So what will the timetables be for introducing national anti-corruption commission legislation and a new religious discrimination bill?

Australia is only on Day 23 of the new Albanese Labor Government, but some timetables are emerging when it comes to promised reforms.

Attorney-General’s Department, Media Centre, ABC Radio National – Breakfast with Patricia Karvelas, Interview with Australian Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus QC MP, Subjects: National Anti-Corruption Commission; Bernard Collaery; Religious Discrimination Legislation, 8 June 2022, transcript excerpt:

PATRICIA KARVELAS: There's little detail on what your anti-corruption commission will look like. Will you be starting from scratch or will you use independent MP Helen Haines' template?

MARK DREYFUS: My department swung into action, Patricia, as soon as the election result was clear. We've now got a task force of senior officials headed by a Deputy Secretary completely devoted to ensuring that we will legislate a national anti-corruption commission this year. And the full resources of the department are now directed to drafting the very best bill that we can bring to the Australian Parliament.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: You say that because the Commonwealth is the last to legislate an anti-corruption commission you can pick and choose the best from the states and territories. Can you give me an idea on what you see as best practice?

MARK DREYFUS: There's a whole range of features that have been obviously discussed over the last three years, a lot of it in response to the inadequate model that the former government put forward. The commission is going to be independent, it's going to be powerful, it's going to have the powers of a Royal Commission. And some of the contentious matters that we've looked at are the scope of the commission. It's going to deal with serious and systemic corruption, it's going to be able to receive allegations from a whole range of sources, it's going to be able to, at its discretion, hold public hearings and all of those are important features and, of course, important differences from the former government's model. And it'll be able to look into the past. That's another deficiency of the former government's proposal. We think that it's completely inappropriate to suggest that an anti-corruption commission, once set up, would only be able to look at matters that arose after it was set up. That can't be right. None of the state and territory anti-corruption commissions function on that basis. They've all been able to look back into the past at their discretion when they think it's appropriate.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Okay, so two questions on this; how far back into the past?

MARK DREYFUS: That's going to be a matter for the commission.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: What's your view?

MARK DREYFUS: No, I'm not going to express a view. It's not for us, as the Government, to direct this commission…..

MARK DREYFUS: ... and I'm not going to set limits on this commission. It's independent. That's the key to it. It's not there to accept instructions from the government of the day. It's there to be independent.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: You say most of the hearings would be held in private. What would justify a public hearing in your view? How will that be articulated in the legislation for when the threshold is met for a public hearing?

MARK DREYFUS: There will be circumstances in which it is clearly in the public interest for a public hearing to take place. The experience of the state and territory commissions - because almost all of them have got the power to hold public hearings - is that they are sparing in the holding of those public hearings. They can, potentially, be very useful. A number of the anti-corruption commissioners around Australia with whom I've spoken about this have pointed out to me that it's a way of building confidence in the activities of the commission, if people can see it in operation. It's a way of showing how the commission is going about its work. And very often the holding of public hearings, some commissioners have told me, is something that prompts others to come forward. It brings out evidence if people hear of the investigation because the public hearing is being reported on. But overwhelmingly the work of these commissions is conducted by private hearings. They're sparing in their use of the public hearings…..

PATRICIA KARVELAS: When will the full design of the commission be announced?

MARK DREYFUS: We're going to bring a bill to the Parliament. And I'm going to be consulting before we do that, I'm certainly going to be consulting with the crossbench. As you said, in your introduction, the election of many independent members of the Parliament who campaigned on integrity issues tells us about the level of public support for this anti-corruption commission. It's a nation building reform. We're treating it extremely seriously. It's, as I've said, a paramount objective for the Government. I'm looking forward to consulting right across the Parliament on the details of this.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: So, if you have it legislated by the end of the year Attorney-General, does that mean it could be operational by next year?

MARK DREYFUS: We are going to legislate to create this anti-corruption commission, put the legislation in place, by the end of this year. That is the most clear commitment that we've given during the course of the campaign when it might be operational. If the legislation is passed by the end of this year it'll be a matter, as always for the establishment of a Commonwealth agency, of finding premises, finding staff appointing the commissioners, and then then it can get up and running.

PATRICIA KARVELAS: And what sort of timeframe might that might that look like?

MARK DREYFUS: I'd be hoping around the middle of 2023…..

PATRICIA KARVELAS: Just finally, prior to the election Labor said it would seek to legislate a Religious Discrimination Act and scrap the ability of schools to expel gay and transgender students at the same time. But a timeline hasn't been given. Are you still committed to religious discrimination legislation? And when would you do it?

MARK DREYFUS: Very much so and it's something that we will do, as we've said, in the course of this Parliament. Unlike the commitment on the National Anti-Corruption Commission where we've put a timeline on it by saying we are going to legislate by the end of this year, we haven't put such a timeline on the religious discrimination legislation that we will be bringing before the Parliament. But be assured, Patricia, we are bringing religious discrimination legislation before the Parliament. I have a very sharp memory of being interviewed by you at about 7:30 in the morning after an all night sitting for Federal Parliament earlier this year, when I think we'd sat to about 5 am in the morning. And one of the things I said to you in that interview was that, if we were successful at the upcoming election, we would be returning to this subject and bringing legislation to the Parliament on religious discrimination. That's why we voted for the government's bill, even after our amendments, only one of the amendments we supported, was successful. Because at its core, there is an appropriate, at the core even of the government's bill, there was an appropriate structure of anti-discrimination law, bringing in a prohibition on discriminating against people on the grounds of their religious beliefs. So I think we've made our position clear. It is a matter again of drafting legislation, which we will be doing and we will be bringing legislation to the Parliament…...

