Speaker 1: Already and this this is the daily os.
Speaker 2: This is the daily ohs oh, now it makes sense.
Speaker 2: Good morning, and welcome to the Daily Odds. It is Monday,
Speaker 2: the twenty fifth of March.
Speaker 1: I'm billy, i'm zara.
Speaker 2: An independent legal body has advised the federal government on
Speaker 2: how to legally protect LGBT plus staff and students are
Speaker 2: religious schools. The government asked the Australian Law Reform Commission
Speaker 2: to review federal anti discrimination laws in light of a
Speaker 2: year's long debate about religious freedoms. We'll tell you everything
Speaker 2: you need to know in today's deep dive, But for Sarah,
Speaker 2: what's making headlines.
Speaker 3: Islamic State has taken responsibility for an attack in Moscow
Speaker 3: that killed more than one hundred and thirty people and
Speaker 3: injured one hundred and forty others. Eleven people have been
Speaker 3: detained over the attack at a concert hall, which is
Speaker 3: the deadliest attack inside Russia in twenty years. US intelligence
Speaker 3: has revealed they reportedly warned of a possible attack. The
Speaker 3: Russian authorities claimed the intelligence lacked specific detail.
Speaker 2: US President Joe Biden has canceled the student debts of
Speaker 2: nearly seventy eight thousand public service workers including teachers and
Speaker 2: frontline workers. Biden will wife nearly six billion US dollars,
Speaker 2: which is nearly nine billion Australian dollars in debt. It
Speaker 2: follows several stages of a government policy canceling student debt.
Speaker 2: Republicans have criticized Biden for the plan, claiming it will
Speaker 2: leave US taxpayers worse off.
Speaker 3: Tasmanian Labor leader Rebecca White has declared her party will
Speaker 3: not be able to claim victory in the state's election,
Speaker 3: which means the Liberal Party will need to form government
Speaker 3: by working with crossbenches and minor parties. According to the
Speaker 3: ABC at the time of recording, the Liberals will finish
Speaker 3: with between fourteen and sixteen seats, so that is short
Speaker 3: of the eighteen that's needed to govern in a majority.
Speaker 3: Current Premier Jeremy Rockcliffe said yesterday, I look forward to
Speaker 3: discussions over the course of the coming week. I've already
Speaker 3: reached out to potential independence and indeed the Lambee Party
Speaker 3: as well.
Speaker 2: And today's good news In a world first, surgeons in
Speaker 2: the US have successfully transplanted a pig kidney into a
Speaker 2: living person. Scientists use gene editing technology to remove harmful
Speaker 2: pig genes and they also added certain human genes to
Speaker 2: improve the organ's compatibility with a human and boost the
Speaker 2: chance of the transplants success.
Speaker 3: Okay, so Billy, religious discrimination is back in the news
Speaker 3: and it's.
Speaker 1: Quite a complex topic.
Speaker 3: Can you just take us back to where the conversation
Speaker 3: around this legislation first began.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's really really complicated, and so first I just
Speaker 2: want to set out the two main issues that we
Speaker 2: are addressing that will shape this entire conversation. So the
Speaker 2: first is the fact that there is not an explicit
Speaker 2: federal law banning religious discrimination in Australia.
Speaker 3: There are laws that target sex discrimination, racial discrimination, but
Speaker 3: not one specifically about religious discrimination exactly.
Speaker 2: So that's the first issue. The second is around the
Speaker 2: idea of religious exemptions. So should discrimination be allowed if
Speaker 2: it is due to religious reasons?
Speaker 1: Can you give me an example?
Speaker 3: Ye?
Speaker 2: Yees? So an example is like, should religious schools be
Speaker 2: able to not employ a teacher on the basis of
Speaker 2: their sexuality?
Speaker 3: So if it's a religious school that doesn't believe in
Speaker 3: same sex marriage, for example, exactly, then they can choose
Speaker 3: not to hire a teacher or discriminate against a teacher
Speaker 3: on that basis.
Speaker 2: Yes, And that's a really big part of this conversation
Speaker 2: is should that legally be allowed?
Speaker 1: Okay?
Speaker 2: And you can't really talk about one of those issues
Speaker 2: without talking about the.
Speaker 1: Other because it's a byproduct exactly.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: But to go back to your question of where this
Speaker 2: all started, we need to go back to twenty seventeen
Speaker 2: when same sex marriage was legalized in Australia. Now, long story, short.
Speaker 2: After same sex marriage was legalized, a review was promised
Speaker 2: to conservative religious groups who weren't happy about this legislation passing.
Speaker 2: And the review promised to look into whether Australian law
Speaker 2: adequately protects the right to freedom of religion in Australia.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: Now, honestly, I think if we go into exactly what
Speaker 2: that review said and what it recommended, we would be
Speaker 2: here all day. And I want to get into the
Speaker 2: more recent developments of this story, but I will just
Speaker 2: focus on how the coalition government responded to that review.
Speaker 3: Okay, So we're talking about the coalition. I believe at
Speaker 3: that point it was led by Scott Morrison.
