|
representatives vote 2022-02-09#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-02-18 12:03:07
|
Title
Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021, Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 - Consideration in Detail - Statements of belief- Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 - Consideration in Detail - Statements of belief
Description
-
- The same number of MPs voted for and against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-02-09.154.8) to *disagree* with the [opposition amendment](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr6821_amend_c70e5077-0e43-462b-a532-fc0a755ea7fc%22) to government amendment (8) so the Speaker [made a casting vote](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-02-09.156.1) with the 'Yes' votes, meaning that the opposition amendment failed.
- There were two rebellions, with Bass MP [Bridget Archer](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bass/bridget_archer) (Liberal) and North Sydney MP [Trent Zimmerman](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/north_sydney/trent_zimmerman) (Liberal) crossing the floor to vote 'No' against the rest of their party, who voted 'Yes.'
- ### Does does the opposition amendment do?
- Isaacs MP [Mark Dreyfus](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/isaacs/mark_dreyfus) (Labor) [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-02-09.152.1):
- > *there has been a lot of disagreement about what clause 12—the statements of belief clause in this bill—would allow and what it would not allow. The government says that the clause simply clarifies that there is no law against a person making a statement of belief. But disability groups, human rights groups, women's groups, aged-care organisations, the Australian Medical Association, LGBTIQ groups and the Law Council of Australia have raised alarm. Lawyers can argue about the precise legal impact of this provision, but it is impossible to escape the fact that the provision is drafted in a way that suggests people of faith should be able to discriminate against other Australians on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, age and disability, particularly in Tasmania, which is singled out in this provision. This is what the provision says. It literally says that a statement of belief will not constitute discrimination under any of Australia's existing antidiscrimination laws. All of Australia's antidiscrimination laws in each of the states and territories are actually listed in this clause, and so too is a specific provision of Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act.*
- >
- > *Labor does not believe that people of faith in Australia are seeking a special right to discriminate against people on the basis of disability or gender or race or sexual orientation or any other protected attribute. We agree that the mere expression of a non-malicious statement of belief should not contravene any Australian law, and we want to reassure people of faith on that front. We stand ready to work with the government on a better way of providing that reassurance, if it can be done in a way that does not remove protections against discrimination. But a law that says, on its face, that one group of Australians should be allowed to discriminate against other Australians is not the way to do it. Quite apart from the precise legal impact of the provision, it sends the wrong signal—a very divisive signal.*
- ### Opposition amendment text
- > *(1) Amendment (8), omit subclauses (1) to (1B), substitute:*
- >
- >> *(1) To avoid doubt, making a statement of belief does not, in and of itself, constitute discrimination for the purposes of this Act.*
- ### What does the bill do?
- According to the [bill homepage](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6821), the bill was introduced with the [Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6819) and [Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6820) in order to:
- * *prohibit discrimination on the basis of a person’s religious belief or activity in a range of areas of public life, including in relation to employment, education, access to premises and the provision of goods, services and accommodation;*
- * *establish general and specific exceptions from the prohibition of religious discrimination;*
- * *provide that certain statements of belief do not constitute discrimination for the purposes of certain specified Commonwealth, state or territory anti-discrimination laws;*
- * *create offences in relation to victimisation and discriminatory advertisements;*
- * *establish the office of the Religious Discrimination Commissioner;*
- * *confer certain functions on the Australian Human Rights Commission; and*
- * *provide for miscellaneous matters including delegation of powers or functions, protection from civil actions and a review of the operation of the Act.*
- SBS News has provided [a good summary](https://www.sbs.com.au/news/religious-discrimination-bill-passes-lower-house-as-five-liberal-mps-cross-the-floor/1418953a-e34d-4606-bb7e-89413596ac40) of the more controversial parts of the bill, including an explanation for each rebellion that occurred during the long debate. According to [this summary](https://www.sbs.com.au/news/religious-discrimination-bill-passes-lower-house-as-five-liberal-mps-cross-the-floor/1418953a-e34d-4606-bb7e-89413596ac40), the key areas for concern were:
- * the parts of the bill that allowed religious schools to discriminate on the basis of sexuality and gender identity;
- * the "statement of belief" that seems to protect people expressing religious beliefs even if they're offensive and therefore seem to override existing anti-discrimination protections; and
* the fact that the bill does not outlaw vilification of people of faith.- * the fact that the bill does not outlaw vilification of people of faith.