Cartoon of the Week

Cathy Wilcox

Religious Discrimination Bill 2021: Morrison loses his nerve and now hunts about for excuses?

Australian Prime Minister, Liberal MP for Cook & megaphone Christian Scott Morrison walks back on his 2018 & 2021 promises to prevent discrimination in religious-based schools against students who are either LGBQ or transgender.....

The Guardian, 10 February 2022:

The Morrison government has passed the religious discrimination bill in a marathon all-night sitting of the House of Representatives, despite Liberal moderates defecting to help add more extensive protections for LGBTQ+ students.

The Liberal MPs Bridget Archer, Trent Zimmerman, Katie Allen, Fiona Martin and Dave Sharma crossed the floor against the government, helping Labor and the crossbench add protections for LGBTQ+ students into the Sex Discrimination Act.

The main bill received a third reading at 4am, officially passing the lower house with Labor support after Wednesday’s resolution by the opposition caucus to fight for amendments but not oppose the bill at the final stage.

The human rights amendment bill, which now prevents religious schools discriminating against students on gender and sexuality, passed shortly before 5am – despite a last-ditch attempt from the government to defeat its own legislation.

Labor and several of the government’s own members were galvanised by the Morrison government revealing it will protect gay students from expulsion – but not other forms of discrimination – without protecting trans students at the same time.

Zimmerman told the house the parliament could not send a message by “omission” by moving to fix sexuality discrimination but not gender identity discrimination. “I could not live with myself if I didn’t seek to address those issues.”

Earlier, the Morrison government defeated Labor amendments to the statements of belief clause by the narrowest margin.

Despite Archer and Zimmerman voting against the government, shortly after 2.30am the speaker, Andrew Wallace, used his casting vote to break a 62-all tie to thwart Labor’s amendment to the controversial clause.

Further amendments to ban vilification on the grounds of religion and discrimination in the provision of in-home aged care services were defeated, with Zimmerman joining the Coalition, Bob Katter and Craig Kelly on those votes.

The Liberal MP Warren Entsch, who earlier told parliament he didn’t believe the bill was necessary and still had concerns about statements of belief and LGBTQ+ children, nevertheless voted against all amendments, claiming it was necessary to “bank the successes” of other changes to the bill.

Labor’s fight to amend the package of legislation will now move to the Senate, where it hopes support from the Greens, Rex Patrick, Jacqui Lambie, Stirling Griff and Liberal defectors including Andrew Bragg will help it win amendments defeated in the lower house.

Bragg has already called for the statements of belief clause, which protects religious statements even if they offend, insult or humiliate others on the basis of protected attributes, to be removed in its entirety.

Scott Morrison called for the bill to pass in a speech at 12.50am…..

The Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 and Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021, having been read a third time went before the Senate which was intending to consider them "during this period of sittings".

However, by way of a request by Senator Nick McKim (Greens Deputy Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate and Australian Greens Whip) all three bills were separated from the block scheduling vote and, on 10 February 2022 the Senate "negatived" the question. Having refused to include them in the block vote allowing provisions of paragraphs (5) to (8) of standing order 111 to not apply to those three bills - thereby blocking them from being considered during this period of sittings.

Morrison's bills are now in somewhat of a political limbo. The Government Deputy Leader of Senate Michaelia Cash having almost simultaneously announced an inquiry into what purports to be concerns relating to the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 as amended by the House of Representatives on Wednesday 9 February 2022, but I suspect is more about how to reshape the rebellious internal party politics surrounding the Religious Discrimination Bill while at the same time placating his Christian power base in the face of yet another ideological setback. 

This new inquiry all but ensures that the three bills are dead in the water until after the federal general election expected in May 2022.

What is somewhat amusing is that neither Scott Morrison as Prime Minister nor Peter Dutton as Leader of the House of Representatives appear to have seen the snare until it hoist them high and left them upside down spinning by one ankle.

Reading between the lines it seems Morrison was well aware that the already highly problematic Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 was in real danger by mid-afternoon on Wednesday 2022 of moving into unchartered waters and beyond his preferred framing. For his own party's political comfort Morrison really should have adjourned debate of the three bills then in order to come back to them on 14-17 February. Instead he kept going to the wee small hours of 10 February and voted to refer the problem to the Senate probably hoping that the optics of abandoning the bill would not look as bad there.

Once in the Senate matters moved so fast that the Deputy Nationals Leader in the Senate Matt Canavan had no idea what was happening and his plaintive query is recorded in Hansard: "I'm a little confused. I don't have the motion in front of me. In regard to the religious discrimination bills and the human rights bill, you said you'd put the motion. What was that motion? What was the content of it? I don't have it in front of me". 

Rumour has it that a Cabinet Meeting on 7 February 2022 was less than complementary of Morrison's political judgement - it appears his ministers has good cause.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BACKGROUND

Australian Parliament, Hansard, VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS, 9 February 2022, excerpts:

House Of Representatives

13 RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION BILL 2021

The order of the day having been read for the resumption of the debate on the question—That the bill be now read a second time— And on the amendment moved thereto by Mr Wilkie, viz.— That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

“the House declines to give the bill a second reading and notes that:

(1) this bill will have a greater negative impact on Tasmania than any other state or territory because our anti-discrimination legislation is currently the best in the country; and

(2) the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 has the full support of the Tasmanian Parliament and been strongly endorsed by the Liberal Premier the Hon Peter Gutwein MP”—

Debate resumed.

