HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-07-14 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY (MISCELLANEOUS) AMENDMENT BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

(Continued from page 3441.)

Mrs PENFOLD (Flinders) (15:40): It is amazing to look back on the history of women in South Australia. In 1847 in a hotel on the Port Road a man is said to have auctioned his 25 year old wife for a pound. In 1881 it is recorded that in Naracoorte a man leaving the district sold all of his possessions, including his tent and his wife, for a few pounds. From settlement in South Australia until 1876, the age of consent for girls was 10. From then until 1885, when it was raised to 16, it was 12. In 1884, the Married Women's Property Act was passed. Until then, all married women's possessions, including any money (unless it was a marriage settlement) belonged to her husband.

Soon after this followed the Taxation Act, allowing women to pay tax. It occurred to me that this was a great pity, as women would have been far more highly valued and looked after if they had remained tax exempt. However, it was another 10 years before women's status as non-citizens, along with children, the insane and criminals, was rectified.

The battle for women's equal opportunity to vote really began in 1883, when the Ladies Committee of the Social Purity Society, led by Mrs Mary Colton, Mrs Rose Birks and Mrs Mary Lee, resolved to 'urge by every legitimate means the course of women's suffrage in this colony'. They were followed by the Women's Christian Temperance Union in 1887. This was the year of the state's 50th Jubilee; the 50th anniversary of Queen Victoria's reign. Then in 1888 the Women's Suffrage League was formed. The first president was Dr Stirling, with Mrs Mary Lee and Mrs McLellan as honorary secretaries. It is interesting to note that their third objective states, 'that while women's suffrage is desired no claim is put forward for the right to sit as representatives'.

Finally, in 1890, the Working Women's Trade Union was formed and, again, Mrs Mary Lee is prominent as the secretary. This powerful woman had come to Adelaide from Ireland at the age of 58 to nurse a sick son, one of her seven children. He died within a year, and for the rest of her life she worked for social and political reform in the colony.

Then, only 115 years ago, in 1894, our constitution was amended to clarify the meaning of the word 'person' to include women as well as men. What a simple change, which meant so much for women, who until then were considered chattels. There is a great deal of significance in this amendment, made on 18 December 1894. It was the last step required to give women over the age of 21 the same rights as men to vote in the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council elections in this state, the first Australian state to allow women to vote. It had taken nine years of political struggle and six unsuccessful amendments before, finally, the seventh was successful. Only the week before this successful vote, one of our Australian members of parliament stated:

It is a grave mistake and crime against the next generation for women, who hope some day be mothers, to spend their physical and nervous vitality in study or labour—vitality that should be stored up as a kind of natural bank account for the credit of their children. Every woman who uses up her natural vitality in a profession, business or in study will bear feeble, rickety children and is indeed spending her infant's inheritance on herself.

His statements would be hard to believe by young men and women of today. There would be no doubt about how he voted when the bill finally passed with the absolute majority required for a constitutional bill of 28 of the 54 members. Another quote that conjures a wonderful visual picture is the man who claimed that women would be unsexed by being given the vote. He said:

The woman who goes shrieking on the stump and roaring, hustling and pushing at the polling booth cannot help getting rougher and coarser than if she had been home darning stockings or superintending her household.

At the same time South Australian women were given the right to vote, they were also given the right to stand for parliament, which was a world first. However, we in South Australia did not follow this good start through, and we were the last state in Australia to elect women to parliament. This only happened 65 years later when Liberal Mrs Joyce Steele was elected to the House of Assembly and another Liberal, Mrs Jessie Cooper, to the Legislative Council.

There had been no country women until 1993, when Caroline Schaefer was elected to the Legislative Council after a casual vacancy occurred during the year and I came in at the election at the end of the year. So it took 99 years for country women to be represented in our parliament.

Women's suffrage meant that we could vote but, until we had women in parliament, it was still very difficult to change many things. In addition, both Caroline and I believe that having country women is very important, because we bring quite a different perspective to the parliament than our city-based counterparts. Being country women is very much an added bonus, because we are able to speak when decisions are being made that will become the law of the land and on policy and expenditure decisions that often affect country people quite differently from city people.

It was not easy being a woman in parliament when I came in, but it would have been much worse for Joyce Steele and Jessie Cooper. The whole system was designed for men. Originally, they used to sleep in the building when parliament was sitting and had housekeepers to look after them. It was fascinating to have two former female staff members in the house today. One former housekeeper, Miss Jean Bottomley, is about to turn 100 years old.

A large pool room and a bar are still available, although their usage is now much changed. There were also practical difficulties for women in parliament. Senator Karin Sowada could not open the heavy doors of the federal house and, on the local scene, it was a long time before there was a ladies loo on the ground floor, which I well remember.

I believe women work differently from men. This is changing as men are becoming so much more involved with raising their children and activities such as nursing as a profession, once considered only female occupations. Women tend to see things from not only the point of view of women—our interests, aspirations and differences—but of families. I think because we are women, we are hearing about many more problems relating to women and families because other women feel that they can talk to us and we will understand. This applies particularly to older, immigrant and Aboriginal women. I believe that more women in politics as both members and in the party can only be a good thing.

The fact that we are discussing equal opportunity matters is an indication of our progress in this area and also as a democracy. It is unfortunate that many of the equal opportunity issues have to be put into law. However, that is the nature of our society, which has become quite litigious.

It is a sober fact that parliaments pass laws but it is our courts that interpret laws. We must therefore err on the side of caution so that, in attempting to do good, we do not inadvertently do evil. It has been interesting to read the speeches of our leader, the member for Heysen, in this respect. Her instances of the possible application of specific wording brings home the above point. For example, it seems a complete nonsense only to accept men who are six feet or more in height as a requirement in an advertisement until one reads that it could be a legitimate requirement for a men's basketball team.

We are still struggling with sex. There is no doubt that discrimination against women simply because they are women still exists, and the issues of chosen gender and sexuality are still being dealt with. There are many other issues covered in this bill, among them those relating to disability, sexual harassment, independent contractors, agents, contract workers, partnerships, associations, charities, religious bodies, race, education, pregnancy, provision of goods and services, and advertising. Many of the issues are complex and some are conscience issues for each one of us. However, broadly speaking, I am supportive of the bill and have sympathy with some of the amendments proposed.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder—Deputy Leader of the Opposition) (15:49): It is my pleasure to make a contribution to this bill. I commend the Leader of the Opposition for her efforts in this debate, on the review she has conducted, on the briefing that she has provided to the joint party and on the very detailed notes that will assist all opposition members to contribute to the debate.

