Liam Elphick Profile picture
Feb 9 11 tweets 3 min read
Labor’s proposed amendments to the #ReligiousDiscriminationBill are a good start. But there’s far more that needs to be done to ensure LGBTQ+ students and teachers are protected. A thread: 🧵 /1 #auspol
Issue #1: Most of our political leaders have now committed to protecting kids in religious schools from discrimination on the basis of sexuality and gender identity. That’s great! The problem is, Labor’s amendments only seek to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 👎 /2
The Religious Discrimination Bill contains an alternative route to discriminate against LGBTQ+ kids under the guise of religion, in s 7. Schools might not be able to expel kids for being gay, but they could expel them for expressing supportive beliefs about being gay 🏳️‍🌈 /3
The test in s 7 is merely that one person of the same religion might consider the discrimination to accord with their beliefs. It’s a test not seen in any other discrimination laws. It is such a low bar that it’s hard to see any situation in which a school cannot rely on it 🏫 /4
If the bill becomes law (even with Labor’s proposed amendments), we will be closing one door to discrimination against LGBTQ+ kids in religious schools but opening another 🚪 /5
Issue #2: There are no amendments on the books to protect teachers or staff. Right now, the Sex Discrimination Act allows teachers to be sacked for being gay, bi, trans - you name it. This will stay the same, with teachers kicked down the road to a law reform inquiry 😑 /6
If that wasn’t bad enough, the Religious Discrimination Bill in s 7 allows religious schools to hire and fire on the basis of any religious views, even where such views are irrelevant to the position in question. The school only needs to publish a written policy on this 📝 /7
To make this EVEN WORSE (I know, it’s hard to imagine), s 11 of the bill overrides state & territory laws that provide stronger protection for teachers at religious schools. This includes Victoria, which bars discrimination except in faith-based roles (religious ed/pastors) 🙏 /8
If this bill becomes law (even with Labor’s proposed amendments), it will be the first explicit federal weakening of state & territory discrimination protections in the entire 50-year history of Australian discrimination law. This leaves LGBTQ+ teachers with ZERO protection ‼️ /9
How do we fix this? Simple.

In the Religious Discrimination Bill:
- remove s 11
- make s 7 a standard religious exception provision
- prohibit post-admission discrimination against students

In the Sex Discrimination Act:
- remove s 38
- ensure s 37 doesn’t apply to schools

/10
Labor supports removing discrimination against kids on the basis of ‘who they are’, and against teachers (subject to schools’ faith-based requirements). These are worthy goals that most Australians support. But the proposed amendments don’t do enough to realise them. ❌ /11

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Liam Elphick

Liam Elphick Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @LiamElphick_

Sep 18, 2021
Scott Morrison has said that pubs/cafes having a no jab no entry policy would be lawful under discrimination laws. 💉

As a discrim law expert, I’ve been asked to look into the claim.

It’s rare for me to say this, but: I agree with the PM. A short thread on why👇 #auslaw #auspol
Generally businesses are entitled to set contractual conditions for entry or use of facilities. This is done through contract law - you agree to enter on the basis of certain conditions.

A major limitation on this is that such conditions cannot breach discrimination laws. 🙅🏻‍♀️ /2
A requirement to be vaccinated to enter a pub/restaurant might disadvantage some groups who have a protected attribute - eg disability, religion, political view.

This likely can’t be direct discrimination, as it applies equally to all, but *might* be indirect discrimination.❓/3
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

:(