Ms L. M. Chesters addressing the House—

It being 1.30 pm, the debate was interrupted in accordance with standing order 43, Ms L. M. Chesters was granted leave to continue her speech when the debate is resumed, and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour this day.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

29 RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION BILL 2021

The order of the day having been read for the resumption of the debate on the question—That the bill be now read a second time— And on the amendment moved thereto by Mr Wilkie (see item No. 13, page 2447) —

Debate resumed.

Documents

Mr Albanese ( Leader of the Opposition ), by leave, presented the following documents:

Letter from the Hon Scott Morrison MP, Prime Minister, to the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, Leader of the Opposition, 1 December 2021.

Letter from the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, Leader of the Opposition, to the Hon Scott Morrison MP, Prime Minister, 1 December 2021.

Debate continued.

Debate adjourned (Mr Wood—Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs), and the resumption of the debate made an order of the day for a later hour this day.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

30 SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS—TIME AND ORDER OF BUSINESS FOR THIS SITTING

Mr Wood (Assistant Minister for Customs, Community Safety and Multicultural Affairs), by leave, moved—That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent the following from occurring in relation to business for today:

(1) consideration of the following bills in order, without intervening business:

(a) Religious Discrimination Bill 2021;

(b) Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021;

(c) Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021;

(d) Treasury Laws Amendment (Enhancing Superannuation Outcomes For Australians and Helping Australian Businesses Invest) Bill 2021;

(e) National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Participant Service Guarantee and Other Measures) Bill 2021; and

(f) Corporate Collective Investment Vehicle Framework and Other Measures Bill 2021;

(2) following consideration of the bills listed in paragraph (1), the House to immediately adjourn until 9.30 am on Thursday, 10 February 2022;

(3) from the determination of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 until the adjournment of the House:

(a) any division called shall be deferred until 9.30 am on Thursday, 10 February 2022; and

(b) if any Member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House, the Speaker shall announce that he will count the House at 9.30 am on Thursday, 10 February 2022; and

(4) any variation to this arrangement to be made only on a motion moved by a Minister.

Question—put and passed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

31 RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION BILL 2021

The order of the day having been read for the resumption of the debate on the question—That the bill be now read a second time— And on the amendment moved thereto by Mr Wilkie (see item No. 13, page 2447) —

Debate resumed.

The House continuing to sit until after midnight—

Thursday, 10 February 2022

Question—That the amendment be disagreed to—put.

The House divided (the Speaker, Mr Wallace, in the Chair)—

AYES, 96

Mr Albanese Mr Drum Mr Katter Mr Ramsey*

Mr Alexander Mr Dutton Ms Kearney Ms Rishworth

Dr Allen Mrs Elliot [MP for Richmond] Mr C. Kelly Ms Ryan

Mrs K. L. Andrews Mr Entsch Mr Laming Mr Sharma

Mr K. J. Andrews Mr Evans Ms Landry Mr Simmonds

Ms Bell Mr Falinski Dr Leigh

Mr A. D. H. Smith Mr Bowen Mr Fletcher

Ms Ley Mr D. P. B. Smith Mr Broadbent Ms Flint

Mr Littleproud Ms Stanley* Mr Buchholz Dr Freelander

Ms McBain Mr Stevens Mr Burke Mr Frydenberg

Ms McBride Mr Sukkar Ms Burney Mr Georganas

Mr McCormack Ms Swanson Mr Burns Mr Giles

Mrs McIntosh Mr Taylor Ms T. M. Butler Dr Gillespie

Mrs Marino Ms Templeman Mr Byrne Mr Goodenough

Mr Marles Mr Thompson Mr D. J. Chester Mr Gorman

Dr Martin Mr van Manen Ms L. M. Chesters Mr Hamilton

Mr Morrison Mr Vasta Ms Claydon Mr Hawke

Mr Morton Mr Watts Ms Coker Mr Hayes

Mr Ted O’Brien Mrs Wicks Mr Coleman Mr Hill

Mr O’Connor Mr R. J. Wilson Mr Conaghan [MP for Cowper] Mr Hogan [MP for Page]

Mr Pasin Mr T. R. Wilson Mr Conroy Mr Howarth

Mr Pearce Mr Wood Mr Coulton Mr Hunt

Mrs Phillips Mr Wyatt Mr Dick Mr Jones

Mr Pitt Mr Zappia Mr Dreyfus Mr Joyce

Mr Porter Mr Zimmerman

NOES, 6

Mrs Archer Dr Haines* Ms Steggall Mr Wilkie

Mr Bandt* Ms Sharkie

* Tellers

And so it was resolved in the affirmative.

Question—That the bill be now read a second time—put.

The House divided (the Speaker, Mr Wallace, in the Chair)—

AYES, 97

Mr Albanese Mr Dutton Ms Kearney Mr Ramsey*

Mr Alexander Mrs Elliot [MP for Richmond] Mr C. Kelly Ms Rishworth

Dr Allen Mr Entsch Mr Laming Ms Ryan

Mrs K. L. Andrews Mr Evans Ms Landry Mr Sharma

Mr K. J. Andrews Mr Falinski Dr Leigh Mr Simmonds

Ms Bell Mr Fletcher Ms Ley Mr A. D. H. Smith

Mr Bowen Ms Flint Mr Littleproud Mr D. P. B. Smith

Mr Broadbent Dr Freelander Ms McBain Ms Stanley*

Mr Buchholz Mr Frydenberg Ms McBride Mr Stevens

Mr Burke Mr Georganas Mr McCormack Mr Sukkar

Ms Burney Mr Giles Mrs McIntosh

Ms Swanson Mr Burns Dr Gillespie Mrs Marino

Mr Taylor Ms T. M. Butler Mr Goodenough Mr Marles

Ms Templeman Mr Byrne Mr Gorman Dr Martin

Mr Thompson Mr D. J. Chester Mr Hamilton Mr Morrison

Mr van Manen Ms L. M. Chesters Mr Hawke Mr Morton

Mr Vasta Ms Claydon Mr Hayes Mr Ted O’Brien

Mr Watts Ms Coker Mr Hill Mr O’Connor Mrs Wicks Mr Coleman

Mr Hogan [MP for Page] Mr Pasin Mr R. J. Wilson Mr Conaghan [MP for Cowper]

