Page 4881 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 27 November 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
fact that the government are unwilling to put in a replacement clause when they are removing 33(2) gives me fear about what the real intention of this move is.
It is plausible that schools could be subject to complaints by students or families if they are subjected to such faith-based practices, despite the fact that students and families signed up for this when they enrolled at that school. Families sign a contract with the school for the provision of education services in the faith-based tradition of that school. It should be no surprise to anyone when the school delivers services that are consistent with that contract.
I expect that Mr Rattenbury or Mr Barr will give an assurance that my fears are not well founded. I expect that they will give an assurance that there is another clause or another section of the Discrimination Act that will come into play. I have no confidence that that is the case. In fact, it is clearly not the case and it is clearly not explicit because the government themselves have said they are happy to put further explanation in the explanatory statement that section 8 of the Discrimination Act applies. If further explanation is required, that is enough doubt to feed my concerns about the removal of section 33(2). This is a very problematic omission that the government are seeking today.
Later in this debate I will be moving amendments to this legislation to reinstate the explicit religious freedom protections that the government are seeking to remove. This can be done without restricting the government’s stated intentions regarding the sexuality of students and staff. It can be done. But if the government’s intention is simply to remove any potential discrimination—not actual discrimination but potential discrimination—then surely they would have no objection to the inclusion of my amendment in the legislation. The fact that I know they are not going to be supporting that amendment fills me with concern.
In addition to what I have said about religious freedom, there are many practical questions that the government will need to provide clarity on for staff and students with regard to the legislation. For instance, what constitutes a policy and what constitutes publication in accordance with new section 46(3) and (4)? For example, the bill states that there must be published policies. However, how much detail is going to be required, and where and when should it be published? Is including information in the employment pack for a new staff member going to be enough? Is putting the vision or mission on the school’s website going to be sufficient? Is saying, for instance, that a school adheres to particular religious texts going to be sufficient?
Can the policy make reference to other sources of information? How much detail is going to be required and how does a school succinctly state the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed in a way that stands up to contract law? This is extraordinarily difficult and, given the scholarly debate and academic research that have been going into these issues—
Mrs Jones: For thousands of years.
MR COE: for thousands of years, the world over, I find it very hard to believe that somehow here in the ACT we are going to be able to magically answer these
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video