Speaker 1: Is that right?
Speaker 2: Yes, Scott Morrison had just got in.
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, So how did the Morrison government rect spun
Speaker 3: to the review?
Speaker 2: At the time, so he promised a Religious Discrimination Act, okay,
Speaker 2: and so he tried to pass this legislation actually a
Speaker 2: number of times, and it basically would have made it
Speaker 2: unlawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of their
Speaker 2: religious belief.
Speaker 3: So that was focusing on the first point you spoke about,
Speaker 3: that there was no federal law that specifically was about
Speaker 3: discrimination on the basis of religion.
Speaker 2: Yes, but where the controversy arose was on how it
Speaker 2: impacted that second point. Yeah, So it was really controversial
Speaker 2: at the time basically because critics said that whilst the
Speaker 2: bill indeed would have protected religious people from discrimination, it
Speaker 2: also would have consequently led to more discrimination against LGBT
Speaker 2: plus people.
Speaker 1: Okay.
Speaker 2: So just to give you an idea, one MP who
Speaker 2: was actually from the same party as Morrison said that
Speaker 2: this legislation that he was trying to introduce would have
Speaker 2: left a transgender child open to lead being bullied, excluded,
Speaker 2: or even expelled because of their gender identity. Now, as
Speaker 2: you can imagine, the politics around the time were, like
Speaker 2: I said, really controversial, and ultimately it failed to pass
Speaker 2: despite multiple attempts.
Speaker 3: I remember that time so clearly. I think it was
Speaker 3: the only time in my memory that a number of
Speaker 3: Liberal MPs crossed the floor, so they physically moved across
Speaker 3: the floor to sit with the opposition, to vote against
Speaker 3: their own party because they said it was a bunch
Speaker 3: of moderate MPs, most of whom lost their seats. Actually,
Speaker 3: they said that they couldn't in good conscience vote for
Speaker 3: this bill. And it was extraordinary. It was so contentious,
Speaker 3: it was all over the news. But then they kind
Speaker 3: of just went away.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well it failed right before the twenty twenty two election
Speaker 2: when Morrison was ousted as the Prime Minister, and so
Speaker 2: that left it to the Labor government to pick up
Speaker 2: this mess and lead the path forward on this really
Speaker 2: complicated debate.
Speaker 3: Okay, So Anthony Albernezi then had to deal with this
Speaker 3: piece of legislation that had failed before, but there was
Speaker 3: obviously an appetite from some for it to pass.
Speaker 1: What was Labour's position on the bill?
Speaker 2: So Labour said that they supported protecting religious people from discrimination,
Speaker 2: but not if it came at the expense of other
Speaker 2: people's right not to be discriminated against. Now, when they
Speaker 2: got into government, they looked for advice. They said, we're
Speaker 2: not exactly the experts on this, we need advice on
Speaker 2: what to do now, and so they turned to the
Speaker 2: Australian Law Reform Commission to recommend a path forward. And
Speaker 2: if you don't know the Australian Law Reform Commission, they
Speaker 2: are an independent agency designed to do exactly that, to
Speaker 2: advise the government on law reform.
Speaker 3: And so, I mean, I feel like we've gone down
Speaker 3: memory lane a bit, We've gone back to twenty seventeen.
Speaker 3: But my understanding is that that brings us up to
Speaker 3: the present to now. So last week the Commission finally
Speaker 3: delivered its recommendations to the government.
Speaker 1: What were the recommendations? What did they say?
Speaker 2: Yeah, it was hundreds of pages long. So obviously I'm
Speaker 2: not going to go through all of the recommendations, but
Speaker 2: a really significant one is the recommendation for the government
Speaker 2: to remove something called Section thirty eight in the Sex Discrimination.
Speaker 3: Act, which is obviously not a religious discrimination Act. So
Speaker 3: we're talking about existing legislation that's already about discrimination and
Speaker 3: there's an exemption there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, there's an exemption, and it's really important to understand this.
Speaker 2: So currently in the Sex Discrimination Act, there is an
Speaker 2: exemption which allows religious schools to discriminate against someone based
Speaker 2: on their sex, their sexual orientation, gender identity, or their
Speaker 2: marital or relationship status.
Speaker 1: And what would that mean Scrapping it?
Speaker 2: So, scrapping it entirely would mean that religious schools cannot
Speaker 2: dismiss staff or expel students based on, you know, if
Speaker 2: they're gay, or if they're transgender, or other similar facts.
Speaker 2: And so this report said that getting rid of that
Speaker 2: exemption would substantially narrow instances where religious schools can discriminate
Speaker 2: against people.
Speaker 1: Okay, so there we're talking about.
Speaker 3: Sorry to keep going back to the first two groups
Speaker 3: you set out, but that's the second group. But what
Speaker 3: about the first group? We spoke about the fact that
Speaker 3: there was a discussion around protecting the right of religion too.