-
-
|
|
representatives vote 2022-02-09#4
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-02-18 12:02:40
|
Title
Bills — Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021, Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021; Consideration in Detail- Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021, Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 - Consideration in Detail - Statements of belief
Description
<p class="speaker">Craig Kelly</p><p>I move the amendment circulated in my name.</p>-
- The same number of MPs voted for and against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-02-09.154.8) to *disagree* with the [opposition amendment](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr6821_amend_c70e5077-0e43-462b-a532-fc0a755ea7fc%22) to government amendment (8) so the Speaker [made a casting vote](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-02-09.156.1) with the 'Yes' votes, meaning that the opposition amendment failed.
- There were two rebellions, with Bass MP [Bridget Archer](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bass/bridget_archer) (Liberal) and North Sydney MP [Trent Zimmerman](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/north_sydney/trent_zimmerman) (Liberal) crossing the floor to vote 'No' against the rest of their party, who voted 'Yes.'
- ### Does does the opposition amendment do?
- Isaacs MP [Mark Dreyfus](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/isaacs/mark_dreyfus) (Labor) [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-02-09.152.1):
- > *there has been a lot of disagreement about what clause 12—the statements of belief clause in this bill—would allow and what it would not allow. The government says that the clause simply clarifies that there is no law against a person making a statement of belief. But disability groups, human rights groups, women's groups, aged-care organisations, the Australian Medical Association, LGBTIQ groups and the Law Council of Australia have raised alarm. Lawyers can argue about the precise legal impact of this provision, but it is impossible to escape the fact that the provision is drafted in a way that suggests people of faith should be able to discriminate against other Australians on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, age and disability, particularly in Tasmania, which is singled out in this provision. This is what the provision says. It literally says that a statement of belief will not constitute discrimination under any of Australia's existing antidiscrimination laws. All of Australia's antidiscrimination laws in each of the states and territories are actually listed in this clause, and so too is a specific provision of Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act.*
- >
- > *Labor does not believe that people of faith in Australia are seeking a special right to discriminate against people on the basis of disability or gender or race or sexual orientation or any other protected attribute. We agree that the mere expression of a non-malicious statement of belief should not contravene any Australian law, and we want to reassure people of faith on that front. We stand ready to work with the government on a better way of providing that reassurance, if it can be done in a way that does not remove protections against discrimination. But a law that says, on its face, that one group of Australians should be allowed to discriminate against other Australians is not the way to do it. Quite apart from the precise legal impact of the provision, it sends the wrong signal—a very divisive signal.*
- ### Opposition amendment text
- > *(1) Amendment (8), omit subclauses (1) to (1B), substitute:*
- >
- >> *(1) To avoid doubt, making a statement of belief does not, in and of itself, constitute discrimination for the purposes of this Act.*
- ### What does the bill do?
- According to the [bill homepage](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6821), the bill was introduced with the [Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6819) and [Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6820) in order to:
- * *prohibit discrimination on the basis of a person’s religious belief or activity in a range of areas of public life, including in relation to employment, education, access to premises and the provision of goods, services and accommodation;*
- * *establish general and specific exceptions from the prohibition of religious discrimination;*
- * *provide that certain statements of belief do not constitute discrimination for the purposes of certain specified Commonwealth, state or territory anti-discrimination laws;*
- * *create offences in relation to victimisation and discriminatory advertisements;*
- * *establish the office of the Religious Discrimination Commissioner;*
- * *confer certain functions on the Australian Human Rights Commission; and*
- * *provide for miscellaneous matters including delegation of powers or functions, protection from civil actions and a review of the operation of the Act.*
- SBS News has provided [a good summary](https://www.sbs.com.au/news/religious-discrimination-bill-passes-lower-house-as-five-liberal-mps-cross-the-floor/1418953a-e34d-4606-bb7e-89413596ac40) of the more controversial parts of the bill, including an explanation for each rebellion that occurred during the long debate. According to [this summary](https://www.sbs.com.au/news/religious-discrimination-bill-passes-lower-house-as-five-liberal-mps-cross-the-floor/1418953a-e34d-4606-bb7e-89413596ac40), the key areas for concern were:
- * the parts of the bill that allowed religious schools to discriminate on the basis of sexuality and gender identity;
- * the "statement of belief" that seems to protect people expressing religious beliefs even if they're offensive and therefore seem to override existing anti-discrimination protections; and
- * the fact that the bill does not outlaw vilification of people of faith.