Mr Howarth Mr Pearce Mr T. R. Wilson Mr Conroy

Mr Hunt Mr Perrett Mr Wood Mr Coulton Mr Jones

Mrs Phillips Mr Wyatt Mr Dick Mr Joyce

Mr Pitt Mr Zappia Mr Dreyfus Mr Katter

Mr Porter Mr Zimmerman Mr Drum

NOES, 6

Mrs Archer Dr Haines* Ms Steggall Mr Wilkie

Mr Bandt* Ms Sharkie

* Tellers

And so it was resolved in the affirmative—bill read a second time.

Consideration in detail

Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.

Mr Bandt, by leave, moved amendments (1) to (12) together.

Debate ensued.

Question—That the amendments be disagreed to—put.

The House divided (the Speaker, Mr Wallace, in the Chair)—

AYES, 90

Mr Albanese Mr Entsch Mr Laming Ms Rishworth

Mr Alexander Mr Evans Ms Landry Mr Sharma

Dr Allen Mr Falinski Dr Leigh Mr Simmonds

Mrs K. L. Andrews Mr Fletcher Ms Ley Mr A. D. H. Smith

Mr K. J. Andrews Ms Flint Mr Littleproud Mr D. P. B. Smith

Mrs Archer Mr Frydenberg Ms McBride Ms Stanley*

Ms Bell Mr Georganas Mr McCormack Mr Stevens

Mr Bowen Mr Giles Mrs McIntosh Mr Sukkar

Mr Broadbent Dr Gillespie Mrs Marino Mr Taylor

Mr Buchholz Mr Goodenough Mr Marles Ms Templeman

Ms Burney Mr Gorman Dr Martin Mr Thistlethwaite

Mr Burns Mr Hamilton Mr Morrison Mr Thompson

Mr Byrne Mr Hawke Mr Morton Mr van Manen

Mr D. J. Chester Mr Hayes Mr Ted O’Brien Mr Vasta

Ms L. M. Chesters Mr Hogan [MP for Page] Mr L. S. O’Brien Mr Watts

Ms Coker Mr Howarth Mr O’Dowd Mrs Wicks

Mr Coleman Mr Hunt Mr Pasin Mr R. J. Wilson

Ms Collins Mr Irons Mr Pearce Mr T. R. Wilson

Mr Conaghan [MP for Cowper] Mr Jones Mrs Phillips Mr Wood

Mr Coulton Mr Joyce Mr Pitt Mr Wyatt

Mr Dreyfus Mr Katter Mr Porter Mr Zappia

Mr Drum Mr C. Kelly Mr Ramsey* Mr Zimmerman

Mr Dutton Ms C. F. King

NOES, 5

Mr Bandt* Ms Sharkie Ms Steggall Mr Wilkie

Dr Haines*

* Tellers

And so it was resolved in the affirmative.

Mr C. Kelly moved an amendment.

Debate ensued.

Amendment negatived, Mr C. Kelly dissenting.

Document

Mr Fletcher (Minister representing the Attorney-General) presented a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill.

On the motion of Mr Fletcher, by leave, Government amendments (10), (12), and (17) to (21) were made together, after debate.

Mr Fletcher, by leave, moved Government amendments (1) to (9), (11), (13) to (16) and (22) together.

Mr Dreyfus moved the Opposition amendment to Government amendment (8).

Debate ensued.

Question—That the amendment be disagreed to—put.

