Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Hansard source

Actually, Mr Acting Deputy President, you alert me to the fact that there is not a quorum here. (Quorum formed) I am glad that the Labor Party came in to hear me speak on this debate. They were very keen to extend the hours of debate tonight, but it seems it took them almost three minutes to rustle up enough people to come into the chamber to keep it going. That is symptomatic not only of how the Labor Party run the chamber but of how they run the government.

As I was saying, this bill contains measures to extend protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. It also extends the existing ground of marital status to marital relationship status to provide protection from discrimination for same-sex de facto couples. These amendments give effect to the government's commitment to introduce new protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

As I mentioned before, this bill, in that form, was totally supported by all the members of the lower house who spoke on the bill. I raised before that I was suspicious as to what happened between the House of Representatives and the Senate committee. By way of disorderly interjection, someone from the Greens political party pointed out that it was some submissions from aged-care authorities. One wonders why those same persons who were so concerned to require the Greens and the Labor Party in their majority report to come to a different conclusion in the Senate committee did not approach their local Labor member at the time the bill was being discussed in the lower house. One wonders why these groups did not approach the minister as the minister was preparing this legislation. One can only come to the conclusion that either the Greens or the Labor Party have this fixation on anything that involves religious freedom and the ability of religious organisations to determine their own destiny when it comes to the way they look after, the way they manage, their aged-care, educational and other facilities.

That is where this bill as it is proposed to be amended is of great concern to the federal opposition. We would, as we indicated in the lower house, support the original bill but we will not support these amendments, which make it quite clear that religious organisations are going to be dictated to by a secular government on whether or not they can get funding for aged-care units, for aged-care facilities, if they do not toe the line for the political philosophy, bias or focus of the government of the day and their Greens partners.

This is symptomatic of the way the Labor Party run the government. Mr Acting Deputy President, you might recall that they are very good at making policy announcements and then, when people alter their position because of those policy announcements, changing them. I only have to mention the solemn promise before the last election that under no circumstances would Ms Gillard or any government that she led ever introduce a carbon tax. It was the most solemn promise. It was repeated by her on several occasions. Then the Treasurer, when we alerted people to the fact that you could not believe the Labor Party, said before the last election that we were being 'hysterical' in suggesting that the Labor Party would not carry through their solemn commitment not to introduce a carbon tax. Yet what happened within a couple of months of their becoming the government after the last election? The Labor Party broke that solemn promise and introduced a carbon tax.

I only raise that to say that, with this bill, the approach of the Labor Party, supported by their Green colleagues, was exactly the same. They approached the opposition and said: 'Here's the bill. Do you agree with it?' We looked through it carefully, we debated the issues and we thought, 'Yes, this is an appropriate bill,' so we indicated support and it got a fairly easy passage through the lower house. But somehow, somewhere between the lower house and the upper house, we have got this change to the bill, which smacks of a government wanting to impose its will on the freedoms that have previously been enjoyed by religious organisations and those who have particular rules in relation to the way they run their facilities.

As my colleagues in this debate have indicated, the bill also contains minor amendments to address some drafting anomalies in relation to family responsibilities and makes minor consequential amendments to the Migration Act. Again, that was all fine. The principal effect of the original bill was to implement the recommendation that the Sex Discrimination Act be extended to cover discrimination on the basis of sexuality. Why did the coalition support this in the lower house? Why would we support the original bill in this chamber? That is a fairly easy question to answer. It is because it was consistent with the policy the coalition took to the 2010 election—and that policy remains coalition policy.

The prohibition of discrimination on these new grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status extends to areas of work. That includes employment, superannuation, contract workers, partnerships, qualifying bodies, registered industrial organisations and employment agencies. It also extends to education; to goods, services and facilities; to accommodation; to land; to clubs; and to the administration of Commonwealth laws and programs.

The bill allows exemptions and limitations for membership of voluntary organisations, competitive sporting activity and religious organisations. It also extends the current exemption in section 38 of the act relating to educational institutions established for a religious purpose so that otherwise discriminatory conduct by those institutions on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity will not be unlawful.

The existing exemption which permits exclusion of persons of one sex from participation in competitive sporting activity will be broadened to permit discrimination on the grounds of sex, gender identity or intersex status. A new exemption is proposed so that it will not be unlawful, merely because the option is not provided to enable a person to identify as neither, to request information as to whether a person is male or female. The purpose of that exemption is to ensure that the regulatory burden of the bill is minimised, given the small number of people likely to identify as neither male nor female. The Commonwealth is developing its own guidelines for departments in this regard.

In relation to Commonwealth funded care services and the removal of the religious exemption, the government stated that its intention with this bill was to introduce the relevant protections as a first stage of reform but to otherwise maintain the existing overall structure, including the exemptions. However, the government has now introduced an amendment reversing that stance. This is the part of the process which disturbs me. It will restrict the existing exemptions for religious organisations which provide Commonwealth funded aged-care services or accommodation. As my colleagues have mentioned, providers such as the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, the Salvation Army, Catholic Health Australia, the Presbyterian Church of Australia and some smaller denominations have all indicated that their policy is not to discriminate in practice. In these circumstances, the need for the regulation is not demonstrated.

If discrimination is not happening in practice, why do you need Big Brother, the government, to come in and so regulate? That has not been explained by the government or the Greens in putting forward this amendment. The providers I have named all complain that consultation has been extremely limited. They might have been surprised that there was limited consultation by this government, but those of us who have had to endure the last six years of Labor governments would not be surprised at the paucity of consultation. The Labor government and their Greens allies are serial offenders when it comes to failure to consult.

In the circumstances I relate, the removal of so fundamental a principle as the religious exemption cannot be supported. So we will be opposing the amendments being proposed by the government. If we cannot get enough senators to support us in opposing those amendments, we will, regrettably, be voting against the whole bill, a bill which, in its initial form, was strongly supported by the coalition. As I mentioned earlier, the original bill was consistent with the policy we took to the last election—and that policy remains coalition policy.

Clause 52 of the bill provides a saving clause in respect of anything done in direct compliance with a law of the Commonwealth, or of a state or territory, which is prescribed by regulation. That is, as the attorneys-general of the three larger states have argued, an unduly wide vesting of de facto legislative power in the hands of the executive government. Accordingly, as I have mentioned, the coalition intends to amend the saving provision to exempt actions which are in accordance with, or are necessary to comply with, state or territory law.

I conclude by saying again: here is a bill, the basic principles of which were unanimously supported. When this bill was debated in the lower house, there was no suggestion of the possibility of these amendments that we in the Senate are now dealing with. One can only guess why this new provision has come before the Senate. We believe in freedom. We believe in the right of religious organisations to properly manage their affairs and the affairs of the facilities they look after in a way that is in keeping with their principles and their beliefs, and this intrusion by the government is not one that we can support. It is regrettable. I certainly hope the government's amendments are defeated, in which case we can all ensure a rapid conclusion to this bill; but, should those amendments be supported, then regrettably we will be opposing the whole bill.