[Theme Music Starts]

ANGE:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ange McCormack. This is 7am.

There are some laws in Australia that desperately need to be overhauled and brought into the modern day.

But even though almost everyone agrees they need to be updated, the challenge is to get our politicians to agree on how to do it.

This is exactly the situation we find ourselves in when it comes to discrimination laws – which still protect religious schools' right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ students and teachers.

Today, columnist for The Saturday Paper Paul Bongiorno, on how today’s Parliament is failing to break a decade of political gridlock.

It’s Friday March 22.

[Theme Music Ends]

ANGE:

Paul, changes to Australia’s discrimination laws are back on the agenda. Can you explain what they are and why we're talking about them again?

Paul:

Yes Ange, well religious freedom, particularly as it applies to church schools, was certainly back in the limelight. And that's because we've arrived at what you could call a crunch moment in the delivery of Anthony Albaneses election promise and reform the Sex Discrimination Act in a way that offers protections to teachers and students in these schools from discrimination on the basis of their sexuality, sexual identity, or even marital status.

On Thursday after Question Time, the Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus tabled recommendations from the Australian Law Reform Commission on the best way to achieve this, while at the same time respecting freedom of religious faith and practice in these schools.

Audio excerpt – Mark Dreyfus:

“Mr Speaker, no Australian should be discriminated against because of who they are or what they believe. The Australian Law Reform Commission’s report tabled today is not a report from the government. It is advice to the government, and we will continue to consider it.”

Paul:

Now Ange, the reform of these laws is long overdue at the moment in the Sex Discrimination Act. There are exemptions which allow churches to discriminate against women. That's in section 37 of the act, and that's not being touched.

But section 38 is the one that the Australian Law Reform Commission, the ALRC, says should be scrapped. This act was brought in under Bob Hawke in 1984. Section 38 makes it perfectly legal for church schools to discriminate against teachers or students based on their sexuality or gender, as well as marital status.

Now, that's long been out of step with community attitudes towards equality and fairness. But it became even more obvious after marriage equality was successful and became law.

Audio excerpt – Scott Morrison:

“Today, we fix an important weakness in our discrimination laws, as our government promised to do to the people of Australia at the last election. Today, we honour that commitment.”

Paul:

Scott Morrison promised to reform this legislation once he became prime minister, the year after the plebiscite.

Audio excerpt – Scott Morrison:

“We don't go around imposing our views on each other or seeking to injure one another with those views. People should not be cancelled or persecuted or vilified because their beliefs are different from someone else's.”

Paul:

But that attempt failed to pass Parliament when five Liberal moderates crossed the floor to defeat it because they said it didn't provide any of the promised protection, especially for transgender kids.

Audio excerpt – Trent Zimmerman:

“One of the things that's disturbed me most this week is the debate about transgender children. I cannot support a situation where we solve a problem for one community, but in fact enhance a problem for another.”

Paul:

Now, Anthony Albanese is trying to come good on his election promise to finally reform this legislation and to provide a change that Australia has been waiting for for far too long.

Audio excerpt – News Reporter (ABC):

“On the campaign trail prior to the last election, Anthony Albanese was pretty clear on his first term plans.”

Audio excerpt – Anthony Albanese:

“The policies that I'm taking to this election, whether it be the NBN, whether it be free childcare, a Religious Discrimination Act, a national anti-corruption commission; this term.”

Paul:

Meant to make sure he doesn't repeat the mistakes of the past. The Prime Minister has said he's wanted to get Peter Dutton's support. He wants this change to be made quickly and seamlessly without it becoming a massive public culture war, something that could doom the legislation once more and cause a lot of unnecessary damage in the community.

ANGE:

And reaching an agreement with Peter Dutton has never really been easy for Anthony Albanese. Paul, so what have you learned about the kind of conversations the two of them have been having this week?

Paul:

Well, that's the most significant conversation on this issue. They had this week happened at 30,000ft above ground as the Prime Minister and the opposition leader were being ferried on a VIP jet to Cessnock for the funeral of Lance Corporal Jack Fitzgibbon, the son of former Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon.

Audio excerpt – Peter Dutton:

“He raised the issue with me again, on the flight yesterday from Canberra to, the funeral for Jack Fitzgibbon and David Littleproud was in that meeting, as well as Richard Marles, the four of us and the Prime Minister.”

Paul:

Now, Dutton says the four way conversation was cordial and the essence of it was Albanese told him that he didn't want to proceed with new religious discrimination legislation unless there was prior bipartisan agreement, and the bills would not be subject to a Senate inquiry.

Audio excerpt – Peter Dutton:

“The Prime Minister made it clear that he wasn't going to support the religious discrimination proposals put forward by the government. Unless there was a bipartisan position.”

Paul:

On Dutton said the Prime Minister, quote, gave me no document. He put no position, and he outlined a couple of elements of what they were talking about.

Audio excerpt – Peter Dutton:

“I didn't give any commitments to the Prime Minister. I said we hadn't seen the report, we hadn't seen the bill, and we would have a discussion internally as to what our position would be.”

Paul:

But the truth is Ange, that Dutton could not have been left in any doubt about Albanese's position, even if it wasn't written down on a piece of paper. And that's because before this mid-air conversation, Dutton had had a lengthy discussion with Albanese about how the government was proposing to approach the changes.

Well, next day Dutton faced his party room, where some members told him there was no way they'd support the reform, which had been floated in that day's Australian. Well, this put Dutton in a very difficult position. That afternoon he called a press conference and lashed out angrily at Albanese, attacking the Prime Minister's character.

Audio excerpt – Peter Dutton:

“This guy is not believable. His word is worth nothing. And yet he wants to be the prime minister of our country. Who is to be trusted by everyone? You can't take him at face value.”