The House divided (the Speaker, Mr Wallace, in the Chair)—

AYES, 62

Mr Alexander Mr Fletcher Ms Ley Mr Ramsey*

Dr Allen Ms Flint Mr Littleproud Mr Sharma

Mrs K. L. Andrews Mr Frydenberg Mr McCormack Mr Simmonds

Mr K. J. Andrews Dr Gillespie Mrs McIntosh Mr A. D. H. Smith

Ms Bell Mr Goodenough Mrs Marino Mr Stevens

Mr Broadbent Mr Hamilton Dr Martin Mr Sukkar

Mr Buchholz Mr Hawke Mr Morrison Mr Taylor

Mr D. J. Chester Mr Hogan [MP for Page] Mr Morton Mr Thompson

Mr Coleman Mr Howarth Mr Ted O’Brien Mr van Manen

Mr Conaghan [MP for Cowper] Mr Hunt Mr L. S. O’Brien Mr Vasta

Mr Coulton Mr Irons Mr O’Dowd Mrs Wicks

Mr Drum* Mr Joyce Mr Pasin Mr R. J. Wilson

Mr Dutton Mr Katter Mr Pearce Mr T. R. Wilson

Mr Entsch Mr C. Kelly Mr Pitt Mr Wood

Mr Evans Mr Laming Mr Porter Mr Wyatt

Mr Falinski Ms Landry

NOES, 62

Mr Albanese Mr Dick Ms M. M. H. King Ms Sharkie

Mrs Archer Mr Dreyfus Dr Leigh Mr Shorten

Mr Bandt Mrs Elliot [MP for Richmond] Ms McBain Mr D. P. B. Smith

Mr Bowen Dr Freelander Ms McBride Mr Snowdon

Mr Burke Mr Georganas Mr Marles Ms Stanley*

Ms Burney Mr Giles Mr B. K. Mitchell Ms Steggall

Mr Burns Mr Gorman Mr Neumann Ms Swanson

Ms T. M. Butler Mr Gosling Mr O’Connor Ms Templeman

Mr Byrne Dr Haines Ms O’Neil Mr Thistlethwaite

Dr Chalmers Mr Hayes Ms Owens Ms Thwaites

Ms L. M. Chesters Mr Hill Mr Perrett Mr Watts

Mr Clare Mr Husic Mrs Phillips Ms Wells

Ms Claydon Mr Jones Ms Rishworth Mr Wilkie

Ms Coker Ms Kearney Ms Rowland Mr Zappia

Ms Collins Mr Khalil Ms Ryan* Mr Zimmerman

Mr Conroy Ms C. F. King

* Tellers

The numbers for the “Ayes” and the “Noes” being equal, the Speaker gave his casting vote with the “Ayes” in accordance with the principle that where no further discussion is possible, decisions should not be taken except by a majority.

And so it was resolved in the affirmative.

Question—That Government amendments (1) to (9), (11), (13) to (16) and (22) be agreed to—put and passed, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie dissenting.

Mr Dreyfus, by leave, moved Opposition amendments (2), (4), (10), (17) to (19) and (21) to (27) together.

Debate ensued.

Question—That the amendments be disagreed to—put.

The House divided (the Speaker, Mr Wallace, in the Chair)—

AYES, 62

Mr Alexander Mr Fletcher Ms Ley Mr Ramsey*

Dr Allen Ms Flint Mr Littleproud Mr Sharma

Mrs K. L. Andrews Mr Frydenberg Mr McCormack Mr Simmonds

Mr K. J. Andrews Dr Gillespie Mrs McIntosh Mr A. D. H. Smith

Ms Bell Mr Goodenough Mrs Marino Mr Sukkar

Mr Broadbent Mr Hamilton Dr Martin Mr Taylor

Mr Buchholz Mr Hawke Mr Morrison Mr Thompson

Mr D. J. Chester Mr Hogan [MP for Page] Mr Morton Mr van Manen

Mr Coleman Mr Howarth Mr Ted O’Brien Mr Vasta

Mr Conaghan [MP for Cowper] Mr Hunt Mr L. S. O’Brien Mrs Wicks

Mr Coulton Mr Irons Mr O’Dowd Mr R. J. Wilson

Mr Drum* Mr Joyce Mr Pasin Mr T. R. Wilson

Mr Dutton Mr Katter Mr Pearce Mr Wood

Mr Entsch Mr C. Kelly Mr Pitt Mr Wyatt

Mr Evans Mr Laming Mr Porter Mr Zimmerman

Mr Falinski Ms Landry

NOES, 61

Mr Albanese Mr Dreyfus Ms M. M. H. King Ms Ryan*

Mrs Archer Mrs Elliot [MP for Richmond] Dr Leigh Ms Sharkie

Mr Bandt Dr Freelander Ms McBain Mr Shorten

Mr Bowen Mr Georganas Ms McBride Mr D. P. B. Smith

Mr Burke Mr Giles Mr Marles Mr Snowdon

Ms Burney Mr Gorman Mr B. K. Mitchell Ms Stanley*

Mr Burns Mr Gosling Mr R. G. Mitchell Ms Steggall

Mr Byrne Dr Haines Mr Neumann Ms Swanson

Dr Chalmers Mr Hayes Mr O’Connor Ms Templeman

Ms L. M. Chesters Mr Hill Ms O’Neil Mr Thistlethwaite

Mr Clare Mr Husic Ms Owens Ms Thwaites

Ms Claydon Mr Jones Mr Perrett Mr Watts

Ms Coker Ms Kearney Mrs Phillips Ms Wells

Ms Collins Mr Khalil Ms Rishworth Mr Wilkie

Mr Conroy Ms C. F. King Ms Rowland Mr Zappia

Mr Dick

* Tellers

And so it was resolved in the affirmative.

Mr Dreyfus, by leave, moved Opposition amendments (5) to (9) and (11) to (15) together.

Debate ensued.

Question—That the amendments be disagreed to—put.