I think it is fair to say that, within the Goyder electorate, there are some quite conservative people and they have been very alarmed about the potential of this bill. I have been contacted, in total, by some 52 people. I have received letters and emails from people from within Goyder really putting their case as to why they are trying to encourage me to vote in a particular way, where they believe there are opportunities for amendments to occur, and where the concerns really lie for them, because of experiences that have occurred in other states.

I want to take this opportunity in my brief contribution to put on record the details of some of the letters that I have received, which I think really do reflect upon the concerns that not only the people of Goyder have raised with me but also the concerns that many people within South Australia have expressed to probably all members of this chamber and, indeed, the other place, when debate on the bill has occurred. I have five or six letters that I will put on the record. One that I received early in the piece–January 2007—from Mrs Yvonne Webb of Port Vincent states:

Re: Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill. I am writing about the above bill and wish to register my strong opposition to it.

My objections to the bill, but are not restricted to, are the following points.

Australia's rule of law of presumption of innocence until proven guilty is ignored, and therefore has the effect of eroding our treasured heritage values.

Liability for exorbitant legal fees even where proven innocent of charges laid, rest with the innocent.

The bill has the effect and supports discrimination against the specific value-based skills whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish...

Cases in other states where a similar law has been passed have created hostility and undermined basic freedom of speech, the very opposite of that which it purports to do.

In another state under a similar bill a matter upheld by the Supreme Court was referred back to the Tribunal from whence it came. This suggests that the Tribunal may be seen as a power higher than the legal system. It seems that a cyclic process could be set in motion with a huge backlog occurring.

I submit that we need men and women of strong moral and ethical principles to defeat this proposed bill so I encourage you to consider the points that I have raised and advise me how you propose to vote and why you have taken this stand.

I do note, for the record, certainly, that since being first proposed considerable changes have occurred to the bill that we are now considering, and the debate that has occurred has been fruitful. In 2007 I received another letter from a lady also from Port Vincent. It states:

Dear Sir,

I am writing in regard to the Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill to register my opposition to this bill.

I am particularly concerned that this bill has been brought forward in the SA parliament without fully notifying the South Australian public.

As a loyal citizen of South Australia I believe that we have the right to be held innocent until proven guilty and that the person against whom the charges have been laid should not be liable for exorbitant fees where proven innocent.

The bill has the effect of destroying all the values in our society that have been held in stead since foundation, including the swearing-in on a religious book, such as the Bible or Koran, the very fabric of which this bill degenerates.

Cases in other states where similar laws have been passed have created anger and hardship and undermines our basic freedom of speech.

This bill also discriminates against specifically based schools, not only the Christian schools but other religious sects too.

It grieves me to see the strong foundation that my forefathers laid on which to build a stable, caring and respected country, falling into such obscene disrepute.

As an enrolled member of the Goyder electorate I implore you to stand firm and fight to defeat this bill to allow us freedom of speech and the way of life that we have all had the privilege of enjoying.

If there is any reason for you to vote in favour would you please advised me [about that].

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Why read them out when you're not going to vote with them?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I am intending to vote, in the conscience area.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You're voting against their intentions, so why read them out?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I'm reading the comments that are provided to me, Attorney. I received another letter also. This one is more recent, and it reflects some of the changes that have occurred. This is from a resident of Maitland, and it states:

As a parent of children in a Christian school I am very concerned about the impact of this bill on our school.

The removal of the exemption for our school in relation to actions involving students will preclude the school from being able to provide moral teaching to students in relation to sexuality without the threat of a complaint to the Equal Opportunity Tribunal. In choosing a Christian school for our children we wanted an education that supported the values and beliefs we teach in our home. This was our freedom and our right. This bill effectively removes that choice and imposes an unacceptable restriction on our freedom of religion and belief. So much for equal rights, and so much for anti discrimination.

This bill is more about instilling fear of speaking out, into those who stand up for moral standards, while allowing those who want to break down moral standards, to carry on with the backing of the law regulators. It also legally prevents us from isolating people with such decadent standards, from eating into education systems, by way of student and staff access. The end result is subtle forced indoctrination to accept standards to which we are opposed. Indeed, the proposed law is discriminatory itself, by discriminating against those who are upholding the very moral standards that help build this nation to what it is today. Much of Western society helped instil the very basic of Christian Standards, namely the 10 commandments, into what we see today, as a benchmark of acceptable human standards. Lawmakers are now pulling down those standards, and allowing an influx of moral decay and decadence to flourish, thus sending us back to the caveman standards. Effectively such laws would put a muzzle on us speaking out for upholding moral standards, and allow decadence to thrive. One only has to look at previous fallen empires, to see that this was one of the common features of their demise.

As humans, we are all uniquely different. This is part of our natural characteristics, which make our habitation of this earth so pleasant. If we were all the same, it would be as if we were all zombies. Hardly a nice place to be. The very use of such wording as 'equality' wreaks of the statements of those professing the Communist manifesto. Look at how the system has failed dismally over time. Just as we do require laws to control unacceptable behaviour, and allow the freedoms so hard won in past history, Christianity, likewise, looks to instil standards, which, while some have abused, and others reject, have stood the test of time in promoting highly acceptable standards for the majority of those who believe in those standards; even non Christians. One of the very reasons that many parents send their children to Christian Schools, is due to the values taught and maintained in those schools. By introducing this law as it stands, will prevent us from continuing that path, and allow deterioration of standards in our society.

Another email I received was from a chap in Balaklava. It states:

I am writing to you as a member of parliament to ask that you please consider some of the changes being made to the up coming amendment of the Equal Opportunities Bill.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Why are you voting for the bill if you are reading all this out?

Mr GRIFFITHS: I think that it is important to reflect upon the opinions conveyed to me, Attorney. The email continues, as follows:

As I understand it, politicians have the freedom to choose staff with their political beliefs and so I would ask that faith groups should have the freedom to choose staff whose lifestyle upholds the group's religious beliefs. I think that most people, especially in your electorate, would think this is only fair.

