Login
Religious Discrimination Bill shelved following legal advice
Following a heated debate and its passage through the House of Representatives, the controversial Religious Discrimination Bill has been shelved after the Coalition received legal advice that the bill would have unintended consequences – a concern that legal bodies and practitioners have voiced time and again.
Naomi Neilson
The Religious Discrimination Bill has hit yet another brick wall after its latest round of drafts were dropped from the Senate agenda. With only a few sitting days left, this will mean that the Morrison government is highly unlikely to fulfil its last election promise in time for the next federal election to be held in a few months’ time.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
At one stage during the debate, opposition leader Anthony Albanese said that it would push for further changes after it became clear that the most recent round of amendments would discriminate against transgender children and still permit discrimination of other children who identify as LGBTQIA+.
After telling reporters that Labor would not “see bad legislation just carried [out], not participate, not trying to improve it, and then just complain about it from the sidelines”, Labor also voted in favour of scrapping the legislation. The Coalition cited legal advice that the bill would have unintended consequences in its current form.
Public Interest Advocacy Centre’s (PIAC) policy manager Alastair Lawrie – who, along with other PIAC members, have tirelessly advocated against the bill – tweeted that it was a relief and said it was a “massive victory for so many groups who have been campaigning for fairness and equality” over the bill’s lifetime.
Lawyers and legal bodies have advocated against the proposed legislation over the last few years, arguing that it would promote discrimination against vulnerable groups on the grounds of religion. They have also argued that discrimination of a religious person is already prohibited across jurisdictions in one way or another.
Just weeks ago, a Senate committee inquiring into the bill noted the concerns from the legal profession but said it was “not persuaded” that this warranted any significant changes. Despite also noting that the bill would likely result in judicial consideration, the committee added that it would ask the government to address any constitutional concerns prior to passing the bill through the Senate.