The House divided (the Speaker, Mr Wallace, in the Chair)—

AYES, 63

Mr Alexander Mr Fletcher Ms Ley Mr Sharma

Dr Allen Ms Flint Mr Littleproud Mr Simmonds

Mrs K. L. Andrews Mr Frydenberg Mr McCormack Mr A. D. H. Smith

Mr K. J. Andrews Dr Gillespie Mrs McIntosh Mr Stevens

Ms Bell Mr Goodenough Mrs Marino Mr Sukkar

Mr Broadbent Mr Hamilton Dr Martin Mr Taylor

Mr Buchholz Mr Hawke Mr Morrison Mr Thompson

Mr D. J. Chester Mr Hogan [MP for Page] Mr Morton Mr van Manen

Mr Coleman Mr Howarth Mr Ted O’Brien Mr Vasta

Mr Conaghan [MP for Cowper] Mr Hunt Mr L. S. O’Brien Mrs Wicks

Mr Coulton Mr Irons Mr O’Dowd Mr R. J. Wilson

Mr Drum* Mr Joyce Mr Pasin Mr T. R. Wilson

Mr Dutton Mr Katter Mr Pearce Mr Wood

Mr Entsch Mr C. Kelly Mr Pitt Mr Wyatt

Mr Evans Mr Laming Mr Porter Mr Zimmerman

Mr Falinski Ms Landry Mr Ramsey*

NOES, 61

Mr Albanese Mr Dreyfus Ms M. M. H. King Ms Ryan*

Mrs Archer Mrs Elliot [MP for Richmond] Dr Leigh Ms Sharkie

Mr Bandt Dr Freelander Ms McBain Mr Shorten

Mr Bowen Mr Georganas Ms McBride Mr D. P. B. Smith

Mr Burke Mr Giles Mr Marles Mr Snowdon

Ms Burney Mr Gorman Mr B. K. Mitchell Ms Stanley*

Mr Burns Mr Gosling Mr R. G. Mitchell Ms Steggall

Ms T. M. Butler Dr Haines Mr Neumann Ms Swanson

Mr Byrne Mr Hayes Mr O’Connor Ms Templeman

Dr Chalmers Mr Hill Ms O’Neil Mr Thistlethwaite

Mr Clare Mr Husic Ms Owens Ms Thwaites

Ms Claydon Mr Jones Mr Perrett Mr Watts

Ms Coker Ms Kearney Mrs Phillips Ms Wells

Ms Collins Mr Khalil Ms Rishworth Mr Wilkie

Mr Conroy Ms C. F. King Ms Rowland Mr Zappia

Mr Dick

* Tellers

And so it was resolved in the affirmative.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Consideration in detail concluded.

Leave granted for third reading to be moved immediately.

Mr Fletcher moved—That the bill be now read a third time.

Question—put.

The House divided (the Speaker, Mr Wallace, in the Chair)—

AYES, 90

Mr Albanese Mrs Elliot [MP for Richmond] Mr Katter Mr Pitt

Mr Alexander Mr Entsch Mr C. Kelly Mr Porter

Dr Allen Mr Evans Mr Laming Mr Ramsey*

Mrs K. L. Andrews Mr Falinski Ms Landry Ms Rishworth

Mr K. J. Andrews Mr Fletcher Dr Leigh Ms Rowland

Ms Bell Ms Flint Ms Ley Mr Shorten

Mr Bowen Dr Freelander Mr Littleproud Mr A. D. H. Smith

Mr Broadbent Mr Frydenberg Mr McCormack Mr D. P. B. Smith

Mr Buchholz Mr Georganas Mrs McIntosh Ms Stanley*

Mr Burke Mr Giles Mrs Marino Mr Stevens

Ms Burney Dr Gillespie Mr Marles Mr Sukkar

Ms T. M. Butler Mr Goodenough Dr Martin

Mr Taylor Dr Chalmers Mr Hamilton Mr Morrison

Mr Thompson Mr D. J. Chester Mr Hawke Mr Morton

Mr van Manen Ms Claydon Mr Hayes Mr Neumann

Mr Vasta Mr Coleman Mr Hill Mr Ted O’Brien

Mr Watts Mr Conaghan [MP for Cowper] Mr Hogan [MP for Page] Mr L. S. O’Brien

Mrs Wicks Mr Conroy Mr Howarth Mr O’Connor

Mr R. J. Wilson Mr Coulton Mr Hunt Mr O’Dowd

Mr T. R. Wilson Mr Dick Mr Husic Mr Pasin

Mr Wood Mr Dreyfus Mr Irons Mr Pearce

Mr Wyatt Mr Drum Mr Jones Mr Perrett

Mr Zappia Mr Dutton Mr Joyce

NOES, 6

Mrs Archer Dr Haines* Ms Steggall Mr Wilkie

Mr Bandt* Ms Sharkie

* Tellers

And so it was resolved in the affirmative—bill read a third time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

32 RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL 2021

The order of the day having been read for the resumption of the debate on the question—That the bill be now read a second time—

Question—put and passed—bill read a second time.

Leave granted for third reading to be moved immediately.

On the motion of Mr Fletcher (Minister representing the Attorney-General), the bill was read a third time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

33 HUMAN RIGHTS LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL 2021

The order of the day having been read for the resumption of the debate on the question—That the bill be now read a second time—

Question—put and passed—bill read a second time.

Consideration in detail

Bill, by leave, taken as a whole.

Ms Sharkie moved amendment (2).

Debate ensued.

Question—That the amendment be disagreed to—put.

The House divided (the Speaker, Mr Wallace, in the Chair)—

AYES, 69

Mr Alexander Mr Entsch Mr C. Kelly Mr Porter

Dr Allen Mr Evans Ms Landry Mr Ramsey*

Mrs K. L. Andrews Mr Falinski Dr Leigh Mr Sharma

Mr K. J. Andrews Ms Flint Ms Ley Mr Simmonds

Ms Bell Mr Frydenberg Mr Littleproud Mr A. D. H. Smith

Mr Broadbent Mr Georganas Mr McCormack Ms Stanley*

Mr Buchholz Mr Giles Mrs McIntosh Mr Stevens

Mr Burke Dr Gillespie Mrs Marino Mr Sukkar

Ms Burney Mr Goodenough Mr Marles Mr Taylor

Mr D. J. Chester Mr Hamilton Mr Morrison Mr Thompson

Ms Claydon Mr Hawke Mr Morton Mr van Manen

Mr Coleman Mr Hayes Mr Ted O’Brien Mr Vasta

Mr Conaghan [MP for Cowper] Mr Hogan [MP for Page] Mr L. S. O’Brien

Mr Watts Mr Coulton Mr Hunt Mr O’Dowd

Mr R. J. Wilson Mr Dick Mr Irons Mr Pasin

Mr T. R. Wilson Mr Dreyfus Mr Joyce Mr Pearce

Mr Wyatt Mr Drum Mr Katter Mr Pitt

Mr Zappia Mr Dutton

NOES, 8

Mrs Archer Dr Haines* Ms Sharkie Mr Wilkie

Mr Bandt* Dr Martin Ms Steggall Mr Zimmerman

* Tellers

And so it was resolved in the affirmative.