I received an email from someone who also lives in Maitland, and it was forwarded to the Premier. It states:

Dear Mr Rann

We are writing to express our concerns about some aspects of the Equal Opportunity (Miscellaneous) Amendment Bill 2008 that is shortly to be debated in the House of Assembly. Our concerns relate particularly to the parts of the Bill that will make it unlawful for many Christian organisations to refuse to employ persons who do not hold to Biblical standards of sexuality.

We believe that if this Bill is passed into law in its current form, it will have a detrimental effect on religious freedom in South Australia. One only has to look at the history of countries like the former Soviet Union to see the damage that is caused when the State imposes restrictions on religious freedom.

For many years, operators of Christian bookshops, charities and other faith-based organisations have had the freedom to include considerations of conformance to religious values (including those values that relate to sexuality) in the process of selecting job applicants. There is nothing wrong or untoward about this freedom. It is no more wrong for a Christian group to refuse to employ a homosexual person than it would be for you as a Labor MP to refuse to employ a staff member because that person happens to be a passionate supporter of [a different political party]. A Christian organisation will, by its very nature, seek to promote Christian values set out in the Bible, and it is not unreasonable for the organisation to seek to employ people who also hold to these same values.

Contrary to the perception that often abounds in the media, Christians such as ourselves do not oppose the homosexual lobby because we harbour hatred towards these people. Jesus taught his followers to love their neighbours as themselves, and to even love their enemies. Therefore, we do not condone acts of violence towards homosexuals. It is the lifestyle and actions of these people that we oppose, because we believe that God's Word shows it to be sinful.

Generations of hard-working Christians have helped bring prosperity and wealth to this State. We work hard, we live honestly, and we pay our taxes. We try to look after ourselves, and we do our best to avoid being a burden to other taxpayers. We also try to help those in need, and there are numerous Christian charities and service providers that exist as testament to the Christian belief in helping the poor.

If this bill was to become law, there is every chance that some of those Christian groups will face prosecution because of their religious beliefs. Some of those groups may be forced to close because they cannot operate under the new restrictions that will be placed upon them. And consequently, those who were previously supported by these groups will turn instead to the Government for assistance.

In this way, laws that reduce religious freedom also have a negative impact upon the economic health as well as the moral health of this State.

Also, from the community of Bute comes the following statement, 'I would like to express my concern about the Equal Opportunity Bill—'

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: Yes, and which is about to go into Frome in the 2010 election, too, Attorney.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr GRIFFITHS: The Attorney notes that that is bad news because that might, indeed, have an effect upon the vote for the electorate of Frome. This letter states:

I would like to express my concern about the Equal Opportunity Bill which is being debated in the South Australian House of Assembly. I am grateful to the Liberal Party for some good amendments in the Upper House last April, and I encourage you to stand firm in support of those amendments.

However, there was an important amendment which the Liberal Party did not support.

I think, in the interests of fairness, I will put this on the record:

It has to do with what is surely a Liberal principle to uphold religious freedom and freedom of association. I would urge you to support the freedom of faith-based groups, including Christian Bookshops and welfare organisations, to employ people who adhere to the principles of their faith. It is not good enough to say that people who disagree with a particular religion would not seek employment there...Please continue to oppose this dangerous bill.

Lastly, there is a letter from some residents of Moonta which states:

I have some serious problems with the equal opportunity bill now being debated in the SA lower house of parliament.

There were some good amendments made by the upper house, and I ask you to support these. In particular, please support the amendment to remove the clause giving the Equal Opportunity Commissioner the power to investigate anything she or he likes, regardless of whether there has been any complaint. This clause would give a Commissioner the right to pursue an ideologically-motivated 'witch-hunt'.

These are the words of others. The letter continues:

But there is another problem which the upper house failed to correct. The bill would prevent faith-based groups such as Christian welfare groups and businesses (e.g. bookshops) from discriminating in favour of employees who have biblical values and lifestyle in regard to sexuality. The clause of the bill would undermine the religious freedom of South Australians.

These letters that I have read today reflect the comments that were received by my electoral office. I can understand that there is a diversity of opinion on this and I know that considerable work has been undertaken to improve the bill. I am certainly very aware of the briefing provided by the Leader of the Opposition that, in the majority of cases, the bill reflects existing laws of the commonwealth. I think that is correct. Yes, the member for Hartley is nodding her head so I am grateful for the indication that that is correct.

I know it has taken some time to reach this stage and I know that the debates that have occurred within the upper house have been lengthy. No doubt many will make contributions with regard to this bill, but I do hope that we move forward and that the comments that are relayed by the opposition to the government about the concerns expressed by people within their communities are, indeed, listened to.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (16:03): I will be brief in speaking to this equal opportunity legislation. When I look at my notes I see that I have been involved in preparing the groundwork for this legislation on and off since 1998, and there are some honourable members of this house who have been concerned with these issues ever since then.

Parliament is a marketplace of ideas, in a way, and you only actually come away with what the majority will agree with. This is, indeed, a watered-down version of a truly superb set of amendments and recommendations which were put forward many years ago. It goes right back to the report by Brian Martin QC, as he then was, in the early 1990s. Both Liberal and Labor attorneys-general have put forward bills previously. It seems that this time we will finally get some legislation through.

I do need to speak briefly because I have also received many submissions from people in my electorate (and outside my electorate) regarding the bill. The essence of the submissions which I am talking about is that it is an evil and dangerous piece of legislation. The point I would like to make is that this legislation is about equal opportunity; it is not about equalisation. It is not saying that everyone in society is or should be the same but it is saying that everyone should have the same opportunity regardless of certain characteristics they might have.

In this legislation, we are expanding the categories of race and gender and so on to include some important areas which have been neglected for the past few decades, and longer—for example, in relation to disabilities and in relation to carers' responsibilities. It seems to me that the people who have written to me have misunderstood what the legislation is about. There is one element of it which deeply troubles them, and I appreciate their concerns, but to lobby for rejection of the bill is to lobby for a continuing discrimination on the basis of people's disabilities, and it is to lobby for continuing discrimination on the basis of people's caring responsibilities in the home—and this is anathema to me

It seems to me that the correct path of parliamentary reform, when you strongly object to one element of a bill and yet there are many good parts to it, is to lobby for amendment to the bill not for outright rejection. So, I have written back to some of these constituents and asked: 'Who told you that that is what the bill is about; where did this come from?' I will not go into all the answers, but the point is that a number of people, I think, have been misled by people who should know better about the parliamentary process and about how to lobby effectively for a desired change.

