Page 5289 - Week 14 - Wednesday, 29 November 2017
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We have a longstanding Discrimination Act. It has been subject to some 45 amendments since it was established in 1991, and it has evolved over time, including the amendments our government made to provide additional protection from discrimination on the grounds of sexuality in 2003. Senator David Fawcett, who was one of the sponsors of some of the amendments we have seen in the Senate, said in the debate on the marriage bill on Monday that the ACT probably has the most robust anti-discrimination act on religious protections. We do have a robust Discrimination Act in place, and it is because ACT legislators in this place have passed ACT legislation, not unrepresentative Victorians, Tasmanians and South Australians on the hill who seek to impose their views and their discrimination on us in the last minute of a debate.
The ACT Discrimination Act 1991 includes an extensive range of protections for a variety of different members of the LGBTI community. It is the most comprehensive piece of anti-discrimination legislation in the entire country. The act defines direct discrimination as being when a person treats another person unfavourably because the other person has a protected attribute, which includes a person’s sexuality. Another protected attribute is a person’s religious conviction. It is against territory law to discriminate in employment, educational services, accommodation services, the provision of goods and services and club membership on a variety of grounds, including sexuality, intersexuality and gender identity. We do not need further exemptions to water down our Discrimination Act in the ACT. The ACT already provides exceptions for religious bodies, for religious workers and for religious educational institutions.
The protections in the Discrimination Act have led the nation. Had we had to wait for the commonwealth to catch up to Canberrans’ views and this place, we would perhaps not have had those protections until 2013, when comprehensive national laws were first passed under the commonwealth sex discrimination amendment act in 2013. It would be wrong for the federal parliament to attempt to assume responsibility for even part of the discrimination law under the guise of amendments to the commonwealth Marriage Act rushed through the parliament.
Why should the ACT Legislative Assembly cede the protections we have put in place and our ability to legislate against discrimination in a way that reflects our progressive and inclusive city? We have robust discrimination laws with religious exemptions. The ACT had the highest yes vote of any state and territory, and changing our discrimination laws is fundamentally at odds with the will of the people, who voted to reduce discrimination, not extend it.
Our Prime Minister has tried to deal with his deeply conservative party, launching a separate review into religious freedom laws in Australia, which will report back to government in March. It is led by former father of the house and Attorney-General Philip Ruddock and by Father Frank Brennan. However, this has done nothing to stop the conservatives from trying to impose discrimination through amendments to the same-sex marriage bill.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video