<p class="italic">(1) Page 21 (after line 8), at the end of Part 3, add:</p><p class="italic">17A Religious objections to COVID-19 vaccination</p><p class="italic">(1) To avoid doubt, if:</p><p class="italic">(a) conduct is engaged in because a person has not received a COVID vaccination; and</p><p class="italic">(b) the reason, or one of the reasons (whether or not it is the dominant or a substantial reason) the person has not received a COVID vaccination is that the person genuinely considers that doing so would be inconsistent with a religious belief held by the person;</p><p class="italic">then, for the purposes of this Act, the conduct is taken to be engaged in for the reason of that religious belief.</p><p class="italic">(2) This section applies in relation to conduct engaged in because a person has not received a COVID vaccination of a particular type (for example, vaccination with a particular brand of vaccine, or a first, second or third etc. booster) in the same way as this section applies in relation to conduct engaged in because a person has not received any COVID vaccination.</p><p class="italic">(3) Sections 37 and 38 do not apply to discrimination constituted by conduct to which subsection (1) of this section applies.</p><p class="italic"> <i>Vaccine passports</i></p><p class="italic">(4) Without limiting subsection (1), conduct is taken to be engaged in because a person has not received a COVID vaccination if:</p><p class="italic">(a) the person has not received a COVID vaccination; and</p><p class="italic">(b) the conduct is engaged in because:</p><p class="italic">(i) the person does not demonstrate that the person has received a COVID vaccination; or</p><p class="italic">(ii) does not demonstrate in a particular way (such as by producing a particular type of vaccination certificate) that the person has received a COVID vaccination.</p><p class="italic"> <i>Definitions</i></p><p class="italic">(5) In this section:</p><p class="italic"><i>COVID</i> means the coronavirus commonly known as COVID-19 (including any subsequent variants of that coronavirus).</p><p>During this debate, over many hours, I have heard many fine speeches. Most had a common theme—that all Australians should have the right to live free of discrimination. They should have the right not to be thrown out of their jobs because they have a truly held belief. There should be a right to practise your religion as you see fit, with, of course, the one proviso: that it does not cause harm to others. Today in this country there are many people who have a true and genuinely held belief that they wish to be vaccine-free and yet they are being discriminated against; they are being denied the right to participate in the Australian economy. I am talking about airline pilots, nurses, paramedics, teachers, even truck drivers and shop assistants. If we truly want a society where we end all of the discrimination, it should be across all areas. Therefore, the amendment that I seek to move would make it unlawful for a person to be discriminated against on their vaccine status if they hold a genuinely held religious belief that they wished to be vaccine-free.</p><p>I acknowledge that vaccination in general has been one of the greatest public health achievements over the last century. But the COVID vaccines, we must admit, use a novel technology that has never been tried or tested in humans before; therefore, it is only fair that citizens in a free, democratic country have the right to decide what substances they inject into their body free of coercion, free of discrimination, and this is what this amendment seeks to achieve.</p><p>The only argument against this is: does it put others at risk? Would allowing such an exemption put other Australians at risk? There may have been arguments for that six to 12 months ago, but the data now is crystal clear from around the world: if you are vaccine-free you are less likely to have COVID and less likely to spread it. For someone in my age group, the data from the UK COVID surveillance data shows I would have a double the probability of having COVID if I was vaccine-free.</p><p>I hear my good friend, the member for MacArthur, doubt that. I encourage you to get a look at that data—official data from the UK COVID health surveillance. That is clearly what official UK government data shows, so I would hope that members of this House would think about those thousands of Australians who are currently thrown out of their jobs, thrown out of their careers, doing it very tough at the moment. There are no grounds, no reason why those people should not be given the right to get back to work. That is what the amendment I propose would do. I hope it has the support of many members of this House.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>The government does not support this proposed amendment to the Religious Discrimination Bill in relation to COVID-19 vaccination. The proposed amendments provide that exceptions in the bill, which provide that conduct in direct compliance with certain Commonwealth and state and territory laws and orders, determinations and industrial instruments does not apply to conduct engaged in because a person has not received or does not demonstrate they have received a COVID-19 vaccination.</p><p>This amendment, in the government's view, is misguided. Introducing such an amendment would result in significant complexity for high-risk workplaces and could undermine public health measures. COVID-19 is a very serious illness and is especially dangerous for vulnerable people in the community. The Religious Discrimination Bill will not affect the ability of the government or employers to impose requirements for persons to be vaccinated against particular diseases, including COVID-19.</p><p>Although some religious groups may have certain religious beliefs surrounding vaccination, it would not constitute discrimination under the bill for an employer to require employees to have such vaccinations where the requirement is reasonable. Whether such a requirement is reasonable depends upon all of the circumstances of the particular case. The amendment would also override the exception in clause 37 of the bill, which ensures that employers are able to comply with work health and safety laws and other laws.