The essence of the bill is to provide equal opportunity, regardless of what, at the end of the day, are external characteristics. We are all equal in the eyes of the law and we are all equal before God. What that means is that there is to be a respect for the common humanity of every one of us, and that should be followed through in the provision of goods and services, in the provision of accommodation, and in the provision of housing—those things which are spelt out in our equal opportunity legislation. Things such as gender, income, race, or even religion, are things which differentiate us, but they should not necessarily be the basis upon which we are refused the basic services and facilities of life.

Not only will I support the legislation but I will be moving an amendment which I know is controversial. It is something that I have moved before and it is because of a sincerely held belief that the adherence to a religion should not itself be the basis for lawful discrimination when it comes to the basic provision of goods and services and the like. I will address that issue further when we get to that point in the debate.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON (Croydon—Attorney-General, Minister for Justice, Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (16:08): I thank honourable members for their contributions to the second reading debate. I must correct the member for Flinders when she said that Caroline Schaefer was the first country woman MP in the South Australian parliament in 1993. Not so. In 1989, when I was elected, Colleen Hutchison was the elected member for Stuart, based on Port Augusta and Port Pirie, So, I trust that the member for Flinders, who argues that women are persons, regards a Labor woman as a woman.

The member for Goyder read into the record letters from constituents opposing the bill. He will now vote for the bill on the voices, though, because there will not be a division, I think. The member for Goyder's vote will not be recorded. Does the member for Goyder think that he appeases his constituents by reading out their letters in their entirety and then voting in opposition to what they say?

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Apparently, the member for Fisher and others say that it is the democratic process. What I find misleading is to read them out and to then not disclose to the chamber, on the Hansard record, how he is going to vote. The member for Heysen—

Mr Hanna interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes, I can call a division but then I would have to vote against the bill, and it seems, after all these years, a great pity for its mover to vote against it. The member for Heysen, in her extensive contribution, asked about the amendments dealing with sexual harassment of school teachers by students. She wondered why there was no requirement that these matters be first dealt with by a school conciliation process before a formal complaint can be made to the Equal Opportunity Commission.

The answer is that this is because the teacher is an employee of the education authority and as an employer the authority will owe a duty to ensure that the system of work is safe and to protect staff from hazards; thus the school could not be a neutral conciliator between the teacher and the student and it would be problematic to require the parties to use a school conciliation process before being at liberty to take a complaint to the commission.

The member for Heysen also expressed the concern that the private household exemption is deleted from the act and argued that people should be free to discriminate in hiring people to work for them in their own homes. Indeed, the bill preserves that liberty. Yes, the member for Heysen gets her wish and places in South Australia can be like whitewashed mansions in the Old South. The reason for this is that these days quite a few people run businesses from their homes. If you are running a business, then whether it is from home or—

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Frankly, Mr Speaker, the member for Heysen doesn't give a damn! If you are running a business, then whether it is from home or from a separate business address, you should not be allowed to discriminate on race, age or other irrelevant matters in hiring staff.

The bill would, therefore, amend the act to distinguish, instead, between the case where you are employing or engaging someone to provide a service that is not in connection with the business you run, and the case where the hiring is for a business. In the former case the discrimination laws will not apply, as the Leader of the Opposition wishes.

Similarly, the member expressed concern about the scope of the exemption for lodgings. The bill proposes to narrow the current exemption. At present, one can discriminate in letting lodgings if one lives on the premises and the lodging provided there is for no more than six people, apart from you and your family. Thus, if you own a small group of units and live in one of them, you can discriminate in letting the other units.

The bill proposes to reduce the exemption so that one can discriminate if one will be offering lodging in one's own household, for instance, if you take in a border; but if one commercially lets out premises and happens to live on site, one cannot discriminate in commercial letting.

The member also wondered why we need to cover discrimination on the ground of characteristics of a person's associate. An example may help. I say to the leader: suppose that a young family takes a seat in a fashionable cafe intending to order refreshments, but the owner asks the family to leave because the mother is nursing a baby. Under the bill, any one of them can complain.

Mrs Redmond interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: Yes. Did I use an Americanism? May I apologise abjectly to the Leader of the Opposition, and I ask her not to diminish her pedantry merely owing to her elevation.

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: We have all these years, lonely days and nights here, chaperoned only by the Speaker—

Members interjecting:

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The member also expressed concern about the provision of the bill that imposes liability on both owners and occupiers of premises. I understand this to be a reference to clause 45, amending section 76. The member wondered whether this might mean that a person who does no more than let premises to a business could be made liable for a discriminatory hiring decision by the business. The answer is no. The provision is about access to premises. The effect of the provision is that if access to the premises is refused for a discriminatory reason then a complaint can be made against either the owner or the occupier, as is relevant.

I thank all other members for their contributions to the debate and their expressions of support for this bill. I indicate that, on reflection and contrary to what I foreshadowed earlier, it is no longer my intention in the committee stage to move the amendment standing in my name. In the interests of speedy passage of this long overdue measure, the government will not contest the amendments made in another place.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clauses 1 to 3 passed.

Clause 4.

Mr HANNA: I move:

Page 5, line 5—After 'race,' insert:

religion,

In order to explain my amendment, I will just briefly cover the ground of the system set out in the equal opportunity legislation. Before we even get to that, one can say that everyone discriminates every day of their life in making choices as they interact with other people. Then we say, as a parliament and as a society, that it is not right to discriminate on the basis of certain characteristics of other people.

Our legislation does two things: it sets out a range of human activities or interactions which are the fields where discrimination can be made unlawful. For example, with the characteristics that are set out in the legislation, it is unlawful to withhold goods and services; it is unlawful to prevent someone from joining an association or a club; it is unlawful to refuse employment; and it is unlawful to refuse housing.

Then it comes to the actual characteristics of people which may not be the basis for refusing one of these goods or services. There are things, such as ethnicity, which are common ground through our society; that is, ethnicity should not be a basis for not giving someone a job or for not giving someone housing. At least most people in the community agree with that—and certainly that is the current law.

I sincerely believe that adherence to a particular religion should not be the basis upon which one can refuse things, such as employment, housing, or goods or services—those fields of activity which are already set out in the legislation. Although I have several pages worth of amendments, the concept is extremely simple, and it adds religion in the various parts of the legislation as it goes through those different fields of human activity. For example, where the legislation (as it stands) talks about employment, where it talks about associations, where it talks about goods and services, I have amendments to add religion as a ground upon which it would be unlawful to discriminate.

