The Tasmanian Greens today welcomed the removal of contentious provisions in the Anti Discrimination Amendment Bill 2012, which would enable schools to potentially discriminate against some students on religious grounds.
Greens Leader Nick McKim MP said the move by the Greens to knock out these new controversial provisions, which received the support of the Liberal Party, is a win for the power-sharing Parliament.
“The Greens placed firmly on the public record earlier this week our opposition to these specific provisions of the Amendment Bill, contained in Clause 11, which sought to provide exemption for faith-based schools to discriminate based on religion in some circumstances,” Mr McKim said.
“The majority of the Amendment Bill contains very significant and important reforms which the Greens stated we would support, but we are very pleased to see Clause 11 fall in the House this evening.”
“We welcome the fact that the Liberals joined with the Greens in our opposition to Clause 11, however it must be noted that our motivations are very different: while the Greens oppose discrimination, the Liberals are clearly trying to set this issue up as an election issue.”
“Whatever the motivation, the basic fact is that this push to introduce the capacity for faith-based schools to discriminate failed today, but Tasmanians need to remain vigilant in the future to protect our proud reputation as an inclusive, diverse and progressive society.”
• Australian Christian Lobby: Freedom of speech and freedom of religion threatened by Tasmanian anti-discrimination legislation
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion will be diminished in Tasmania if amendments to anti-discrimination legislation are passed by the Parliament, according to the Australian Christian Lobby.
The Anti-Discrimination Amendment Bill 2012, which is being debated today, would threaten the ability of religious schools to maintain their ethos, ACL’s Tasmanian Director Mark Brown said.
“In the same way political parties are able to positively discriminate in favour of people who share their ethos, religious schools should also have this right in order to preserve their distinctives,” Mr Brown said.
The proposed changes would deny schools the ability to select students according to the faith and values of students or their parents.
Schools could apply for an exception on a case-by-case basis but the requirements are onerous.
“The proposed changes to the Bill violate the rights of parents who want to educate their children a certain way, and the rights of those children who share their parents’ faith and values,” Mr Brown said.
“Article 18(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) specifically protects the right of parents “to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions”.
“Faith-based schools should have the right to determine their enrolments according to their mission and purpose. This is to ensure that the religious ethos and community culture of the school is maintained,” Mr Brown said.
“Instead of case-by-case exceptions, there should be a general exemption allowing schools to select students of the particular faith of the school.
“Just as single-sex schools will positively discriminate in selecting students of one sex, schools which are set up to serve a particular faith community must be allowed to uphold the purpose and intent of their schools by selecting students of a particular faith, should they choose to do so,” Mr Brown said.
The proposed legislation would also expand the prohibition of conduct which “offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults, or ridicules”.
Mr Brown said such changes would threaten free speech and open dialogue and increase unnecessary litigation, concerns which are heightened by the experience with anti-vilification laws in Victoria.
“ACL certainly objects to behaviour that incites hatred or ridicules another but to open the prohibition of offence to things like religious or political belief or sexual orientation is a threat to freedom of speech. Who doesn’t get offended or insulted at times by others’ differences of opinion? This is part of living in a democracy,” Mr Brown said.
“Censoring free speech based on hurt feelings is to trivialise discrimination and is political correctness gone mad.”
• TASMANIAN GAY AND LESBIAN RIGHTS GROUP
Media Release
Thursday November 15th 2012
ADVOCATES HAPPY PROPOSED RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS DISCRIMINATION EXEMPTION VOTED DOWN
TASMANIAN LEADS THE WAY ON PROTECTING INTERSEX & TRANSGENDER PEOPLE FROM DISCRIMINATION
Tasmanian gay rights advocates are pleased a proposal to allow religious schools to discriminate against students on the grounds of religion has been voted down in state parliament.
Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group spokesperson, Rodney Croome, said,
“Our concern is that if church schools are given the right to discriminate against students on the grounds of religion they could use this as a cover to discriminate against students on other grounds like their sexual orientation or their parent’s relationship status.”
“We welcome the vote not to include this unnecessary and damaging exemption in the Anti-Discrimination Act.”
The Greens voted against the proposed exemption because it went too far in allowing discrimination. The Liberals joined them because the proposed exemption did not go far enough in giving faith-based schools the right to discriminate on the grounds of religion. The Liberals cited the wider exemptions available in other states to justify their desire to roll back Tasmania’s strong protections.
Mr Croome also welcomed the passage of other amendments to the Anti-Discrimination Act which strengthen provisions against harassment and bullying, and which provide stronger protections for transgender and intersex people.
“Fair-minded Tasmanians can take pride in the fact that we are the first place in Australia to explicitly protect intersex people from discrimination and that we are providing stronger protections for transgender people.”
“Tasmania is yet again leading Australia in fostering a fairer and more inclusive society.”
For several years the Tasmanian Catholic Church has sought an exemption to allow it to turn away non-Catholic students applying to enrol in Catholic schools that are over-subscribed.
In response, the State Government proposed an exemption that included safeguards to try and eliminate any misuse of the exemption to discriminate on grounds other than religion in areas other than enrolment.
During debate, Attorney-General, Brian Wightman, made it clear that if the proposed religious exemption was passed, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and relationship status would remain unlawful, including in enrolments.
However, several non-Catholic independent schools objected to these safeguards and wanted the exemption to be broader.
“Those faith-based schools that are concerned about the failure of this exemption can blame the hardline dogmatism of a few church schools representatives and the Liberal Party,” Mr Croome said.
