Page 4890 - Week 13 - Tuesday, 27 November 2018
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
visited many schools where there are obviously students from a different faith tradition to that of the school. Obviously, the parents of those kids sent their child to that faith-based school knowing that it was a different faith tradition to theirs but they did so with their eyes open. Often the ethos or the values are very similar to the faith tradition of the family, but still they made a conscious decision. That is what they signed up to. That is the contract that they engaged in.
One need only look at the various vision and mission statements for schools in Canberra. One non-government school includes in its mission:
… where the Good News of Jesus Christ is proclaimed and where faith, educational excellence and the call to justice are reconciled and lived.
Another says:
… an inclusive and welcoming community … witness to the values of Jesus Christ through leadership, support and services …
Another school says:
… to partner with parents in providing a Christ-centred, Biblically-grounded and academically rigorous education, which enables students to grow in wisdom and character, to the glory of God.
Another says:
… to provide students with a Christ-centred education in a learning community of Love, Nurture and Service.
Another simply includes:
… this will be provided within a Christian framework …
All the schools are very clear about the faith tradition that their schools represent, and this faith tradition is not just a by-product; it is just not something on the side; it is the very fundamental reason why these schools were established in the first place. It was the motivation for their establishment. For the government to remove section 33(2) of the Discrimination Act risks undermining the very establishment of these schools. Why is it that they are so stubborn in not allowing my amendment to go forward?
In my conversations and emails yesterday Mr Rattenbury raised some potential concerns. I think they were far-fetched but potential concerns all the same. In response to that, I had another amendment drawn up which gave additional assurance to the government. If the government was concerned that there could be unintended consequences, I included in a draft amendment that I sent around that the religious freedom, in effect, had to be in accordance with the policy published by the educational institution and that was readily accessible by prospective and current students at the institution.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video