Although it looks like a lot, it is a simple concept. I draw attention to the exemptions. I think they are of great interest to people, and I have sought with some fairly broad exemptions to assuage the concerns of people who want to discriminate on the basis of religion, even though I accept that there are a number of important situations where religion is quite rightly the basis of discrimination. The most obvious one is where it is a question of employing someone to officiate within a certain religion, so it is quite right for a Roman Catholic church or Jewish temple or a Buddhist temple to hire people in the role of priest or rabbi or monk (as the case may be) who adheres to that particular religion. Everyone accepts that should be so.

Because I am putting forward this amendment as a test amendment, I am going into some detail and then, if the amendment fails, I will not have to explain other parts. In relation to employment, I draw members' attention to that part of my amendment where it provides that this division does not apply to discrimination on the ground of religion in relation to employment or engagement for which it is a genuine occupational requirement that a person be of a particular religion, or in an educational or other institution operating under the auspices of, or in accordance with the precepts of, a particular religion. That aspect of my amendments will probably be the subject of debate in relation to educational institutions because I know that the member for Fisher has amendments in store for us which cover that particular point. I will not dwell on that topic now. I will go to the other general exemptions which are written into this set of amendments and which I am putting forward.

Under new sections 65M, 65N and 65O, I have set out a number of exemptions. They cover the areas of charities, projects to benefit people of a particular religion and certain exemptions in relation to religious bodies. Charities, for example, where there are funds for a particular religion (it might be the Catholic benevolent society, the Jewish national fund, the protestant poor people's relief fund—whatever it might be) which confer benefits mainly on people of a particular religion are untouched by the amendment I am putting forward; and also where there are projects for the benefit of people of a particular religion, and I think the obvious one is building a school, a temple or a church for a particular religion.

That work—for example, the adornment of a temple—might need to be done by people who are adherents of the particular religion, and my amendments would not cover that situation. So, there is an exemption there because it is a project for the benefit of a particular group of people of a particular religion. In relation to religious bodies generally, I will read out my new section 65O because it is important:

This part does not render unlawful discrimination on the ground of religion in relation to—

(a) the ordination or appointment of priests, ministers of religion or members of a religious order; or

(b) the training or education of persons seeking ordination or appointment as priests, ministers of religion or members of a religious order; or

(c) any other practice of a body established for religious purposes that conforms with the precepts of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion.

Having set out those exemptions, I think that most of the objections put forward (and I have heard some pretty strong objections from certain elements of Christian society) should be pretty well assuaged. The concept of including religion as an unlawful basis of discrimination has been discussed—it was in the consultation process of the government; it was one of the proposals that was put out for community consultation. I notice that quite a significant number of those religions which might be considered minority religions in this time and place in South Australia were in favour of this proposal, at least in principle.

Of the three major Christian denominations, I must say that I did have strong support from one of them. The point of the legislation from the very beginning in the 1980s and the first thinking about it in the 1970s is that it is a protection largely for those people who have traditionally been the subject of unfair discrimination. Generally speaking that means minority groups, but, of course, it also importantly includes women who cannot be considered a minority group.

The whole purpose of these amendments is primarily to protect people from other than Christian religions, and I do not deny that. However, it does not make it any less unfair because a person is of a religion other than Christian religion; it is just the fact that, apart from secularism, our society is seen as a Christian society in the mainstream and therefore Christians are unlikely to suffer discrimination in most of the daily contexts we could think of. However, people of other religions will often find discrimination in the daily activities in which they engage.

It comes back to the fundamental point that I think it is unfair for a Jewish person to be denied entry to a club on the basis that they are Jewish, I think it is wrong for a Muslim to be refused accommodation on the basis that they are Muslim, and so on. I do not think it is fair, and this whole equal opportunity legislation has always been about fairness and granting respect to those who are not necessarily of the mainstream. I put forward this amendment to the definitions clause of the bill and take it as a test amendment for all the amendments that I have on file.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The explanation given by the member for Mitchell is, I think, sensible. He is not seeking to put in a widespread provision relating to religion and discrimination. By its very nature religion is discriminatory. It has to be. As far as I know, you cannot belong to several faiths and retain any credibility or even retain membership, or whatever those various faiths require. I will support this amendment, but I make the point briefly that we have the unusual situation where churches themselves—often through their schools—exclude and discriminate.

A couple of years ago I wrote to the then federal minister for education asking why it was the case that a church school could discriminate and exclude people from enrolling in that school, particularly in light of the fact that, to a large degree, the community funded the school. I think this is where things become somewhat grey, because if the community is funding a church school I believe there is an obligation on whoever operates that school to essentially abide by the general tenets of society. Obviously, there has to be some specific provision for the worship of their particular faith but in other respects they should not be a law unto themselves, in effect. Currently, we allow that. We allow people to say, 'Even though you are funded by the taxpayer, to a large extent, we are going to let you exclude people from going to your church school.' I appreciate that that is an issue that will not be dealt with here, but I think what the member for Mitchell is putting forward is reasonable and sensible, and I intend to support him.

Mrs REDMOND: We are dealing with the first amendment and, as I understand the situation, the member for Mitchell has spoken about the whole thrust, because although it appears first in the order of the amendments to be considered, in fact, his amendment is dependent upon the major part of his amendments that deal with introducing a prohibition on discrimination on the ground of religion.

I want to put on the record, as I have on a number of occasions in the course of the debate on this bill and its earlier incarnation, the strange situation we have where under our legislation it will be lawful to discriminate against someone on the ground of their religion but not lawful to discriminate against someone on the ground of what they are wearing, in terms of their religious dress or adornment. That seems to me to be a little odd.

However, I am, if nothing else, a pragmatist and, as a politician, an incrementalist. In the interests of getting this through, whilst I have great sympathy for the words of the member for Mitchell and the credibility of his argument, my feeling is that the best thing we can do at the moment is to make sure that this bill at least in its current form gets through as quickly as possible. So, although I agree that it is desirable that we have a more consistent approach on this issue, I indicate that I will not be supporting this amendment. However, I also indicate that these issues generally will be conscience issues for the members of our party.