Ms Sharkie moved amendment (3).  [my yellow highlighting]

Debate ensued.

Question—That the amendment be disagreed to—put.

The House divided (the Speaker, Mr Wallace, in the Chair)—

AYES, 58

Mr Alexander Ms Flint Ms Ley Mr Ramsey* Mrs K. L. Andrews

Mr Frydenberg Mr Littleproud Mr Simmonds Mr K. J. Andrews

Dr Gillespie Mr McCormack Mr A. D. H. Smith Ms Bell

Mr Goodenough Mrs McIntosh Mr Stevens Mr Broadbent

Mr Hamilton Mrs Marino Mr Sukkar Mr Buchholz

Mr Hawke Mr Morrison Mr Taylor Mr D. J. Chester

Mr Hogan [MP for Page] Mr Morton Mr Thompson Mr Conaghan [MP for Cowper]

Mr Howarth Mr Ted O’Brien Mr van Manen Mr Coulton

Mr Hunt Mr L. S. O’Brien Mr Vasta Mr Drum*

Mr Irons Mr O’Dowd Mrs Wicks Mr Dutton

Mr Joyce Mr Pasin Mr R. J. Wilson Mr Entsch

Mr Katter Mr Pearce Mr T. R. Wilson Mr Evans

Mr C. Kelly Mr Pitt Mr Wood Mr Falinski

Mr Laming Mr Porter Mr Wyatt

Mr Fletcher Ms Landry

NOES, 65

Mr Albanese Mr Dreyfus Dr Leigh Ms Sharkie

Dr Allen Mrs Elliot [MP for Richmond] Ms McBain Mr Sharma Mrs Archer

Dr Freelander Ms McBride Mr Shorten Mr Bandt

Mr Georganas Mr Marles Mr D. P. B. Smith Mr Bowen

Mr Giles Dr Martin Mr Snowdon Mr Burke

Mr Gorman Mr B. K. Mitchell Ms Stanley* Ms Burney

Mr Gosling Mr R. G. Mitchell Ms Steggall Mr Burns

Dr Haines Mr Neumann Ms Swanson Ms T. M. Butler

Mr Hayes Mr O’Connor Ms Templeman Mr Byrne

Mr Hill Ms O’Neil Mr Thistlethwaite Dr Chalmers

Mr Husic Ms Owens Ms Thwaites Mr Clare

Mr Jones Mr Perrett Mr Watts Ms Claydon

Ms Kearney Mrs Phillips Ms Wells Ms Coker

Mr Khalil Ms Rishworth Mr Wilkie Ms Collins

Ms C. F. King Ms Rowland Mr Zappia Mr Conroy

Ms M. M. H. King Ms Ryan* Mr Zimmerman

Mr Dick

* Tellers

And so it was negatived.

Question—That the amendment be agreed to—put.

The House divided (the Speaker, Mr Wallace, in the Chair)—

AYES, 65

Mr Albanese Mr Dreyfus Dr Leigh Ms Sharkie

Dr Allen Mrs Elliot [MP for Richmond] Ms McBain Mr Sharma Mrs Archer

Dr Freelander Ms McBride Mr Shorten Mr Bandt

Mr Georganas Mr Marles Mr D. P. B. Smith Mr Bowen

Mr Giles Dr Martin Mr Snowdon Mr Burke

Mr Gorman Mr B. K. Mitchell Ms Stanley* Ms Burney

Mr Gosling Mr R. G. Mitchell Ms Steggall Mr Burns

Dr Haines Mr Neumann Ms Swanson Ms T. M. Butler

Mr Hayes Mr O’Connor Ms Templeman Mr Byrne

Mr Hill Ms O’Neil Mr Thistlethwaite Dr Chalmers

Mr Husic Ms Owens Ms Thwaites Mr Clare

Mr Jones Mr Perrett Mr Watts Ms Claydon

Ms Kearney Mrs Phillips Ms Wells Ms Coker

Mr Khalil Ms Rishworth Mr Wilkie Ms Collins

Ms C. F. King Ms Rowland Mr Zappia Mr Conroy

Ms M. M. H. King Ms Ryan* Mr Zimmerman Mr Dick

NOES, 59

Mr Alexander Mr Fletcher Ms Landry Mr Ramsey*

Mrs K. L. Andrews Ms Flint Ms Ley Mr Simmonds

Mr K. J. Andrews Mr Frydenberg Mr Littleproud Mr A. D. H. Smith

Ms Bell Dr Gillespie Mr McCormack Mr Stevens

Mr Broadbent Mr Goodenough Mrs McIntosh Mr Sukkar

Mr Buchholz Mr Hamilton Mrs Marino Mr Taylor

Mr D. J. Chester Mr Hawke Mr Morrison Mr Thompson

Mr Coleman Mr Hogan [MP for Page] Mr Morton Mr van Manen Mr Conaghan [MP for Cowper]

Mr Howarth Mr Ted O’Brien Mr Vasta Mr Coulton

Mr Hunt Mr L. S. O’Brien Mrs Wicks Mr Drum*

Mr Irons Mr O’Dowd Mr R. J. Wilson Mr Dutton

Mr Joyce Mr Pasin Mr T. R. Wilson Mr Entsch

Mr Katter Mr Pearce Mr Wood Mr Evans

Mr C. Kelly Mr Pitt Mr Wyatt Mr Falinski

Mr Laming Mr Porter

* Tellers

And so it was resolved in the affirmative.

