Religious Discrimination Bill 2021

The same number of MPs voted for and against a motion to disagree with the opposition amendment to government amendment (8) so the Speaker made a casting vote with the 'Yes' votes, meaning that the opposition amendment failed.

There were two rebellions, with Bass MP Bridget Archer (Liberal) and North Sydney MP 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 (Labor) explained that:

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, the bill was introduced with the Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 and Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 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 of the more controversial parts of the bill, including an explanation for each rebellion that occurred during the long debate. According to this summary, 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.