The Hon. S.W. KEY: The member for Mitchell discussed the major part of his amendment, which is discrimination based on the grounds of religion. Does that include people either as possible consumers or as workers having no religion?

Mr HANNA: There has been some case law on what constitutes religion. I am going on memory now, because it is not in front of me, but I think there was a famous case concerning the Scientologists in the 1970s, where it was discussed in the High Court. That was the decision which I think arose from a tax argument which suggested that Scientology was a religion, according to law. So, bearing that in mind, it is possible to define what religion is—indeed, there are some circumstances where we have to do that.

In the case of people who are not religious, the common-sense interpretation I would offer is that where someone says, 'I'm not going to give you this job because you're not religious enough' or 'You're not of my religion', whether it be that you hold another religion or whether it be that you hold to no religion, that would be discrimination on the basis of religion. So, I think the answer is yes.

I suppose ultimately that would have to be tested in the courts, if it ever came to that. However, it seems to me that the common-sense answer is that, where the decision is made to refuse something covered by the act and it is because the person has either a different or no religion, surely that is discrimination on the basis of religion.

The Hon. S.W. KEY: In some of the contributions we have had in this debate a point has been made not only with respect to educational institutions and faith and religion but also to the provision of services, such as bookshops. I am wondering whether the member for Mitchell's proposed amendments would cover someone who was, in my view, eminently suitable to work in a faith bookshop by having studied theology, for example, and having librarian skills and maybe even skills from working in a different sort of bookshop, not deemed appropriate because they have no identified faith but rather have a knowledge of the goods and services in the area in which they would be working.

Mr HANNA: I think that is a very good question, which goes to one of these borderline areas. So, I appreciate the question from the member for Ashford. As I have said, the amendments that I am putting forward cover all the mainstream activities that are already covered by the legislation, such as employment and the provision of goods and services.

In relation to employment, I have the exemption drafted which says it would not apply if it is a genuine occupational requirement that a person be of a particular religion. Working in a temple, for example, one could easily imagine circumstances where adherence to the religion would be a necessary part of the job because of involvement in ritual and so on. However, working in a bookshop, I would suggest—in the sort of bookshop that most of us are familiar with—it would not be strictly necessary to adhere to the religion of the bookshop owner. It may well be a genuine occupational requirement that a person is thoroughly versed in the scriptures and the doctrines of a particular religion. However, that would not necessarily require the person to be an adherent of that religion.

So, I suggest that, in that average sort of situation—I suppose it would apply to Christian bookshops around town; that is probably the most common sort of scenario that is conjured up by the member's question—it seems to me that the important thing is that, for an inquirer coming into the shop, the retail staff ought to be well versed in the scriptures and doctrines of Christianity. I suppose it would be a reasonable requirement that they at least be sympathetic to those doctrines. You could not have someone in the shop who is there to turn other people away; that would be an absurdity. So, some sort of affinity with, sympathy for, or appreciation of the doctrines would probably be a genuine occupational requirement, but I cannot see how it would be strictly necessary in the same sense that it would be for someone working in a church or a temple.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: The amendment proposes to include in the long title of the act mention of the proposed new ground of religion. The act does not presently cover discrimination on the ground of religion. The government consulted the public about that possibility in 2002. We learnt that it was highly controversial. It appears that at least some religions and Christian denominations, far from wanting the protection this would confer on them, are concerned that it would cut down their freedom to practise their religion and, in particular, to preach against other religions, proselytise, and compete for adherence.

Most of the people whom the member for Mitchell seeks to protect by this provision do not want his protection, and we have that on the record. I think most of the Christian denominations feel that enacting this provision would leave them at the mercy of militant secularists in society using these provisions against them. So, for this reason, the government has not included in the bill any proposal that the act should be extended to cover the ground of religion and, accordingly, we do not support this amendment.

Mr HANNA: I think the Attorney-General's criticism is a little unfair, because a substantial number of faiths supported in principle this sort of protection. It is probably fair to say that the majority of Christian sects do not support it, but, then again, this legislation has always been there not for the mainstream but for the minority, the ones who really need protection.

In relation to the potential for militant secularists—as the Attorney-General terms them—to take advantage of such protection to cause trouble, I really believe that the fears are overstated and unfounded. I am very well aware of the Catch the Fire litigation in Victoria, but there is nothing in these amendments to create that same sort of storm.

Let us bear in mind that the issue of vilification has been taken right out of this legislation. There is then no question of other religions being vilified and the preacher being considered unlawful as a result of that. It is primarily about accommodation, employment, goods and services, or joining a club or an association, and that is where people need protection if we are to have a fair society.

The committee divided on the amendment:

AYES (4)
Brock, G.G. Hanna, K. (teller) Pisoni, D.G.
Such, R.B.
NOES (35)
Atkinson, M.J. (teller) Bedford, F.E. Bignell, L.W.
Breuer, L.R. Caica, P. Chapman, V.A.
Ciccarello, V. Conlon, P.F. Evans, I.F.
Foley, K.O. Fox, C.C. Geraghty, R.K.
Goldsworthy, M.R. Gunn, G.M. Hamilton-Smith, M.L.J.
Hill, J.D. Kenyon, T.R. Key, S.W.
Koutsantonis, A. Maywald, K.A. McFetridge, D.
O'Brien, M.F. Pederick, A.S. Penfold, E.M.
Piccolo, T. Portolesi, G. Rankine, J.M.
Rann, M.D. Redmond, I.M. Simmons, L.A.
Snelling, J.J. Venning, I.H. Weatherill, J.W.
Williams, M.R. Wright, M.J.

Majority of 31 for the noes.

Amendment thus negatived; clause passed.

Clauses 5 to 18 passed.

Clause 19.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I move:

Page 11, lines 24 to 41 and page 12, lines 1 to 4 [clause 19, inserted section 34(3)]—Delete subsection (3) and substitute:

(3) This division does not apply to discrimination on the ground of chosen gender or sexuality in relation to a term of a contract of employment or engagement for the purposes of an educational or other institution that is administered in accordance with the precepts of a particular religion if the term of the contract governs the public behaviour of the person employed or engaged in a manner that is consistent with the precepts of that religion and is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of the adherents of that religion.

I indicate that I originally had two amendments on file. Amendment 90(1) is redundant because it is superseded by 90(4). I am talking to the second amendment in relation to clause 19. I am seeking to move away from what I think is blatant discrimination, where a church school can say, 'We believe you're homosexual, lesbian, transsexual, and therefore you won't be employed,' or, if you are employed they could move to get rid of you.

