[Theme Music Starts]

RUBY:

From Schwartz Media, I’m Ruby Jones, this is 7am.

More than three years ago, the Prime Minister Scott Morrison made an election promise - to pass new laws protecting people of faith from discrimination.

While the promise is now in tatters - the political debate around the bill has exposed enormous divisions in the Liberal party - and brought to the fore questions about how we treat some of the nation’s most vulnerable children.

Today, national correspondent for The Saturday Paper Mike Seccombe on the revolt over the Religious Discrimination Bill, and the political faultlines the bill has exposed.

It’s Tuesday, February 15.

[Theme Music Ends]

RUBY:

Mike, recently the political debate in Australia was dominated by the issue of religious freedom, after the government made the issue a priority in parliament. So what does that tell us about how important this is to Scott Morrison’s agenda?

MIKE:

Well, it's hugely important, particularly given how close we are to an election and everything in politics has to do with elections.

The religious discrimination bill was a promise that Scott Morrison made ahead of the last election in 2019.
He told religious leaders And you know, more broadly, people of faith across the country that he would have a bill in place to guarantee them protection against discrimination within this term of parliament.
And time is running out to do that.

It's also a big priority for the government, of course, because those people, the religious conservatives, the ones who are most interested in this are a big part of the government's base.
So, so yeah, it's a big deal for the government.

RUBY:

And so, Mike, religious freedom does seem like an unusual issue to be dominating parliament, particularly just before an election when we've had so many other things to think about over the past three years. You say that this goes back to 2019. Can you tell me a bit more about that and and why it came up then?

MIKE:

Well, actually, it goes back even further.

Archival tape -- Malcolm Turnbull:

“Thank you, Mr Speaker, I present the plebiscite, same sex marriage bill and the explanatory memorandum.”

MIKE:

It goes back essentially to the marriage equality plebiscite of a couple of years ago, when there was a lot of concern from religious groups, of course, that a lot of them were not in favour of same-sex couples being able to marry.

Archival tape -- Christian Lobby, Lyle Shelton:

“Bill's party has said they're going to fine bakers and florists and photographers and wedding venue operators who want to continue to live out their sincerely held beliefs about marriage. That's not free, Australia.”

MIKE:

And then all sorts of little side issues came up like their right to bake wedding cakes for gay couples, that sort of thing.

So, so anyway, as a sort of consolation prise, I guess, for the fact that they lost on that one, the government announced that it would work towards legislation guaranteeing protection against discrimination on religious grounds.

Archival tape -- Scott Morrison:

“Religious freedom is one of the cornerstones of what we are as a country, and it's important that our laws reflect that. Now we committed to put in place a religious discrimination act. We're going to do that.”

MIKE:

Scott Morrison promised this law would be implemented in that current term of parliament.

Archival tape -- Scott Morrison:

“I gave a commitment that we would ensure that people would not be discriminated against in this country, as a basis of their religious beliefs or non-beliefs.”

MIKE:

Obviously, all the way through, it's been very contentious.

Archival tape -- Reporter:

“The government has hailed the bill as a shield, not a sword. But critics, including within its own ranks, claim the proposed legislation still has gaping holes which could leave some people worse off.”

MIKE:

We've had multiple enquiries and hearings and evidence taken from various parties and all the way through religious conservatives have been very definite that they want this and they want their current rights maintained and protected. So that’s been the background and it all came to a head last week.

RUBY:

Hmm mm. So Mike when this debate restarted last week - what was the most contentious part of the discussion?

MIKE:

Well, last week, the biggest area of concern has been around schools and what kind of discrimination might be allowed against students. And interestingly and slightly confusingly, it wasn't just about the religious discrimination bill, but this debate has spilt into other pieces of legislation as well.

And so to explain, it's worth going back to 2018, when Morrison said that he believed that religious schools, even if they receive public funding, should be able to run their schools in line with their religious beliefs. And that led to fears that school kids could be expelled on the basis of their sexuality.

So Morrison backtracked slightly and gave a guarantee that they wouldn't. He said that while the religious discrimination laws would protect the right of religious people to express their faith, he would also ensure that the Sex Discrimination Act was changed to make it clear that school kids couldn't be expelled because of their sexuality.

RUBY:

Okay so we're really talking about two different pieces of legislation, Mike! There’s the proposed new religious discrimination laws and amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act. So can you unravel for me how those two pieces of legislation have played out in the public debate. What is connecting them? Why are they being talked about in the same breath?

MIKE:

Well, because essentially one was a trade off for the other.

The Sex Discrimination Act, as I've said, already allows schools to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, relationship status and pregnancy. That's basically in order to help certain religious people adhere to their faiths.

But the concern was that that this, in association with the new religious discrimination laws, would further entrench the right of religious institutions, particularly schools, to go even further. And so to deal with those concerns that schools would feel even more empowered to refuse to enrol or expel kids on the basis of various sexual characteristics - last week, the government said it would amend the Sex Discrimination Act to remove sexual orientation from the list of allowable reasons to discriminate.

The problem with that was that it left gender identity in the list, which led to fears that while gay students might be protected at least from expulsion, trans students could still be expelled from religious schools.

RUBY:

We’ll be back in a moment.

[Advertisements]

RUBY:

Mike, what happened when the government tried to pass this legislation - the new Religious Discrimination laws and the amended Sex Discrimiation act?

