Perhaps the best way to get an idea of the reality of the issues confronting religious schools and the profound problems with the Penny Wong Bill is to analyse the speeches of the various Senators that spoke about it. Below there are excerpts of speeches both in support and condemning the bill. They do a great job of summing up 3 things regarding this bill: 1. The context. What has led up to the bill. 2. The concept. What the bill actually proposes 3. The consequences: What will happen should the bill be passed. Each of these will be briefly discussed and supporting references can be found in the speeches as indicated. The Context It is clear that following the legalisation of same sex marriage (SSM) that there has been a focus on the rights of religious schools to teach their concept of marriage, one that may very well not support SSM. Indeed this was warned about by the ‘NO’ campaign but was essentially ignored as a ‘red herring’. The current Sex Discrimination Act (1984) contains a number of exemptions that apply to religious bodies including schools. This allows them to effectively discriminate against people who do not uphold the tenets and values of the religion behind the institution as long as it is necessary to avoid harm to the institution. They allow schools to expel students based on a sexuality or gender identity that is not consistent with their religion. While these provisions exist, there is no record of them actually being used. They are, in a sense, like the fence around the pool in which no one has yet drowned, or like the person who has learned self defence but has never actually had to use it. The precise reason that there has been no litigation is because the exemptions provide such a clear right to religious schools. (Reference A While these provisions are somewhat of a ‘negative right’ in that they apply what somebody ‘cannot do’, they are also the ONLY REAL PROTECTION these institutions have under the law to run their institutions according the values and tenets of their beliefs. Evidence from the schools themselves confirms that they see them as NECESSARY, however cumbersome they are. (Reference B, Reference C) The current debate about this bill is characterised by misinformation,oversimplification, and a complete failure of the careful analysis of these issues. Senators Stoker and Fiorravanti-Wells sum this up well. (Reference A, Reference I) Also, the discussion from those in support of the bill is superficial and revolves around emotive issues such as ‘identity’. There has been much said about the ‘identity’ of LGBT students and that the SDA supposedly discriminates against them for ‘who they are’. (Reference E). In addition to there have been conflicting claims about what religious schools do and no not want. (References B, Reference F) But what about the religious schools? What about their identity? What about their concept of ‘who they are’? If they can’t teach the doctrines of their faith clearly without impediment, then their ‘identity’ as a religious school effectively disappears. Their ‘who they are’ totally disappears. This has been effectively ignored during this discussion. The Concept It is clear from the reading of the bill and the speeches behind it that the bill has been put together rather hastily, is poorly defined and goes way beyond just the issue of whether or not gay students can be expelled. There is a lack of clear definition of key terms and it makes a bill that is already clumsy even clumsier. The fact that so many amendments have been needed is evidence of this. Indeed, it all appears to have been rather rushed, following the Wentworth bi-election. Both Labor and the Greens have made it clear that this bill is far from the end of the matter and the real goal is to remove the rights of religious schools to discriminate in the hiring of teaching and other staff based on sexuality, relationship status and gender identity. (References D, Ref E) The bill is therefore just the beginning of a process that will have far-reaching consequences. The Consequences Passage of this bill would not only remove the rights of schools to remove troublesome students, it would effectively gut the ability of ANY religious institution or gathering that had ANY educational purpose to teach in accordance with that religion. These consequences have been discussed extensively by senators and it is important to note that one of them was a Labor Senator ( References B, C, G, H, I) In brief, just some of these consequences would include 1. Forcing schools to accept LGBT students/parents who had NO intention of accepting the teachings of the school. 2. Allowing gay students or those whose parents were in a SSM to sue for discrimination/ damages if they were ‘offended’ by a school teaching a biblical view of marriage 3. Allow ANY educational meeting including sermon, bible study, Sunday school that taught a biblical view of marriage and sexuality to be viewed as offensive by someone. 4. Empower students who do not wish to participate in mandatory religious activities eg attend chapel. 5. Force schools with biblical view of gender and sexuality to allow gender dysphoric children to use facilities of the opposite sex or to participate in affirmation and gender transition. 6. Force schools to hire staff whose views on marriage and sexuality are totally at odds with those of the religion behind the school. 7. Ultimately force religious schools to be just like non-religious ones. If this happens, what is the point of having them? The Conclusion When all of the evidence is considered it leads to the following conclusions: 1. While LGBT students have a right to their ‘identity’, religious schools also have a right to their ‘identity’. This involves being to teach ALL of the doctrines of their faiths without government interference, including views that may not be shared by LGBT students, parents and activists. 2. The only protection that religious schools have in maintaining this ‘identity’ is a set of somewhat clumsy provisions in the SDA act. Just because there has been a lack of litigation or implementation of these provisions does not mean they are not needed. All the credible evidence suggests they are needed. Indeed it is positive evidence that they are serving their purpose in preventing vexatious litigation. 3. The bill proposed by Penny Wong has been rushed and poorly thought out. It FURTHER COMPLICATES an already complicated situation. It also has far-reaching consequences on religious freedom that would effectively remove the identity of a religious school as a religious school. 4. The Penny Wong should be comprehensively rejected. Until such time as religious freedom is protected as a stand alone right, backed by well-thought out legislation following extensive public consultation, the current exemptions to the SDA should remain. References quoted above Reference A When I think about some of the most important principles that motivate me to contribute in this place, I think of freedom, strong institutions and fairness for all. Then I look at this bill, and it's devastating. It represents the biggest single blow to religious freedom this nation has seen in all of its history. Of course there has been, through the quite aggressive use of existing discrimination laws, a chipping away at freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of religion in recent years. But in a sense that was slow. This bill works fast. Labor will tell you that this bill just makes sure that gay kids don't get discriminated against. That's a profound mistruth. Everyone in this chamber thinks gay kids shouldn't get expelled simply for being gay. The PM is on the record saying just that. But this bill does so much more. By removing all protections that previously existed in the Sex Discrimination Act for religious schools to operate according to their ethos, the bill will hollow out the religious school sector to being nothing more than privately funded schools with the same values as public ones. In doing so, we deny parents a real choice about how their children are educated.Why do parents send their children to a faith based school?... ...For this parliament to determine that religious educational institutions have no claim to act according to their beliefs in relation to, for instance, sexuality, gender and relationships is to carve out an area of religious conviction and to say that religious schools can no longer lawfully manifest those convictions. It raises the very real concern that religious institutions and believers are being subjected to detrimental actions solely on the basis of their religious belief, and that's in contravention of their right to equality. It's a strange irony. You might also say, as I've heard a number of the senators who have spoken on this bill so far do, 'Religious schools don't use these exemptions much.' Again, in a superficial sense, that's true. But, contrary to the way it's been painted by those opposite, that doesn't mean they're not needed and that they aren't wanted by many in the education sector. It is the fact of the existence of clarity in the legislation about the exemption for religious schools that is the reason there is so little litigation in this area. Take the exemption away and that changes dramatically. It's a little bit like saying, 'No-one has drowned in our swimming pool, so we don't need the fence anymore.' It just doesn't work.