Paul:

But at the same time refusing to spell out his position or the principles behind it.

ANGE:

So then where does that leave Anthony Albanese, if he wants an agreement from Peter Dutton before he brings this legislation forward? But Dutton really won't commit to supporting it.

Paul:

Well, it leaves things at a stalemate. Albanese told his party room on Tuesday that he didn't want a divisive debate on religious freedom laws, when tensions were already running so high over anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in the community.

Audio excerpt – Anthony Albanese:

“There have been at least ten inquiries. There's been other 260 hearings and consultations. There have been other 70,000 submissions to committees. It is now time to determine whether will progress forward or not. I'm up for progressing forward on the basis of a bipartisan position, and I hope that can be achieved.”

Paul:

Senior Liberal Simon Birmingham says it's hard for the Coalition to support religious discrimination laws, they haven't seen. But to Albanese's mind, the second he puts draft legislation out there, the doors are open to exactly the kind of damaging public debate he wants to avoid.

But the real world result of this, Ange, is that if this stalemate remains, the Australian queer community will have been let down again by our Parliament, and these laws will go unreformed, potentially yet for another term of government.

ANGE:

After the break - why the government can’t risk a culture war over religious freedom.

[Advertisement]

ANGE:

Paul, there's currently a stalemate over religious discrimination laws being reformed. And I want to ask, what reaction has there been in the community to the political discussion we've seen in Canberra this week?

Paul:

Well, for a start, peak bodies representing queer communities are shattered by the apparent shelving of this reform. They say there's been more than a decade of reviews all recommending change. And yet attempts to reform the law have failed again and again.

Equality Australia's Ghassan Kassisieh, he says, quote, “while we continue to wait for the law to change, more people will lose their jobs and more children will be denied leadership roles or be forced to leave school.”

Just.equal spokesman Rodney Croome said Albanese had sold out queer students and staff by giving the veto to the Coalition.

And Greens Senator Janet Rice, herself a proud queer woman, urged the government to stop relying on bipartisanship from the Coalition and instead work with the Greens to get this legislation passed, she said this week. “I can't imagine that the Coalition are going to be supporting laws to protect against religious discrimination that aren't also going to be appallingly discriminatory against trans gender diverse and same sex attracted people.”

Audio excerpt – Janet Rice:

“It is possible to have legislation that gives people the freedom and protects their ability to practise their faith that doesn't discriminate against trans and gender diverse and same sex attracted kids. But we have seen such awful examples in the past.”

ANGE:

So if there is a sense of urgency from the community and there is another way to pass this legislation, why does the PM believe the right thing to do is to shelve this reform? Why does he want to avoid a culture war?

Paul:

Well Ange, the first thing to say is that there is considerable sympathy for the position that they should press ahead anyway within Labor ranks. But Albanese has made this call, and the caucus has no real option but to fall into line. One Labor insider told me we all get that the Prime Minister doesn't want to have another political fiasco, like the Voice referendum campaign, distracting the government and knocking it off balance.

And don't forget, an election could be held at the end of this year, or certainly in the early months of next year. Albanese doesn't want to give the Liberals cheer squad in large sections of the media. The opportunity to stoke every fear and prejudice in the community.

If this became an ugly partisan brawl. Social cohesion would be damaged, fanned by conservative media unleashing division over sexual identity and religious belief. Albanese was criticised for not pivoting when he lost bipartisan support for the referendum, and he's determined not to make that mistake again.

ANGE:

And so finally, Paul, what's the risk of this decision by Albanese? You know, if a section of the community doesn't say the Labor Party is delivering for them, is that equally a risk for him?

Paul:

Well Ange, you will get something of a taste of this in this weekend's state election in Tasmania. The opinion polls there are pointing to a hung Parliament with a surge for independents and Greens. Now at the federal level, Albanese knows he has to lift Labor's historically low primary vote if he's to avoid minority government, and to do that, he also knows he has to make every post a winner.

And in his judgement, bringing on a fight like this would create a major obstacle and distract from the government's economic agenda, which got something of a boost this week. With interest rates kept on hold by the reserve Bank and the prospect of fools coming sooner rather than later. And the energy price regulator signalled prices in large parts of the country are likely to fall by up to 7%. No wonder the Prime Minister doesn't want or need a distraction.

ANGE:

Paul, thanks so much for your time today.

Paul:

Thank you, Ange. Bye.

[Advertisement]

[Theme Music Starts]

ANGE:

Also in the news today…

As many as half of all the votes that were reportedly cast for Vladimir Putin in Russia’s presidential election last week, could be fraudulent, according to studies using an algorithm developed to track election fraud.

The algorithm was developed by Russian statistician Sergey Shpilkin, who has been named on the Russian government’s list of ‘foreign agents’ for his work.

And…

The Australian Federal Police reportedly referred the leak of sensitive legal material that surfaced during a TV interview with Bruce Lehrmann by Channel 7, to the new national anti-corruption commission for investigation.

The Nine newspapers report that the referral was made because the AFP believed its own officers may have been involved in the leak.

7am is a daily show from The Monthly and The Saturday Paper.

It’s produced by Kara Jensen-Mackinnon, Zoltan Fecso and Cheyne Anderson.

Our senior producer is Chris Dengate. Our technical producer is Atticus Bastow.

Our editor is Scott Mitchell. Sarah McVeigh is our head of audio.

Erik Jensen is our editor-in-chief.

Mixing by Andy Elston, Travis Evans, and Atticus Bastow.

Our theme music is by Ned Beckley and Josh Hogan of Envelope Audio.

I’m Ange McCormack. This is 7am. Thanks for listening, we will be back again next week.

[Theme Music Ends]