I have been told that a school, by way of contract, could do something similar to what I am proposing here, but I am trying to make quite explicit in the bill what I think is a better alternative to what the bill currently allows; that is, you cannot discriminate in relation to chosen gender or sexuality unless the person on whom you are focused is acting in a manner which is, in essence, undermining the teachings or faith of that school or that religion. So, if the person happens to be homosexual, lesbian or transsexual and they keep that to themselves as a private matter then I do not believe that the church school, on the basis of perceived sexuality, should be able to get rid of them or not employ them.

As I said in the second reading, I think it is a misnomer to say that it is an equal opportunity bill when you are denying, in effect, equal opportunity because someone is perceived to be homosexual, lesbian or transsexual. The answer that I have been given over time is that the schools will be able to determine if someone is in one of those categories by their overt behaviour.

Mr Hanna: How do you tell?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Well, you would have to get an electronics engineer, and maybe Madam Acting Chair, who has expertise in electronics, could give me some guidance on how, with a meter at the gate of the school, you could determine whether someone was homosexual, lesbian or transsexual. To answer the member for Mitchell's question, I do not know how you would do it. Contrary to what a lot of people believe, you cannot determine someone's sexuality, in many cases, simply by looking at them. Many fallacies exist in the community, and one is that gays are not married (some of them are) and another is that they cannot and do not have children; that is all scientific nonsense, as they do. You can be a footballer and be gay, and you can be all sorts of things.

What being a homosexual has to do with teaching history or maths, for example, I do not know. It is irrelevant, and it should not be tolerated via this bill. If this bill is passed as it is, a church school will be able to say, 'We don't want you because we think you're a homosexual, a lesbian or a transsexual.' I find that absolutely abhorrent and offensive, especially—and this adds to the point I made earlier—given that, without exception, these church schools also receive government funding. The community is funding the schools, yet we are giving them the right to exclude people simply on the basis of perceived sexuality.

What people do in their temple, synagogue, church or whatever is up to them; the government or the community do not fund those. I do not have a problem with their practices but, when it comes to employing someone as a teacher, it is quite unacceptable to discriminate on the basis of perceived sexuality.

This point does not relate specifically to the issue of gender, but I find it quite fascinating that the Exclusive Brethren do not employ Exclusive Brethren as teachers in their schools, and the reason is simple: they do not allow their people to go to university, so they never have people qualified to teach in their schools. In this whole maze of church school practice, we have some very unusual examples. To allow people to discriminate on the ground of perceived sexuality is outrageous, and I am strongly opposed to it; hence, my amendment.

The Hon. M.J. ATKINSON: This amendment proposes to remove from the law entirely the longstanding exception that has permitted religious schools to decline to hire homosexual staff. The exemptions existed through the 25 year life of the act. I expect that all members here will have received representations from supporters of this exemption. Plainly, there are some schools, and, in particular, the South Australian member schools of Christians Schools Australia, who hold that their faith requires them to decline to hire such people to work in any capacity in the school. Indeed, the argument was put to me in my office that this should apply also to groundsmen, greenkeepers and handymen.

Instead, the amendment would permit an educational or other institution administered in accordance with religious principles to enter into an agreement with a homosexual employee stipulating that the employee's public behaviour must be consistent with the precepts of the religion. It seems likely that it would already be possible for a Christian school or other Christian employer to make such a stipulation as a term of the contract. The government does not know whether any schools do this.

One can speculate about what limitations such a contract might set and what behaviour might be considered public. It might seek to impose extensive restrictions on an employee's behaviour, such as not being seen in the supermarket shopping with one's partner, not attending any public gathering with a partner, not stepping out or promenading with a partner and so on.

The government does not see any merit in the proposal. If this is proposed as a compromise with Christian schools, I doubt whether it would be acceptable to them. From discussions with Christian Schools Australia, I understand its position to be that it does not wish to have such persons on the staff of its schools, even on terms of silence and secrecy about their homosexuality.

It was put to me that these schools wish to engage only staff who demonstrate what the school considers to be a Christian lifestyle, both at work and in their private life. The government does not seek to deprive Christian schools of their freedom to refuse to hire homosexual staff where the tenets of the religion so require. The bill retains the exemption for these schools in their hiring practices. As amended in another place, it ensures that prospective employees are made aware of the school's position so that they make an informed choice about proceeding with the application to work.

The government does not support going further than this in removing the exemption. As I explained in the second reading stage of the debate, one of the thorny difficulties of equal opportunity law is to balance the competing public interests in social equality and in religious freedom. What the government has done in the bill is to strike a compromise between them: on the one hand, we have improved the exemption where it is, in fact, not used or wanted, and there appears no case for us to extend it to such institutions as aged-care homes, hospitals or welfare agencies; on the other hand, we have retained it for the thing for which it seems to be primarily used, that is, to permit religious schools to screen potential employees as to their sexuality.

Like any compromise, this cannot please all: some wish to see the exemption restored or even widened; some commentators would like to restore the current permission for religious schools to discriminate against students who identify as homosexual, which the government does not support; and some would also like to see the exemption expanded to permit discrimination also on the ground of marital status, which the act has never permitted. The government does not support that either.

On the other hand, some, like the member for Fisher, would like to see the exemption abolished entirely. The government is opposed to that proposal. The bill, as drafted, represents what the government believes to be a reasonable compromise between the competing interests. For these reasons, the government does not support this amendment.

I think the committee should be aware that, if the member for Mitchell's amendments had prevailed, or had the member for Fisher's amendment prevails (and that is about to be supported strongly by the member for Unley), this bill would never pass.

This bill has been in the pipeline for 15 years. It is gridlocked between the two houses. I am supporting the compromise because it is the only way to get the rest of the bill through. Make no mistake, the members for Mitchell, Unley and Fisher, if they prevail, the bill is lost; it is gone—and they know that. They know that what they are saying and doing in this house is a drama, a passion play, something they hope to get published in Blaze or some other august journal. They know that the bill would be lost. They moved these amendments in the sure and certain knowledge that it would be lost—and the villain is, as usual, the Attorney-General. Yes, the member for Mitchell points to me: round up the usual suspects, it is the Attorney-General who saved the Equal Opportunity Bill—bad, bad, naughty, wicked Attorney-General.