Question—That the bill, as amended, be agreed to—put.

The House divided (the Speaker, Mr Wallace, in the Chair)—

AYES, 65

Mr Albanese Mr Dreyfus Dr Leigh Ms Sharkie

Dr Allen Mrs Elliot [MP for Richmond] Ms McBain Mr Sharma

Mrs Archer Dr Freelander Ms McBride Mr Shorten

Mr Bandt Mr Georganas Mr Marles Mr D. P. B. Smith

Mr Bowen Mr Giles Dr Martin Mr Snowdon

Mr Burke Mr Gorman Mr B. K. Mitchell Ms Stanley*

Ms Burney Mr Gosling Mr R. G. Mitchell Ms Steggall

Mr Burns Dr Haines Mr Neumann Ms Swanson

Ms T. M. Butler Mr Hayes Mr O’Connor Ms Templeman

Mr Byrne Mr Hill Ms O’Neil Mr Thistlethwaite

Dr Chalmers Mr Husic Ms Owens Ms Thwaites

Mr Clare Mr Jones Mr Perrett Mr Watts

Ms Claydon Ms Kearney Mrs Phillips Ms Wells

Ms Coker Mr Khalil Ms Rishworth Mr Wilkie

Ms Collins Ms C. F. King Ms Rowland Mr Zappia

Mr Conroy Ms M. M. H. King Ms Ryan* Mr Zimmerman

Mr Dick

NOES, 59

Mr Alexander Mr Fletcher Ms Landry Mr Ramsey*

Mrs K. L. Andrews Ms Flint Ms Ley Mr Simmonds

Mr K. J. Andrews Mr Frydenberg Mr Littleproud Mr A. D. H. Smith

Ms Bell Dr Gillespie Mr McCormack Mr Stevens Mr Broadbent

Mr Goodenough Mrs McIntosh Mr Sukkar Mr Buchholz

Mr Hamilton Mrs Marino Mr Taylor Mr D. J. Chester

Mr Hawke Mr Morrison Mr Thompson Mr Coleman

Mr Hogan [MP for Page] Mr Morton Mr van Manen Mr Conaghan [MP for Cowper]

Mr Howarth Mr Ted O’Brien Mr Vasta Mr Coulton

Mr Hunt Mr L. S. O’Brien Mrs Wicks Mr Drum*

Mr Irons Mr O’Dowd Mr R. J. Wilson Mr Dutton

Mr Joyce Mr Pasin Mr T. R. Wilson Mr Entsch

Mr Katter Mr Pearce Mr Wood Mr Evans

Mr C. Kelly Mr Pitt Mr Wyatt Mr Falinski

Mr Laming Mr Porter

* Tellers

And so it was resolved in the affirmative.

Bill, as amended, agreed to.

Consideration in detail concluded.

On the motion of Mr Fletcher (Minister representing the Attorney-General), by leave, the bill was read a third time.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Member for Mayo Rebekha Sharkie's moved amendment passed 65 to 58:

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021

(Ms Sharkie)

(1) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (lines 4 to 7), omit subsection 47C(4).

[educational institutions]

(2) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 10), at the end of the Schedule, add:

10 At the end of section 37

Add:

(3) Paragraph (1)(d) does not apply to an act or practice of an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular

religion or creed if the act or practice is in connection with employment, education or training provided by the educational institution.

11 Section 38

Repeal the section.

[educational institutions]

(3) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 10), at the end of the Schedule, add:

10 At the end of section 37

Add:

(3) Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(d), it is unlawful for an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed to discriminate against a student or prospective student on the ground of

the student’s or prospective student’s sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy.

11 Subsection 38(3)

Repeal the subsection

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Senate, Hansard, 10 February 2022, excerpt:

The PRESIDENT: With the agreement of the chamber, I'll put the question on those bills as set out by Senator McKim first. We start with the question on those bills as listed by Senator McKim—three electoral matters bills, NDIS amendment, two religious discrimination bills and the human rights bill.

Senator RICE (Victoria—Deputy Australian Greens Whip) (12:03): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RICE: The Religious Discrimination Bill should be dumped rather than be rushed through the Senate. The bill, as was passed through the House last night, would increase discrimination against people with disability, against women, against people of minority faiths and against LGBTIQA+ people. The bill, as was passed through the House last night, would allow an aged-care home to refuse to employ a worker because she is a Muslim woman wearing a hijab. The bill, as was passed through the House last night, would allow a school to sack staff or students because they refuse to sign up to a school policy that says homosexuality is evil. The bill that was passed through the House last night would make legal hurtful, harmful statements, like disability being a punishment from God.This bill should be dumped. It should be put into the dustbin of history, rather than being rushed through the Senate.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion be agreed to with respect to the bills as listed by Senator McKim. Senator Urquhart.

Senator Urquhart: Could we put the electoral bills separately, and the religious ones together?

The PRESIDENT: You're happy with putting the electoral bills and the NDIS bill together, and then the religious discrimination and the human rights bills; is that correct?

Senator Urquhart: Yes.

The PRESIDENT: We will start with the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Foreign Influences and Offences) Bill 2022, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Authorisations) Bill 2022, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (COVID Enfranchisement) Bill 2022 and the National Disability Insurance Scheme Amendment (Participant Service Guarantee and Other Measures) Bill 2021. The question is the motion be agreed to.

The Senate divided. [12:11]

(The President—Senator Brockman)

Ayes.......................48

Noes.......................9

Majority .................39

Question agreed to

The PRESIDENT (12:14): I will now put the question on the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, the Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 and the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021.

Question negatived.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~