[Theme Music Starts]

ANGE:

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

Some of Australia’s most powerful religious bodies have taken aim at the prime minister as well as the Greens, accusing them of threatening the future of religious freedom.

But the reason for this backlash is simply the possibility that the government would work with the Greens to reform a 40 year old loophole in our discrimination laws.

So, what’s really at stake and is there about to be a showdown between religious lobbies and the PM?

Today, national correspondent for The Saturday Paper Mike Seccombe, on religion’s influence in Canberra and the political strategy behind the prime minister’s latest move.

It’s Wednesday, April 3.

[Theme Music Ends]

ANGE:

Mike, changes to Australia's reforms to religious discrimination laws seem to have been shelved by the government, but now it might be back on the table. What's happened?

MIKE:

Well yes, Ange. A couple of weeks ago Anthony Albanese, the prime minister, said that he would only go forward with these proposed changes if he had bipartisan support from the coalition parties, from the opposition. At the time, he was proposing a bipartisan deal with the coalition, the prime minister and those speaking on behalf of the prime minister, suggested that this was a genuine effort to avoid community division. So, that was the way it was portrayed, as an attempt to keep the peace, as it were. Peter Dutton, the opposition leader, said he couldn't guarantee that, which left the whole thing kind of at a stalemate. Of course, the other thing that happened here is it sidelined the crossbench. The outgoing Greens senator Janet Rice, in fact, asked the government to work with them to pass these new laws instead of working with the coalition. And one former LGBT+ student at a religious school added to that call at a press conference in Parliament House.

Audio excerpt — Former student:

“There are young, vulnerable people in school right now who will see all this play out and they'll feel the fear that I felt, and the shame that I felt, and they need to be protected from that. And the law should do so. Why else are we here? Why else is this building here? Do your job. That's what I'd say, do your job.”

MIKE:

Those calls initially appeared to be falling on deaf ears, and then at last week's meeting of the Labour Party room, Albanese surprised many of his colleagues by saying that he was now thinking that he would consider working with the Greens to pass religious discrimination reforms.

Audio excerpt — Sky News reporter 1:

“The fact that Anthony Albanese would even suggest, even as a brain fart, maybe I could work with the Greens, shows the disdain that Anthony Albanese and the Labour Party hold Christians in”

Audio excerpt — Sky News reporter 2:

“100%...”

MIKE:

This has enormous political consequences Ange. The truth is that if we had a Greens-Labour bill, it would probably look very different to a Coalition bill, and would also be probably much closer to what's been recommended by independent experts, in particular the Australian Law Reform Commission. So that's where we're at.

ANGE:

Right and before we get into the politics behind all of this, what is it that's been recommended by the Law Reform Commission?

MIKE:

Well, first thing we need to do is talk about the big flaws that exist in our current laws governing discrimination. And basically, this all goes back to the Sex Discrimination Act which was passed 40 years ago by the Hawke government, which provided an enormous carve out from the rules for religious groups.

There was a thing called section 38, there were three subsections to that. The first two stated that schools and colleges could continue to discriminate against staff members and contractors on the grounds of, and I'm quoting here, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status, or pregnancy.

In accordance with the, quoting again, doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, unquote. So that was the first two parts. Part three dealt with students and it allowed discrimination on the grounds also of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status, or pregnancy. Basically the same. Now, even at the time, some of that seemed woefully out of step with community standards. You know, like potentially bumping a teacher because they got pregnant, for example. And of course, 40 years down the track in 2024, it looks even more outdated because obviously community attitudes have changed.

Going to the latest evidence, which was the Australian Law Reform Commission report, which was tasked by the incoming Labour government with looking at the best way to amend these laws, it reported back in December, the government sat on the report for months, only released it a couple of weeks ago, and it recommended that the government should scrap section 38 entirely in order to extend legal protections to those working for and studying under religious schools. You know, it also recommended altering the existing Fair Work Act to allow some choice by religious institutions in the hiring of staff who shared their faith and values but it wound down things back enormously beyond where they were. The benefit of the approach that they adopted was that even though there could be a preference in hiring staff of similar faith and similar shared values, it could not be used to disguise discrimination, and the exemption could not be used as an excuse not to promote staff or to fire them. Now, this is much closer to the position of the Greens and most of the crossbench and goes well beyond what Labour has previously advocated. I mean, the last time the issue came up, which was under the Morrison government a couple of years ago, Labour only supported removing that part of the Sexual Discrimination Act that applied to students, not the part that applied to teachers and other staff.