MIKE:

Well, there was a great deal of concern from both sides of politics and both sides of the issue.
I mean, every so often and it's usually on these sort of social policy issues, you get politicians breaking away from the normal dry as dust sort of speeches in support of legislation. And there were some very, very powerful, very emotional speeches on this.

Archival tape -- Stephen Jones:

“For me, this is not an academic issue. Last week, my family said, well, farewell to my nephew, Wally. He was just 15 when he took his own life.”

MIKE:

The shadow assistant treasurer, Labour member Stephen Jones, for example, gave an incredibly moving speech where he told the House about how his gay nephew took his life only the previous week

Archival tape -- Stephen Jones:

“He was a beautiful, creative, courageous young man. He was loved and accepted by his parents, by his family, by his friends and community. His mum and dad are in anguish. We all are.”

MIKE:

and said that the kid had been uncertain about his gender, had struggled with mental health, and that the love and acceptance of his family and friends was not enough to save him from the depression that killed him.
He also spoke with permission of his own son, who he called a beautiful, creative, intelligent 14 year old.

Archival tape -- Stephen Jones:

“He moves seamlessly between the wardrobes of men and women. He wears heels that give me vertigo and has more handbags than his sister. He has more courage than any other boy of his age than I've ever, ever met.”

MIKE:

And he posed the question: What message does this parliament want to send to those kids?

Archival tape -- Stephen Jones:

“At some stage, they have to step out into the world and deal with it as it is. So we, as parliamentarians, have the power to shape that world. But what we do and what we say and how we vote.”

MIKE:

So that was a very powerful speech.
Trent Zimmerman, openly gay MP, the first one ever elected to the parliament.

Archival tape -- Trent Zimmerman:

“There are people today that are in mental anguish because of their sexuality. There are even more people in anguish because of their gender. And we have to provide a legal environment that supports them.”

MIKE:

He spoke of his own personal experience and said that he could not support what the government was doing to gay and trans kids.

Archival tape -- Trent Zimmerman:

I could not live myself if I did not seek to address these issues…

RUBY:

OK, so we've got quite a lot of opposition then to this bill from Labor MPs who are concerned. We've also got some, some Liberals as well. So what did that mean when it came to passing the legislation back to the numbers in parliament?

MIKE:

Well, it meant things were incredibly close.

Labor said it would try to amend the legislation and add in protections for trans students, but said that regardless it would vote for the religious discrimination bill anyway. So it became a marathon sitting. The House debated the bill all night until the wee hours.

Archival tape -- Rebekha Sharkie:

“From listening to the speeches in this place today and yesterday, I know there are many members who are deeply concerned about the well-being of LGBTI students.”

MIKE:

And just before 5:00 am an amendment was moved by Rebekha Sharkie, a crossbench MP, to change the Sex Discrimination Act, to remove the capacity of religious schools to discriminate in any form whatsoever against students.

Archival tape -- Speaker:

“Lock the doors order. The question is that this bill has been agreed to. The eyes will pass to the right of the chair and the no’s to the left.”

MIKE:

And five liberal MPPs crossed the floor, voted with the crossbench and labour, and the government was defeated.

Archival tape -- Speaker:

“The result of the division is ayes 65, noes 59. The question is therefore resolved in the affirmative.”

MIKE:

So the House of Reps changed the Sex Discrimination Act. But along with that, the Religious Discrimination Act passed without amendments and then both of them were to go up to the Senate to be considered there.

RUBY:

Mmm ok. So at the end of all this the religious discrimination act passed - with Labor’s support?

MIKE:

Well, that's the funny thing. Yes, it passed with Labour's support, but it died at the same time because the government then became so frightened of the prospect that there would be further amendments that would be unacceptable to its Christian right wing base that it pulled the whole package. So in effect, at the end of this fight, the religious discrimination bill has gone back to it yet another committee for further consideration, which really is just a way of the government pushing this whole issue into the long grass till past the next election.
And I suspect it will never re-emerge. I suspect that they've come to the realisation that this is just a problem too big for them to handle. At the same time, unfortunately, what it also means is that despite what happened in the House of Representatives, those existing provisions of the SDA have not been removed either. So effectively, it's a nil all draw.

So in legislative terms, not much has changed, but in political terms, a tremendous amount has changed.
What Morrison hoped for with this legislation was to shore up his support among religious conservatives, of which he, of course, is one but who form a large part of his base. He's failed in that he's lost authority within his party, so he's failed in that, and he'd hoped that he could wedge the Labour Party as being anti-religion. And he's failed in that because the Labour Party actually passed his legislation. He's the one who pulled it.
So you've got to say it's pretty much a disaster all around.

RUBY:

Hmm. Mike, thank you so much for your time.

MIKE:

Thank you.

[Advertisement]

RUBY:

Also in the news today,

Crown Resorts has accepted an offer to sell its casino empire to the US private equity firm Blackstone.

If the 8.9 billion dollar deal goes ahead, billionaire and major stakeholder in Crown, James Packer is set to walk away from the company with 3 billion in cash.

The takeover is subject to approval by shareholders, Australia's Foreign Investment Review Board and gaming regulators.

**

And former NRL player Jarryd Hayne has won his appeal against alleged sexual assualt charges.

The 33-year-old who was accused of assaulting a woman on the night of the NRL grand final in 2018 has had his previous conviction quashed and a retrial has been ordered.

If the retrial goes ahead it will be the third trial of Hayne since he was first charged.
I’m Ruby Jones. This is 7am, see you tomorrow.