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Wallace</p><p>The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.</p><p>Question agreed to, Mr Kelly dissenting.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (22), as circulated, together.</p> <p class="speaker">Adam Bandt</p><p>On that matter: speaking on behalf of myself and the member for Clark, there's a number of the government amendments that we want to support and a number that we would oppose. I'd be happy to identify those. We don't want to speak to them, but I'm just wondering whether there's capacity to put them into two blocks so that we can support the ones we want to support and vote differently on the ones we don't want to support.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>If we proceed from here granting leave for them all to be moved together, then I think what the member for Melbourne has just asked for becomes impossible. So, I think if we take the member for Melbourne up on his offer to identify the ones he wants to vote in favour of or the ones he wants to vote against, you can put one lot of them in a block, then get leave to do all of them together and then do the others all together. Otherwise, we'll end up doing all of them individually—which I suspect people don't want.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>If the member for Melbourne wants to indicate which of amendments (1) through (22) he wishes to support, then I will be happy to seek leave to move those together.</p> <p class="speaker">Adam Bandt</p><p>I thank the minister and the Manager of Opposition Business. The amendments that I—and I think I speak on behalf of the member for Clark as well—wish to support are amendments (10), (12), (17), (18), (19), (20) and (21). I'd ask that those be put as a block, and then we'd support those, and then the others can proceed and amendments can be moved to those, and so on.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Wallace</p><p>And all other amendments you disagree to?</p> <p class="speaker">Adam Bandt</p><p>That's right, but we don't seek them to be done individually; we'll just deal with them as a block.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Wallace</p><p>Alright. The minister has the call.</p> <p class="speaker">Paul Fletcher</p><p>by leave—I move government amendments 10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 as circulated together:</p><p class="italic">(10) Clause 14, page 19 (after line 7), at the end of the clause, add:</p><p class="italic"> <i>Burden of proof</i></p><p class="italic">(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the person who imposes, or proposes to impose, the condition, requirement or practice has the burden of proving that the condition, requirement or practice is reasonable.</p><p class="italic">(12) Clause 19, page 23 (after line 26), at the end of the clause, add:</p><p class="italic"> <i>Conduct to which this section does not apply</i></p><p class="italic">(3) This section does not apply to reasonable management action:</p><p class="italic">(a) carried out to comply with legal obligations under Australian law; or</p><p class="italic">(b) authorised under Australian law.</p><p class="italic">(17) Page 40 (after line 11), after clause 44, insert:</p><p class="italic">44A Notice of decisions to be published</p><p class="italic">(1) The Commission, not later than one month after it makes a decision under section 44, must publish on its website a notice of the making of the decision:</p><p class="italic">(a) setting out its findings on material questions of facts; and</p><p class="italic">(b) referring to the evidence on which those findings were based; and</p><p class="italic">(c) giving the reasons for the making of the decision; and</p><p class="italic">(d) containing a statement to the effect that, subject to the <i>Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975</i>, application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the decision to which the notice relates by or on behalf of any person or persons whose interests are affected by the decision.</p><p class="italic">(2) Any failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (1) in relation to a decision does not affect the validity of the decision.</p><p class="italic">(18) Clause 47, page 40 (line 26), omit "or the Minister".</p><p class="italic">(19) Clause 48, page 41 (line 5), omit "section 47;", substitute "section 47.".</p><p class="italic">(20) Clause 48, page 41 (line 6), omit paragraph (c).</p><p class="italic">(21) Clause 68, page 56 (line 3), omit "to the extent that the law", substitute "that".</p><p>The group of amendments before the House at the moment deals with a range of what might be described as, essentially, procedural or administrative matters—for example, the addition of a clause which says conduct in this section does not apply to reasonable management action carried out to comply with legal obligations under Australian law. There's a requirement that notice of decisions must be published. They can fairly be described as sensible procedural amendments that I'd suggest are unlikely to be controversial.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Wallace</p><p>The question is that amendments 10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 be agreed to.</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Dreyfus</p><p>I want to make clear that Labor supports all of the amendments that the government has circulated and is proposing to move, including the ones that are supported, as has been indicated by the member for Melbourne, which are presently under debate. It might save time if I simply speak to the whole of the government's amendments in a compendious way rather than trying to give two speeches and breaking it up.</p> <p class="speaker">Andrew Wallace</p><p>I think that's a very good idea.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|