Equal Opportunity (Religious Bodies) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:18): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an act to amend the Equal Opportunity Act 1984. Read a first time.

Second Reading

The Hon. R.A. SIMMS (16:19): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

This bill moves to amend the Equal Opportunity Act to remove the exemptions that are currently provided to religious bodies. In 2024, it really is incredible that some forms of discrimination are still permissible under South Australian laws. It is really difficult to comprehend. Our laws allow for certain faith-based institutions to discriminate against the LGBTI community in employment and in accessing services. The Greens believe that no-one should face discrimination based on their sex, their sexual orientation or their gender identity.

A report from Equality Australia, 'Dismissed, Denied and Demeaned', found that discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation is still present in faith-based schools and organisations. The report found that 50 per cent of South Australian schools were showing some evidence of discrimination and were on average more likely to be discriminatory than schools in Victoria, New South Wales or Western Australian. The report ranked South Australia as 'poor' in relation to legislative protections for LGBTI people and showed that South Australian policies tended to drive discrimination underground, rather than to actually hold the agents accountable.

According to the Equality Australia report, more than 70,000 students and 10,000 staff in non-government schools are estimated to be part of the LGBTI community across the country. The report details stories of students who have been forced out of school or teachers who have been fired simply for being who they are. Indeed, I know of people who have spoken to me anonymously over the years who work in the private school system who are living in fear of coming out in their workplace because they believe they could lose their job as a result. I do want to read out some of the examples that have been canvassed in the 'Dismissed, Denied and Demeaned' report. I will read some of those examples to you, Mr President.

The names are not the real names of the respondents, as they have been substituted, but one person who is referred to in the document as Lisa talks about being denied promotion based on her same-sex relationship. Lisa was employed in the catholic education system in New South Wales for 16 years, working her way to the position of assistant principal. When she began her career, she was married to a man. They later divorced and Lisa began a relationship with a woman. Lisa kept the relationship quiet after they moved in together, but did not hide it.

Lisa needed a year off work after a medical accident in 2018. During this time, her partner handled all communication with the school. When Lisa returned to work, she was told that the new relationship was in breach of her contract and that she could be fired at any time. Despite having an excellent employment record, as evidenced by her many promotions, Lisa was told she could no longer advance in her career within the catholic system. She married her partner a short time later and the school told her colleagues not to attend the wedding or to give her any gifts. Lisa quit her job six months later.

What about the story of Kimberly, 'Say you are single or you are fired'? Kimberly got a job as a PE teacher at a catholic school in regional New South Wales in 2021. After 12 years at the school, Kimberly began dating another female staff member. Following a complaint with a fellow teacher, the couple was called into a meeting with the principal. They were told their same-sex union was against the values of the school and both of them would lose their jobs if they did not formally state that they were not in a relationship.

Kimberly questioned why her relationship was deemed unsuitable and against the catholic ethos when other staff were living in de facto relationships and some women had given birth without being married. Kimberly refused the principal's offer and walked out of his office without a job. She called the union and was told there was nothing that could be done because of the school's religious nature.

The couple met again with the principal the next day and were told they would be welcome back only if they stated they were not a couple, so that the principal could answer honestly if he was questioned about their relationship. Kimberly's partner, who was financially supporting two young children, encouraged her to rethink her position as they returned to work. Kimberly struggled with lying about who she was, so she left her job a few months later.

This one is another example that is disturbing and it comes from South Australia, from 2022. Joanne was shopping with her friends and her wife at a charity store in Adelaide run by a large faith-based organisation. When Joanne asked a staff member for directions to the bathroom, the staff member told her she had to use the male bathroom and referred to her as a fake woman. The staff member then followed Joanne into the bathroom and physically blocked her from attending the female bathroom.

Joanne told the staff member that she had a right to use the female toilet, but she was told that she had no choice. When Joanne came out of the male bathroom, the staff member told her she had to leave the store. As Joanne left the store, she saw the staff member reenacting the exchange with other staff members and laughing about the incident. Joanne wrote a letter to the organisation about her experience but she never received a reply.

What about this example from 2015, discrimination while homeless? In 2015, Harley fled their intimate partner and family violence, seeking accommodation at a refuge provided by a faith-based organisation in Victoria. During their time at the refuge, they were counselled against disclosing their sexuality or wearing rainbow items of clothing. They were told they were going to go to hell by a staff member who said they would pray for God to show them the way. Harley left the refuge and spent three nights sleeping on the streets instead.

In 2021, Harley and their wife sought emergency accommodation from a different faith-based organisation. This time Harley's wife, who is a trans-woman, was told she would need to go to a men's shelter rather than access the same facility as Harley. These are examples of Australians and South Australians being denied their basic rights under our laws.

Many people who have experienced such discrimination under our law are fearful of publicly talking about their experiences. However, some have taken their stories to mainstream media. In addition to the reports canvassed in that document, I will reference some of the examples that have been reported in the media over the last few years.

In August 2021, Southern Vales Christian College was in the media for refusing to hire teachers who identify as being LGBTIQ. In June 2024, a teacher in a religious school in Sydney had her job terminated after she revealed on a Facebook post that she was in a same-sex relationship—June of this year. In April 2023, the Presbyterian Church argued that they should have the right to bar sexually active LGBTI students from holding leadership roles in the school. In the same month, Dr Karen Pack, a devout Christian, was fired from her teaching job after she announced her engagement to her long-term same-sex partner.

We know that there has been some discussion about finally closing this loophole within federal legislation and that would be preferable in terms of managing this issue. Sadly, though, the Labor Party has squibbed on this reform at every opportunity. When I was in the federal parliament, my push for action on this was back in 2015 and 2016, nearly 10 years ago.

When the Labor Party came to government, they made a commitment under Prime Minister the Hon. Anthony Albanese that they would reform this area. Well, I was bitterly disappointed to see, two weeks ago, the news that the reform has once again been shelved. How gutless is that? How spineless is that?

So it is now up to the states to resolve this issue, and South Australia is lagging significantly behind. Next year, our state will celebrate a significant milestone: the 50^th anniversary of the decriminalisation of homosexuality. We were the first state in the country to decriminalise homosexuality and indeed the first place in the commonwealth to implement that significant reform. I do acknowledge the leadership of both sides of politics, Labor and Liberal politicians, who worked to achieve that outcome here in South Australia.

It would be very embarrassing if during that milestone year we still see this kind of discrimination being perpetuated against LGBTI South Australians. I urge Premier Malinauskas to show some leadership here, to not miss that opportunity to finally right this wrong in our laws, otherwise it will be a really sad indictment on South Australia that we led the way on this reform, yet now we are a state that is lagging behind.

The bill the Greens are introducing today has a long history. The origins of this bill rest with the Liberal Party, the Liberal Marshall government. Back in 2020, the Hon. Vicki Chapman undertook public consultation on a bill very similar to this one. The aim of the bill was to address the fact that under South Australian law religious bodies can discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or partner status if they have a written policy that states that they intend to discriminate on that basis.

Under section 50 of the existing Equal Opportunity Act discrimination is allowed in the administration of a religious body or any other practice, which includes services provided by a religious body. This means that religious-based organisations are exempt from laws that prevent discrimination on the basis of sexuality or gender identity, potentially resulting in discrimination at work or in accessing services. This bill addresses those two issues.

Finally, this bill removes the exemptions that allow for religious discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status in relation to employment or engagement in an education institution or in accessing the provision of services offered by religious institutions. My bill does, however, make it clear that religious bodies would still have the right to appoint people to their order based on their adherence to the precepts of their religion.

I note concerns were raised with the bill drafted by the previous Liberal government that some religious organisations believed this could impede their ability to appoint someone to their order, for instance, a pastor or a minister. We have made it very clear that the provisions with respect to those appointments remain.

Consultation undertaken in relation to the bill drafted for the Hon. Vickie Chapman also showed that there were some other issues with that bill. The Law Society at the time claimed the bill did not strike the right balance in terms of enabling discrimination in employment settings. While they broadly supported the bill, they had concerns the previous drafting did not provide adequate protections to LGBTI students or people accessing financial support, food relief or legal support from faith-based organisations. So my bill addresses those concerns.

The Equality Australia report I referenced earlier found that South Australia was ranked sixth out of the eight states and territories for our discrimination protections in relation to religious organisations. Surely we can do better than that.

Before concluding, I want to address some of the outlandish claims that have been made by opponents of this reform. In particular I want to reference some of the statements made by the Australian Christian Lobby. They love me! I have received lots of great feedback from them over the years, but I will reference some of the comments they have made about this bill, some of the ridiculous claims they have made. I will read from one release dated 3 July 2024, headed, 'Hypocritical Marxist Greens bid to destroy South Australian Christian schooling'. I think they are referring to me, 'Red Rob'. They state:

The Marxist Greens plan to destroy South Australian schooling.

They praise the Hon. Peter Malinauskas for stating before the last election that he would not change the Equal Opportunity Act. Does the Premier really seek praise from the Australian Christian Lobby? Let us consider some of the statements the Australian Christian Lobby has made in the past. Back in September 2012 the head of the Australian Christian Lobby—and I quote from the article in The Age by Jim Wallace—said that, 'Smoking is healthier than the lifestyle that would be promoted by same sex marriage'. The article continues:

I think we're going to owe smokers a big apology when the homosexual community's own statistics for its health, which it presents when it wants more money, are that it has high rates of drug taking, of suicide, it has the life of a male reduced by up to 20 years, he told the audience.

Let's not forget, of course, the statements made by Lyle Shelton from the Australian Christian Lobby, who likened same-sex marriage to a new stolen generation. Again, I quote from the Sydney Morning Herald. When he appeared on Q&A:

The comparison was drawn by panellist Lyle Shelton, the managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, who said same-sex marriage would see babies taken from their mother's breast.

What about another Lyle Shelton special, back from 2016. I remember this one:

The Australian Christian Lobby—

and again I quote from the Sydney Morning Herald—

has compared same-sex marriage and the Safe Schools program to the Holocaust, dubbing them all 'unthinkable things' that happened because societies lacked strong moral guardians.

In a blog post, ACL director Lyle Shelton invoked the rise of Nazi Germany before arguing that Labor leader Bill Shorten's support for Safe Schools reflected 'a failure of those of us who know better'…

'The cowardice and weakness of Australia's 'gatekeepers' is causing unthinkable things to happen, just as unthinkable things happened in Germany in the 1930s.'

This is crazy stuff. They also came out, back in 2016, and called on the federal government to permanently override antidiscrimination laws to ensure those pushing for a no vote can speak their minds on same-sex marriage. I think they let the cat out of the bag on that one, didn't they: abolish antidiscrimination laws so that you can spread hate, fear, bigotry, homophobia and misinformation.

Finally, they have said, in relation to this bill, that it means that a Christian school can refuse—they refer to the current regime—to hire a person who propagates transgender ideology or who lives contrary to Christian views on marriage. By that I think they are referring to wanting to discriminate against people who are trans or in same-sex relationships. It is really wacky staff. I think members of parliament, when they are considering this bill, need to determine on which side of the debate they want to be on.

I will also reference a press release issued by the Hon. Sarah Game in response to the bill, in which she says that our bill could effectively be used to force schools to employ a teacher who espouses gender fluidity and woke principles. Again, the bill is not about forcing schools to employ anybody. All we are proposing is that schools should not be able to discriminate on the basis of sexuality or gender identity. They should not be able to turn away gay teachers and gay staff, or trans teachers or trans staff. These are organisations that receive public money. Surely they should be subject to the same rules as other institutions.

Again, I urge members to consider the arguments of those who oppose this bill and the arguments of those who are advocating for change. In particular, I urge the Premier to take this issue seriously. He has an opportunity to show real leadership on this issue, national leadership, and cement South Australia's place as a leader in equality, particularly as we head into next year's milestone anniversary.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. I.K. Hunter.