ANGE:

So Mike, for Anthony Albanese to tell the party room he would work with the Greens, who preferred this entirely different way of coming at the problem, how did that go down with his colleagues? Was this a shock?

MIKE:

Well, I think a lot of people were surprised, but it was less the way it went down with his current colleagues and more how it went down with at least one of his past colleagues. No sooner had the meeting wrapped up than a former Labour senator, Jacinta Collins, started raising the alarm. Now Collins is now the executive director of the National Catholic Education Commission. She's a very conservative Catholic, and she heard word of what Albanese had said to the caucus, you know, almost as soon as it had been said. And the prospect that Labour might work with the Greens was a very disturbing development, obviously, for a conservative Catholic, because the Greens have long opposed legal exemptions that give special rights to religious institutions. You know, the Greens essentially insist that churches should abide by the same rules as everyone else. So the last thing religious conservatives wanted was for this left wing party to be involved in shaping legislation.

Audio excerpt — Sky News reporter 3:

“Catholics have reacted with absolute shock, calling the decision for Anthony Albanese to even suggest working with the Greens on religious freedom as, quote unquote, dangerous.”

Audio excerpt — Sky News reporter 4:

“How on earth can Anthony Albanese partner with the Greens in order to enact religious discrimination laws? You would literally have the two most extreme left wing parties in the Australian parliament determining religious freedom in this country.”

MIKE:

The NCEC, Collins' organisation, produced a media release very quickly, raising concerns about the development. Jacinta Collins was quoted in the statement: We are concerned by reports from caucus today that the Prime Minister might negotiate with the Greens, who have shown antipathy towards faith based schools in the past,” she said, “how could we expect a fair balance of protected rights if the Greens are ideologically opposed to religious schools?” So pretty strong stuff. And that statement from Collins was really just the start of a backlash from religious institutions about Albanese's change of tune.

ANGE:

After the break, why do religious groups still hold so much influence in Canberra?

[Advertisement]

ANGE:

Mike, Anthony Albanese had wanted to avoid a public conflict over religious discrimination, but his openness to working with the Greens led to a really strong rebuke from the Catholic education system. Has this led to more public fallout?

MIKE:

Well yes, The Catholic Archbishop of Sydney Anthony Fisher, wrote a piece in The Australian, the preferred outlet of the religious right, saying that this approach would undermine the values and principles of religious groups.

Audio excerpt — Sky News reporter 5:

“I'm pleased to say Archbishop Anthony Fisher joins me now. Well, you wrote today in The Australian that religious freedom, Archbishop Fisher, in Australia is being reduced slice by slice. Do you feel that this decision...”

MIKE:

And he warned the proposed reforms suggested that church groups were seeking, quote, the right to discriminate and only ran schools, quote, in order to promote hate.

Audio excerpt — Anthony Fisher:

“But we don't want to be distracted by endless lawfare from people that want to engage in some kind of activist program in our schools. We don't want to be afraid to have the sensitive conversations, or to be always looking over our shoulder.”

MIKE:

It's not just the Catholics, Ange. Other religious groups also weighed in. There was a joint statement on behalf of a number of different faiths, saying that they saw this change in strategy as a betrayal.

Audio excerpt — unidentified:

"This is the ugly side of politics, and we cannot let intimidation silence our voice and our values. We need a religious discrimination bill that is going to protect our freedoms, to practice and live out our faith. We call on the Albanese government to meet with faith leaders and allow open discourse into this bill by people who will be the most affected by it."

MIKE:

The day after the Catholic Education Commission statement was released, there was an open letter sent to Albanese and some media outlets, 41 different signatories covering a wide range of faith including Muslims, Hindus, Jewish groups and a variety of Christian denominations other than the Catholics. And it too expressed quote, deep concerns, unquote, that Albanese was considering talking to the Greens about this and once again said, you know, given that the party had a track record of advocating for the, and quoting here, removing exemptions for religious, all religious organisations and anti-discrimination law. That letter urged Albanese to go back and negotiate instead with the coalition, as he originally said he would, and they said they expected any proposal supported by the Greens would be unfavourable to faith communities, and that if the government chose to abandon attempts at bipartisanship with the coalition and work with the Greens and others, it would be interpreted as a betrayal of trust.

ANGE:

So, Albanese seemed very firm just a couple of weeks ago that he didn't want to push forward without bipartisan support on this to avoid this exact type of public debate. Now he's hinted that he is willing to push forward. Why is he risking that, do you think? What's the strategy from the Prime Minister here?

MIKE:

You tell me and we'll both know. I'm really not sure what the strategy is and a lot of people I spoke to were confused about it too. There's a variety of theories, right? One is that this was a calculated ploy by Albanese. That theory was that this would cause the religious groups to lean on Dutton, and particularly the shadow attorney general Michaelia Cash, to start negotiating properly in good faith instead of playing politics, which is essentially what they've been doing to date. It's a way to pressure the coalition to come back to the negotiating table. There's a second school of thought that suggests that Albanese realised that his initial position made the government look weak, like it was essentially once again prepared to agree to the coalition's position. You know, in the words of David Shoebridge, who's the Greens spokesman on legal matters, it made it appear as if Albanese was giving the opposition, quote, a veto or co-writers credit on the reforms that decide if kids can be expelled or teachers can be fired for their identity, unquote. Third theory, the one being pushed by Peter Dutton and the opposition, is that Albanese just wants the whole issue to go away, he wants to prang it and perhaps use the excuse of community division to make it go away. Of course, there could be the possibility also, unlikely as it seems often in politics, that Albanese actually wants to fix the problem, and that he's realised that the Greens are prepared to be flexible, because the Greens have kind of indicated that they are, and has figured that there are enough numbers on the crossbench to make these reforms happen. So, you know, that would definitely be the outcome, I would suggest, that if Albanese went this way, did basically what the Law Reform Commission suggested with a few minor tweaks, it looks very likely that he would get it through whatever the opposition position was, because he would get the support of the Greens and the crossbench. Whether that's what the Prime Minister would want going into an election year is another matter entirely.

ANGE:

And Mike, this story suggests that our political leaders are pretty concerned with what religious groups have to say. When you look at how long these reforms have taken, you know, 40 years since the laws were first passed, why is it that religious institutions still have such a strong voice in Canberra?

MIKE:

It's a good question. To some extent, it's because they are very well organised and highly motivated group, whereas the more secular elements in society, which are growing in number, are not nearly as motivated and organised. I think there's also a bit of inertia in the system, you know, things that have sat in legislation for a long time, it becomes hard to change.
And if we go back 40 years to when the Sex Discrimination Act was passed, well, back then, you know, homosexuality was vilified, it was still illegal in most states. Who'd ever heard of the acronym, you know, LGBTQIA+? That was not part of public discourse. So things have changed a lot. Australia has become a lot more pluralistic and a lot more secular. In the 2021 census, which is the most recent one, the number of Christians has declined from 76 to 44%, so it’s crashed, really.
But the biggest and fastest growing religious categorisation is actually no religion. And that's quadrupled to 38.7% as of 2021, and possibly more by now, given the long term trends.

And furthermore, those who actually still identify as having a faith appear less inclined to practice it in the traditional way. Their influence is in decline, along with it, obviously, their capacity to impose their moral values on the rest of us. And politics is really struggling to keep up, basically.

ANGE:

Mike, thanks so much for your time today.

MIKE:

Thank you very much.

[Advertisement]

[Theme Music Starts]

ANGE:

Also in the news today…

The federal government is investigating the killing of an Australian aid worker in Gaza during an apparent Israeli air strike.

Colleagues and loved ones paid tribute to Zomi Franckom, an Australian citizen, who was working for the food aid group World Central Kitchen.

A spokesperson for the charity said, “This is a tragedy. Humanitarian aid workers and civilians should never be a target, ever.”

The Prime Minister Anthony Albanese called killings of aid workers completely unacceptable, and that Australia expects full accountability for their deaths.

And,

The number of properties being sold to landlords has risen almost 20 per cent in a year, according to data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

In New South Wales, more than 42 per cent of mortgages taken out are by investors.

I’m Ange McCormack, this is 7am. Thanks for listening, we’ll be back again tomorrow.

[Theme Music Ends]