Speaker 2: And so in that regard, it recommended keeping the right
Speaker 2: of religious schools to preference hiring someone of the same
Speaker 2: religion over a candidate who does not follow the school's faith. Okay,
Speaker 2: So that would allow religious schools to require adherence to
Speaker 2: their faith as part of their vetting process for jobs,
Speaker 2: as part of a school's broader effort to build a
Speaker 2: community of faith. So basically they just recommended keeping that
Speaker 2: and really protecting that, and how they recommended protecting that
Speaker 2: is by introducing an exemption in the Fair Work Act,
Speaker 2: which sets out workplace laws in Australia.
Speaker 3: Okay, so that was all advice that was given to
Speaker 3: the government in the form of a report of many pages.
Speaker 3: How did the government respond to this advice.
Speaker 2: Basically, they've just said that they are considering these recommendations
Speaker 2: and that they'll look at it before they give a
Speaker 2: more concrete way forward. But what was a really interesting
Speaker 2: development in the government's response to this was that Prime
Speaker 2: Minister Anthony Albanesi said that he will not pass a
Speaker 2: law on religious discrimination unless the Opposition supports it, and
Speaker 2: so that is a big development. And what he's saying
Speaker 2: is that this has been such a divisive debate in
Speaker 2: Australia over the last literally seven years, i mean since
Speaker 2: same sex marriage was legalized, and he's saying, we do
Speaker 2: not want this to be divisive anymore. We are going
Speaker 2: to do this with the opposition and move forward.
Speaker 3: But I mean that's fascinating because the opposition or the
Speaker 3: Coalition themselves couldn't agree as a party, they had their
Speaker 3: own members crossing the floor. Labor would be the same
Speaker 3: in terms of you know, lots of different views and
Speaker 3: emotions and all the rest. I can hardly see bipartisanship
Speaker 3: happening in this sort of context.
Speaker 2: Clearly Albanezi possibly thinks that that could happen.
Speaker 1: Have we had any indication from the opposition.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, TDA journalist Harry Sekulich spoke to the opposition.
Speaker 2: He spoke to the Shadow Attorney General, Mikaylia Cash, who
Speaker 2: told him that the coalition notes that representatives of Christian schools,
Speaker 2: the Catholic Church, Islamic schools and a number of other
Speaker 2: faith groups have expressed serious concerns with this report and
Speaker 2: its recommendations. And she also added that she encourages the
Speaker 2: Albanese government to address these concerns. Now, when Harry pressed
Speaker 2: her on what exactly those concerns were, she did not clarify.
Speaker 3: Okay, interesting, still a bit to work through there. What
Speaker 3: about the community more broadly, this is legislation that would
Speaker 3: affect many, many people.
Speaker 1: What have we heard from the community.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so, Michaleya Cash, she just mentioned Christian schools one
Speaker 2: example of a group of schools that weren't happy, and
Speaker 2: she's right. Christian Schools Australia said the recommendations amount to
Speaker 2: quote a direct attack on faith and freedom of belief
Speaker 2: in Australia. And they also said that Christian education would
Speaker 2: cease to exist under the proposed changes. But then on
Speaker 2: the other hand, there's Equality Australia, which is the peak
Speaker 2: LGBT plus body in Australia, and they welcomed the report
Speaker 2: and they urged the government to make the recommendations law.
Speaker 2: The CEO of Equality Australia, Anna Brown said, quote, every
Speaker 2: day we delay these reforms, there will be more students
Speaker 2: who are robbed of their chance to become a school
Speaker 2: prefect or take their partner to the formal and there
Speaker 2: will be more teachers who are fired or told they
Speaker 2: no longer fit for any promotions. So there she's addressing
Speaker 2: the recommendation to completely get rid of that exemption I
Speaker 2: talked about of Section thirty eight.
Speaker 3: It'll be really interesting to see what happens from here.
Speaker 3: I mean, it tore the last government apart and it
Speaker 3: seems like there are still many unresolved issues that need attention,
Speaker 3: a lot of work cut out for the government and
Speaker 3: especially if they're seeking bipartisan support there.
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for.
Speaker 3: Joining us on the Daily OZ. If you enjoyed today's episode.
Speaker 3: You can follow us on Spotify or Apple. Send the
Speaker 3: signal to the platforms that you love what we do
Speaker 3: and it means that you'll have an episode waiting for
Speaker 3: you every weekday morning.
Speaker 2: Or if you're listening on YouTube, you can subscribe and
Speaker 2: you can see that Zara and I are actually wearing
Speaker 2: the same shirts.
Speaker 1: We have morphed into the same past three years in
Speaker 1: the making. Thanks for joining us. My name is Lily
Speaker 1: Maddon and I'm a proud Arunda Bungelung Caalcuton woman from
Speaker 1: Gadighol Country.
Speaker 2: The Daily oz acknowledges that this podcast is recorded on
Speaker 2: the lands of the Gadighl people and pays respect to
Speaker 2: all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island and nations. We pay
Speaker 2: our respects to the first peoples of these countries, both
Speaker 2: past and present,