Mr PISONI: I am very sympathetic to this amendment, and I speak to support it, not for the reasons that the Attorney-General has raised. I think if the Attorney-General were honest he would say that if these amendments were successful it would not get through because Don Farrell would not let it happen. If he were honest, that is what he would say.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson interjecting:

Mr PISONI: You outnumber this chamber two to one. You outnumber it two to one, and we have an ability to vote for our conscience in this party. We have the ability to do that; we are not locked into a party vote as your members are; your poor members are left there to be browbattered into the directions—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Browbeaten not battered.

Mr PISONI: I choose to use the word 'battered'—battered into submission by Don Farrell and his cronies on the right of the Labor Party. As a true libertarian I simply ask the question: how does one know? I remember seeing a report that Ian Thorpe is gay. Does that mean that Ian Thorpe would not be able to teach in a religious school, because there was a newspaper report that he was gay? What is the criteria? Is it a questionnaire that people have to fill out? If they walk with a limp wrist, is that the criteria?

I would argue that it would be more than reasonable for a religious school not to employ somebody if they behaved openly in a promiscuous manner. I do not have any problem with that at all. However, I do have difficulty in understanding—and most of the people who I have spoken to who send their children to religious-based schools agree with this—that people do not choose to be homosexuals. I do not remember going through my teen years and then seeing a fork in the road and saying, 'Now, am I going to be heterosexual or homosexual? Which one shall I choose?' That is the way that we are wired when it comes to sexual preference. It is not a choice.

There are those on the religious right who would like you to believe that it is choice but it is not a choice, Attorney-General, it is the way you are wired. For religion to be used as an excuse to discriminate against people because of the way they are wired is not acceptable in this day and age. If we were to argue that it is good enough to use religion to exempt certain people from discrimination, then why do we not allow bigamy in Australia? That is a religious act in some religions. Why do we not allow that? Why do we not allow female circumcision, because that is a religious act in some countries and some religions?

My point is that if we are true libertarians—and I made this point earlier in my second reading speech—it would be nice when that does not matter, when we live in a society where people do not have pre-formed opinions on what you must be like if you are wired to be same-sex attracted.

I have a very close friend. We did our apprenticeships together and we used to spend hours stocktaking in the timber racks at Norman Turner and Nottage. I think he was about the age of 19 when he finally realised that he was attracted to men—he was same-sex attracted. I was the very first person he shared that information with. It was a very difficult time for him. He tried going out with girls because that was the expectation. He grew up in Millswood with very conservative parents and there was an expectation that he would, in fact, have a girlfriend.

After several years of soul searching he finally realised that that was not the way he was wired. He said to me a couple of years ago, 'I wish, David, that I was not homosexual because life would be so much easier. There is so much discrimination I have to put up with in my life simply because of the way I am wired.' However, he went on to say, 'Now that I have been in this loving relationship for 24 years, I am pleased with the situation I'm in because if I was not homosexual I would not have had the opportunity to meet such a beautiful man'—as his partner of 24 years.

I cannot stand here and accept that it is good enough to cast judgment on somebody simply because of the way they are wired. It is on that basis—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You are happy to lose the bill.

Mr PISONI: Let us show some leadership here, Attorney-General. You say, 'Happy to lose the bill.' Let us show some leadership here: if you were somebody who had the full support of your party perhaps you could make some changes for fairness and for what is right. It is on that basis that I am happy to support this amendment.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I indicate that if this amendment does not get carried which, reading between the lines, looks as though that is what its fate will be, I will not be pushing for an amendment to clause 62. I have a couple of points. I do not think that the parliament, or the wider community, should pander to bigotry. As the member for Unley said, to discriminate against someone who is born with a particular sexual orientation, I think, is as wicked and evil as it is to discriminate on the ground of race.

I have had a lot of experience in that area, because Lowitja O'Donoghue, who was discriminated against when she was nursing at the Royal Adelaide Hospital, used to come to our place as a refuge because of the way that she was treated as an Aboriginal person, along with Faith Coulthard, because of the bigots in our society. Yet, we continue the bigotry now against people who have a particular sexual orientation.

I would put the Attorney on the spot: because the schools are going to be able to discriminate, give me the criteria of a homosexual, a lesbian and someone who is transsexual. Give us the guidelines so that schools can say, when someone goes through the gate, 'You're out because we don't like your sexuality.'

As with the fight for getting rid of slavery and to give women a fair go in our society, you have to reject the bigots and those who delight in and thrive on prejudice. I think it is time we stopped pandering to this small minority. As I said earlier today, I grew up in one of these fundamentalist churches. I know how they operate. There are some fine people in there, and some of them I would actually regard as practising Christians; many of them I would not. Some of them call themselves Christians, but I do not think that they actually uphold the teachings of Christ.

Why should we pander to their bigotry? I do not want to see this bill held up. It has taken 20 years to get to this point. I know that this amendment will not be accepted today. As I mentioned earlier today, Don Dunstan would turn in his grave if he saw that we were pandering to bigots in this day and age. South Australia used to lead in a lot of reforms. I think that we are pandering to people who should be ignored.

Mr HANNA: I have a quick comment in response to the Attorney-General's remarks. I do not think it is helpful to cast aspersions around the chamber about who might be holding the bill up, and who might be causing it to fail, etc. I see that as a sort of political bullying. I am aware that there are issues around the delay, and no doubt some people who might not want to see the legislation pass have contributed to some of the delay. That may be so, but I am certainly not one of those people, so the Attorney-General was unfair in his remarks.

Secondly, as a matter of principle, if a member of this place has an amendment which they sincerely believe should be put forward then I do not think that the charge of delaying or jeopardising the future of a bill holds any water in comparison to the right of each one of us to put forward something which we believe should become law.

Finally, I comment on the lack of logic, as I see it, in the position put forward by the Attorney-General. I honestly cannot distinguish between the case of discrimination against a student who is overtly homosexual, whatever that means, and discrimination against a teacher who is overtly homosexual.

The Attorney-General was saying that his position, and his party's position, as I understand it, is that it is okay to discriminate against an applicant for a teacher position because they appear to be gay, but it is not acceptable to discriminate against a student because they appear to be gay. I cannot see how there can be any difference of principle in those two situations.

Amendment negatived; clause passed.

Remaining clauses (20 to 78), schedule and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT