Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: I speak on behalf of the Christian Democratic Party. The Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Equality in Education and Employment) Bill amends the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 to remove the exemptions that allow private educational authorities to discriminate in education and employment and allow employers who employ no more than five persons to discriminate in employment. The bill instigates debate on a number of different levels relating to a number of different sets of rights. It compels us to reflect on whether private educational authorities or private schools should continue to be able to have the right to legally discriminate against employees and students on certain grounds, as provided for by the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act. It also causes us to consider whether small businesses should be able to have the protection of the law when they legally discriminate against employees on certain grounds.

Further, the bill invokes debate as to whether the right of religious bodies to provide social, charitable or welfare services to the public or in education should continue to be informed by beliefs closely held by those religious bodies. Part and parcel of this reflection involves understanding whether the freedom of employees and students not to be discriminated against should take precedence in those instances.

As a parliamentarian specifically representing what could reasonably be called the Christian voice of New South Wales, I would like to place emphasis upon the manner in which the bill will affect Christian stakeholders, particularly religious schools. The Independent Schools Council of Australia has indicated that 94 per cent of independent schools have a religious affiliation. Thus, in effect, the bill is aimed at removing exemptions available to religious schools, mainly Christian schools, across New South Wales.

Let me begin by saying that Ms Lee Rhiannon is wrong in asserting that the bill does not impinge upon religious freedom. The bill will remove the freedom of religious schools and other organisations, such as nursing homes, to be established according to religious values, to choose teachers and staff that model religious values that are important to a religious community, and to enjoy the inalienable rights of freedom of association, assembly and worship. The bill’s effect is plain: it will prevent religious schools from having a say in the way they operate their affairs and make them indistinguishable from public schools, which is, of course, an underlying philosophy of the Greens.

I speak not only as a Christian minister on behalf of Christian schools. I also contacted Jewish and Muslim entities. I have letters from the Christian Parent Controlled Schools, Christian Schools Australia, the New South Wales Parents Council, Seventh Day Adventist Schools, the Sydney Anglican Schools Corporation, Rudolf Steiner Schools of Australia, the New South Wales Co-ordinating Committee of Jewish Day Schools, Lutheran Schools of Australia, the Montessori Schools Association, Meadowbank Education Ltd, the Uniting Church Board of Education, Malek Fahd Islamic School, the Coptic Orthodox Church Diocese of Sydney and Affiliated Regions, the Maronite Eparchy of Australia, the Anglican Church Diocese of Sydney, the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchal Vicarate of Australia and New Zealand, Baptist Churches of New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory, and Arkana College. The letters indicate Jewish, Muslim and Christian backgrounds. Rather than take the time of the House to read the letters onto the record, I seek leave to have them incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

Reverend the Hon. Dr GORDON MOYES: The basis of the bill, which is to eradicate all forms of discrimination to allow for an equal playing field for employees and students when confronted with private schools or small businesses, is flawed. This is because of the term “discrimination”. Generally speaking, it is a word we all hate because it has loaded concepts. It is a veritable Trojan horse. It is not a black and white issue, such as Ms Rhiannon chose to paint it. It involves judging that one set of rights should take priority over another set of rights, such judgment being predicated on moral values, standards and practices. While we understand that the aim of eradicating discrimination is to lay a foundational understanding that regardless of our differences we should always be treated the same, the effect of removing the ability to discriminate basically removes the ability for entities to make choices that support and further the environments that they intend to create, cultivate and operate within.

Eliminating all discrimination would make it illegal for every member of this House looking to employ staff to reject a person from an opposite political party. The New South Wales Law Reform Commission, in its review in 1999 of the Anti-Discrimination Act, said that it:

… accepts that a political and local government councillor should be entitled to select staff who share his or her political beliefs. That principle should also apply to other employees providing services (such as research) on a political basis, and to clubs which provide services or support on a political basis.

No member in this Chamber would contest the validity of that argument. When recruiting a prospective employee, the Greens would certainly want their prospective employee to have a commitment to the principles followed by the Greens. I find it hard to imagine what the discrimination in this context would be. It is a necessary requirement of the job for the employee to observe the principles of the party. If a person does not value the workplace values, he or she cannot promote those values and should not work there in place of another who would do a better job upholding the values the employer wants. If discrimination is either right or wrong as Ms Lee Rhiannon claims, the entire New South Wales Parliament is wrong and guilty of the dirty word “discrimination”.

The same argument may be applied to private schools and religious bodies. It is hypocritical of the Greens to discriminate when employing staff and reject people who do not hold its organisational values, while at the same time trying to remove the choice of Christian, Jewish and Muslim entities to do exactly the same thing in their schools, nursing homes and hospitals. Discrimination inevitably involves discernment—distinguishing between two or more alternative options in favour of one alternative, with a set goal in mind.

The ability to make informed choices is fundamental to human nature and choice. Being subjective in nature, we are informed by our beliefs, value systems and traditions. Private schools are established to provide parents with the security that their children are being educated and taught certain values and life principles. Clearly, they seek to establish and maintain what we would see, in most cases, as being mainstream Christian values and inculcate these values in the students. Denying private schools the ability to mould an environment that accords with the wishes of parents is to deny private schools the ability to exist and stand for mainstream values.

Every parent has the right to choose an education for their children that aligns with their own moral and religious convictions. Article 2 of the 1960 United Nations Convention against Discrimination in Education says that the “establishment or maintenance for religious reasons of separate … institutions offering an education which is in keeping with the wishes of the pupil’s parents” is not discrimination. Further, Article 5 (b) states:

… it is essential to respect the liberty of parents … to choose for their children institutions other than those maintained by the public authorities … and … to ensure … the religious and moral education of the children in conformity with their own convictions …

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says that State parties:

… undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

The right of a parent to determine their child’s education in accordance with religious or moral convictions is clearly an extension of the parent’s democratic right to freely practice religion. The right to freedom of religion is an inalienable right cherished by individuals across the world. As stated in the 1983 Victorian High Court decision in Church of the New Faith v Commissioner of Payroll Tax:

Freedom of religion, the paradigm freedom, is of the essence of a free society.

The right to freedom of religion has been discussed at length in the context of the religious tolerance bill. Suffice to say, this right is nationally and internationally recognised and well-grounded. Parents send their children to Christian schools with the expectation that Christian beliefs and values will be taught and demonstrated.

Thus, the Christian school is not only an expression of freedom of association but also an expression of freedom of religion. If this bill is made law, Christian, Jewish and Islamic schools will be prevented from choosing teachers who promote and practise their religious beliefs and the distinctiveness of the schools as religious organisations will be lost.

Ms Rhiannon also said that “any suggestion that the Greens would ever seek to limit religious freedom betrays a total lack of understanding of our core values”. This is highly questionable, not only because the main aim of this bill is to strip private schools and religious organisations of their right to conduct their affairs based on religious or moral convictions in the name of anti-discrimination, but also because a core Greens principle is that the party despises religion and what it stands for. I believe that this bill is implicitly discriminatory against entities that hold Christian, Jewish and Islamic values in an attempt to secularise every segment of society.

We do not suggest that homosexual, transgender, divorced or separated individuals have less capacity to teach students than individuals who are heterosexual or heterosexual and married. It would be wrong to assert that. However, the role of a teacher is not only to provide education and to impart knowledge but also to be a role model to children with certain values informing and shaping that role. Education is not simply about passing on facts. It involves establishing a moral and ethical framework for children to evaluate the facts. Sexuality is irrelevant to one’s teaching abilities, but it is not irrelevant to the moral foundations that a religious school is endeavouring to inculcate in its students.

It could be argued that parents support the way in which private schools conduct their affairs. A Sydney Morning Herald series in 2003 strongly made the point that non-believers are moving their “children out of state schools to be educated alongside the children of the devout and religiously ambivalent”. Brendan Nelson, the Federal Minister for Education at the time, said that religious schools offer the trifecta that parents are looking for: identity, discipline and, above all, personal values. He said that they increasingly want values that inform the personal development of their children. The independent schools sector grew by 104,605 students from 1996 to 2003, and growth occurred in all States and Territories. The data indicates that this growth may be largely attributed to growth in longer-established schools rather than simply from growth through new schools being established.

Professor Terry Lovat, Pro Vice-Chancellor for Education at the University of Newcastle, referred to the fact that the shift to religious schools dates from the 1920s, when values-based education in public schools was replaced by strong secularism. In his opinion, a large part of the reason for the heavy drift to private schooling came from the perceived role of private schools in shaping personal values. The argument proffered by the Greens is that if public schools are required to accept every student, why should private schools not be required to do the same. However, as Professor Lovat has explained, values-based education is not the primary motivator of public schools. A secular emphasis is free to run loose in public schools, while most religious schools have set themselves up on Christian foundations. The issue is not that students do not have access to educational facilities in this country: every student has access to an education—that is why the public education system exists. The private system allows choice, and the general public is increasingly opting for it.

The bill also has implications for religious bodies through the amendments made to section 56. It will remove the freedom of these religious organisations to use their discretion in deciding which individuals and groups they provide services to and make their land and resources available to, to choose on what basis individuals are suitable for membership and to manifest their beliefs in teaching, observance, practice and worship. Although this has not been mentioned by any other member, the bill may also affect a religious body’s right to choose who takes part in religious rites, sacraments and ceremonies such as the conducting of Holy Communion or baptism because the conduct of such religious activities could be interpreted as the provision of religious services. It is unacceptable that Parliament should interfere with the right of churches and others to select those who are suitable to conduct Holy Communion or baptism.

In summing up, this bill has many strong arguments against it, such as the United Nations declaration dealing with freedom of religion and education and parents’ rights to bring up their children in the way they desire and according to personal beliefs. And the public of Australia seems to agree. I note that in the past few months this House has had 18,417 signatures presented in 65 petitions opposing the bill, but only nine petitions bearing 3,034 signatures supporting it. It is obvious that the people who know about these debates have already decided that the bill should be rejected. I make available those letters I have sought leave to be incorporated.

Wednesday, 1st March, 2006, 4:48 pm | Articles