon. Mark Dreyfus, our Attorney-General, from a range of faith leaders—again, with respect to the consultation paper. It was sent by the Right Revd Dr Michael Stead, Anglican Bishop of South Sydney. It was co-signed by leaders of many faiths—the Catholic faith, the Anglican faith, the Greek Orthodox Church, Muslim schools, Presbyterians, Adventists, Australian Christian Churches. There were pages of signatories. This is what they say:

The Paper proposes that the right of religious schools to preference people of their faith in the selection of staff be strictly limited only to those teaching roles where the "teaching, observance, or practice of the religion is a genuine requirement of the role, having regard to the nature and ethos of the institution".

That's what the ALRC consultation paper proposes. They then say:

For every other teaching role, it would be become unlawful for the school to give preference to employing teachers who share or are willing to commit to supporting the religious beliefs of the school.

And they go on:

Faith-based schools in Australia have long been free to give preference to employing staff who share or who are willing to support the faith and beliefs according to which the school is conducted. They do not seek the right to discriminate on the basis of a protected attribute, but simply to be able to employ staff who share or are willing to uphold the religious beliefs of the school.

What's unreasonable about that? That's balance, from my perspective.

What has brought these are faith leaders, education leaders, to write in these terms? It's the fact that they consider the Australian Law Reform Commission paper, which was released in January 2023, is not a balanced document. It's not a balanced document, and it stands, in my view, in stark contrast to the religious freedom review that was the report of a panel of five experts—not one expert, five experts—including the current president of the Human Rights Commission.

During Senate estimates I was told: 'Senator Scarr, it's a consultation paper. We're getting feedback on the consultation. Isn't that how it's meant to work?' The problem is, when you start from this point, the religious faith leaders, important stakeholders in our community, now have absolutely no confidence in the process. It has become a train wreck. They have no confidence in the process. This is the starting point. It appears like a fait accompli, and so they've lost faith in the process.

In the letter from the religious faith leaders dated 13 February 2023 to the Hon. Mark Dreyfus MP:

Having carefully considered the proposals in the Consultation Paper we are doubtful that the—

Australian Law Reform Commission—

process can reach any balanced outcomes, as contemplated by the terms of reference, by starting with these proposals. We agree with the comments from the National Catholic Education Commission that the proposed reforms fail to provide real protections for religious schools to effectively operate and teach according to their religious beliefs and ethos, and that if the proposed reforms were adopted it would be a major blow to authentic faith-based education in Australia.

That's the situation we're now in because the Labor Party embarked on a consultation process which was a farce. They started with a fait accompli and the consultation—I call it 'consultation'; it has been very direct consultation—process has failed. This will be an albatross around the neck of the Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus.