|
senate vote 2018-10-15#1
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2019-02-01 13:46:22
|
Title
Description
<p class="speaker">Derryn Hinch</p><p>Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:</p><p class="italic">That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Senator Hinch from moving a motion relating to the consideration of a matter, namely a motion relating to discrimination by independent schools.</p>- The majority voted against a [motion](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?id=2018-10-15.10.1) to suspend the usual rules to allow a vote to happen.
- ### Motion text
- > *That so much of the [standing orders](https://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/standing-orders.html) be suspended as would prevent Senator Hinch from moving a motion relating to the consideration of a matter, namely a motion relating to discrimination by independent schools.*
<p>I do not want to take up 30 minutes of private senators' time—Senator Leyonhjelm's time—this morning. We all know where we stand on this issue over the last few days. I'd rather talk about cannabis, which he wants to talk about. Can you confirm that leave is denied?</p> <p class="speaker">Peter Whish-Wilson</p><p>Senator Hinch, you just moved to suspend the standing orders, so you now have five minutes to have your say.</p> <p class="speaker">Derryn Hinch</p><p>Thank you. I am appalled by what has happened in the past week in this country. I applaud the government and the opposition for what they are planning to do about changing some of the discrepancies in the sexual discrimination laws around independent schools. But what angered me is that, for 48 hours last week, the government, the opposition and, for a minute there, even the Greens sat back when the moral duty of this country, of this government and of this parliament was to defend children. We had a situation where the Prime Minister of this country stood there and kept saying, 'The existing laws, the existing laws, the existing laws.'</p><p>The fact is: we had Mr Hawke getting up and saying that independent schools were entitled to expel children and ban children because of their sexual orientation—that was a disgrace—and that teachers should not be allowed to teach because of their sexual proclivities. It was just a lack of common decency. I thought to myself: I'm an atheist, but what if I were a churchgoing person or a person of faith who had three children and one of my children—a teenager—had doubts about their feelings or sexual orientation? Two of my children would be able to go to an independent school, but the third one wouldn't. Maybe at 14 or 15 that child, having been refused permission to go to the school, then goes out and hangs himself or herself, as has happened in this country so many times in recent years.</p><p>The fact that taxpayers' money is going to fund these schools is wrong. That is why I believe the government should work with the states and territories to achieve consistency in antidiscrimination laws, should—and I believe this passionately—withhold federal funding from any school which engages in discrimination against teachers or students on the basis of their sexual orientation and should deny or must deny charity tax concessions to any organisation or commission responsible for a school that engages in such discrimination.</p><p>This is 2018. From what I read and heard last week, it is like we're going back to the 1950s. What made it even more personal and more hard for me is that I spent eight hours listening to horror stories as the chair of the redress committee into sexual abuse of institutionalised children in this country, and then to get home and read, when parts of the Ruddock report were released in <i>The </i><i>Sydney Morning H</i><i>erald</i>, all this stuff about the fact that there are still schools that can differentiate against children was just disgusting. They didn't seem to mind having paedophile teachers in their schools for decades—that was seen to be fine; they were there for decades—and yet now they discriminate against teachers who may be of a different sexuality than I am or students who may be feeling that way. I just think it's a disgraceful thing.</p><p>I'm glad that territories are going to get involved—I hope they're going to get involved—and that the government and the opposition are going to get involved. Some of the senators coming up to speak will, I believe, gut and destroy my motion today. If you do, look hard and long at yourselves, because we're looking after kids here. I ask a question I asked for 40 years as a journalist: who's looking after the children? I ask that because, right now, in this building and in this government, we are not looking after the children.</p> <p class="speaker">Mathias Cormann</p><p>The government were prepared to give leave to Senator Hinch to have this motion and the various amendments that have been foreshadowed dealt with by the Senate swiftly, but we're not prepared to support a suspension motion to disrupt the orderly processes of the Senate. There are appropriate, more efficient avenues available to deal with the proposed motion.</p><p>Let me talk to the substantive issue and refer the Senate to a statement that was issued by the Prime Minister on Saturday. As the Prime Minister indicated, this past week there have been numerous misrepresentations of proposals by the Ruddock review in relation to laws regarding discrimination against children attending religious schools. Contrary to what has been reported, the Ruddock review proposes to strengthen the protections against discrimination for students. The Ruddock review actually proposes restrictions to the laws introduced by the previous Labor government which gave religious schools greater ability to expel students when the school considered that that was necessary according to the doctrines of the religion in question. Incidentally, may I pause here to note that the schools themselves have indicated that they don't need, don't want and have not used this particular power contained in Labor's legislation. This misreporting has created unnecessary confusion and anxiety for parents and students alike.</p><p>To address this issue, the Prime Minister has been taking action to ensure 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. We believe that this view is, indeed, shared across the parliament, and we should use this upcoming sitting fortnight to ensure this matter is addressed appropriately. It is to this end that the Prime Minister asked the Attorney-General to prepare amendments and consult with the opposition. He will write to the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, to invite him to work with the government on a bipartisan basis to provide certainty in this area. The Prime Minister also made clear again that our government does not support expulsion of students on the basis of sexuality from religious non-state schools. As the Prime Minister noted, this is a view which is widely shared by religious schools and communities across the country.</p><p>In relation to the Ruddock review more broadly, the government will continue to work through our response through the normal deliberative processes of cabinet. As the Senate would be aware, the cabinet commissioned the Ruddock review. The government received the Ruddock review in May and the Attorney-General, as the responsible minister, has been working through a process which ultimately will lead to the consideration of relevant recommendations by the cabinet. These are sensitive matters and, as I indicated over the weekend, they are matters on which good Australians can have a diversity of genuinely and sincerely held views. It is important that we consider these issues through a proper process to ensure that we achieve an appropriately balanced position. So, on that basis, the government will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders and we will not be supporting the motion.</p> <p class="speaker">Don Farrell</p><p>Labor has consistently made it clear that we support religious freedom. We welcomed the Turnbull government's decision to establish a review into religious freedom, and we've always said we are open to meaningful discussions about whether religious freedom needs better and further protections. We know that there are many strong views in the current debate about how to best balance freedom of religion with the right of all Australians to live free from discrimination. We respect these views and would have welcomed a proper mature debate about the issue, which the religious freedoms review was meant to facilitate. It's unfortunate, therefore, that the government has chosen to hide the review for the last five months and to deny the Australian people that opportunity.</p><p>As a result, in the last week, there have been repeated leaks from the Morrison government that have suggested that the review recommends changes to anti-discrimination legislation that would make it easier for religious schools to deny enrolment or expel children and to sack teachers or deny them employment on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. I know this has been distressing for many young gay people and their families.</p><p>The public outcry that has ensued makes clear that these exemptions, even as they currently exist in a minority of jurisdictions, are out of step with the views and beliefs of most Australians. While it is clear that the exemptions are used rarely—if at all—they are anachronistic and deny dignity to children. This view is widely shared even amongst those organisations that could potentially make use of the exemptions. As Catholic Schools NSW, which represent 595 Catholic schools and their 255,000 students have recently said:</p><p class="italic">Nothing in the Bible or in Catholic teaching can be used to justify prejudicial or discriminatory attitudes and behaviours.</p><p class="italic">… … …</p><p class="italic">We did not seek concessions to discriminate against students or teachers based on their sexuality, gender identity or relationship status.</p><p>It is Labor's view that we can remove discrimination and protect religious freedoms at the same time. That is why the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister last week to offer Labor's support and assistance in passing a bill to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to remove the exemptions that currently allow religious schools to discriminate against children on the basis of their sexual orientation and gender identity.</p><p>Today we extend that offer to include the removal of the exemption which would allow teachers or other staff to be sacked or refused employment because of sexual orientation. Put simply, people should not be discriminated against because of their sexuality. Of course, we respect the rights of religious organisations to run their schools in line with their beliefs and their doctrines, and we will be talking further with schools to ensure that they are able to teach their students according to their religious beliefs while not discriminating against students or staff. People employed in those schools must of course respect those beliefs and traditions as they carry out their roles, but Australia is a modern, fair and tolerant nation, and legislated discrimination should not be allowed to stand.</p><p>We can do these two things now and we can do them quickly. We do not agree that public funding should be threatened for institutions that don't comply. Kids do not deserve to pay the price. We should make it the law so that there is no doubt that discrimination based on sexuality is not acceptable. If there are other issues that relate to religious freedoms that need to be addressed, Labor is up for that too, but the government needs to release the report. It is simply absurd that this debate is occurring without the report having been released. What is the government hiding? I urge it to release the report so that all Australians can have their say.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|