Australia politics live: Religious discrimination bill passed by the House with key amendment, now heads to the Senate
Prime Minister Scott Morrison was reportedly shot down by the members of his own cabinet when he put forward a risky plan to win votes.
National
Don't miss out on the headlines from National. Followed categories will be added to My News.
Welcome to our live coverage of Australian politics. We’re all tired and quite ready for the week to end – particularly our politicians, who just pulled an all nighter. Alas, time remains.
Not much time though. This the last day of the parliamentary sitting week, and it’s the last time the Senate will sit before the end of March, so if the government wants to get anything done, it needs to move fast.
On that note, everyone stayed up late last night to deal with Scott Morrison’s religious discrimination bill. The House eventually passed it just before 5am, after five Liberal MPs crossed the floor to support one of Labor’s amendments.
The bill will now be considered by the Senate, where the government will need to obtain support from either Labor or the crossbench. But that isn’t happening today, for reasons we shall explain below.
Read on for the latest news.
Stream more political news live & on demand with Flash, a dedicated news streaming service. New to Flash? Try 14 days free now >
Signing off
On that surprisingly fun note – THERE WAS NO WEE – I shall close down the blog for today, and indeed for the week. Thank you again for your company
The House is sitting again next week, and Senate estimates are also happening, so the blog will return on Monday with renewed vigour and perhaps, maybe, a bit less sarcasm. No promises there, though.
MP found asleep ‘didn’t wet his pants’
Samantha Maiden
And so, we put the parliamentary week to bed with this nightmare.
Former Liberal Party senator Cory Bernardi took to social media today to claim a mystery Coalition MP was found in his office in a pool of his own urine at 3:30am on Thursday night.
“Who was the federal MP found comatose and soiled in his office last night when parliament was sitting?” Mr Bernardi asked.
After news.com.au dutifully commenced the grim task of getting to the bottom of this unsavoury rumour, we found the MP who knows how the rumour started but insisted no one lost control of their bladder.
“He didn’t wet his pants,” a Liberal MP said.
“There was no wee. Not that I am aware of. He was just asleep in his office.”
The Liberal Party whip, Bert Van Manem, has been contacted for comment.
Minister confronted with cabinet claim
The Guardian’s Josh Butler reports Employment Minister Stuart Robert was unlucky enough to be in the press gallery when that story from Peter van Onselen went up. Naturally, he was asked about it.
“Minister, in cabinet the Prime Minister was trying to get a horse trading arrangement in terms of bringing onto the notice paper the integrity bill in order to try to maximise your chances of getting the religious discrimination bill through. But it didn’t pass cabinet, cabinet rejected that. Any thoughts on that?” Van Onselen asked him.
“Well, I guess I didn’t see you in cabinet, PVO. I did have a good look around the room,” Mr Robert replied.
“I’ve clearly spoken to someone where though. What does it mean that the Prime Minister got rolled in cabinet?” asked van Onselen.
“Well, clearly I don’t agree with you. And I was there and you weren’t,” said the Minister.
“Are you saying that didn’t happen in cabinet?” he asked.
“I’m saying I don’t discuss matters of cabinet confidentiality,” said Mr Robert.
PM reportedly shot down by his own cabinet
The Australian’s Peter van Onselen reports the Prime Minister was shot down during a cabinet meeting on Monday night, on the eve of the year’s first sitting day, when he put forward a plan to ensure the passage of the religious discrimination legislation.
Mr Morrison reportedly suggested the government agree to put a bill on establishing a federal anti-corruption commission on the notice paper in the House, allowing it to be debated, in the hope it would convince sceptical MPs to support the discrimination bill.
Before the last election, Mr Morrison promised voters he would pass legislation on both religious discrimination and an integrity body. Neither has happened.
The failure to establish a federal ICAC has annoyed the crossbench, as well as some Liberals, such as Tasmanian MP Bridget Archer.
Van Onselen reports the Prime Minister’s idea “involved a bid to horse trade for votes on the religious discrimination bill” to convince Ms Archer, and perhaps some crossbenchers, to hold their noses and vote for the discrimination bill despite their reservations.
He says cabinet “erupted”, with Communications Minister Paul Fletcher among those arguing against the plan. Cabinet ultimately decided it was too risky, despite arguments in its favour from Stuart Robert and Simon Birmingham.
An unnamed minister told The Australian Mr Morrison looked “rattled” by his inability to sway the cabinet.
Albanese labelled a ‘snarler’
Moment two from Question Time: Scott Morrison unleashed an extraordinary personal attack on Anthony Albanese, calling him a “sook and a snarler” who is trying to appease China.
Defence Minister Peter Dutton went even further, saying the Chinese Communist Party has “made a decision about who they will back in the next federal election” and “that is open and obvious”.
Our political editor, Samantha Maiden, has written about that.
PM urges Tame to provide more information
Question Time did happen today. Don’t worry, I’m not going to bore you with procedural arguments again. Just a couple of moments to highlight amid the usual sea of rhetorical manure.
Moment one: Labor MP Julie Collins asked Scott Morrison about Grace Tame’s allegation, made during her Press Club speech yesterday, that a senior member of a government-funded organisation called her to pressure her not to say mean things about the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the government said the allegation would be investigated.
“Can the Prime Minister guarantee the results of this so-called investigation into this ‘threatening’ call will be released? Or will he sweep it under the carpet, hide from the truth as he has done before, and fail to take any real action?” asked Ms Collins.
Leader of the House Peter Dutton protested against her choice of words – an “unsubstantiated flourish”, in his view – but the question was allowed.
Mr Morrison began by repeating his denial of any involvement in such a phone call, which his office issued in a written statement yesterday.
“I’m happy to confirm again, I have not and would not authorise any such actions and at all times have sought to treat Ms Tame with dignity and respect,” he said.
“The first I became aware of that allegation was during the Press Club address when it was delivered.
“Ms Tame should always be free to speak her mind and conduct herself as she chooses. I have made no criticism of her, her statements or her actions.”
Moving on to the investigation, Mr Morrison urged Ms Tame to name the organisation the other individual in the phone call worked for (she has declined to publicly name the person or the organisation).
“While she has declined to name the individual, I would at least invite her to advise the government which government-funded agency she is referring to,” he said.
“(We’d) be pleased to pursue the matter if we had some knowledge of even the agency that has been referred to.
“I consider the actions and the statements of the individual absolutely unacceptable, and inquiries can only be made where we can be directed, and those inquiries should be seeking to get answers to the matters that have been raised, and if anyone has any information on that, then I would encourage them to bring it forward so the matter can be properly addressed.”
Ms Tame has already indicated she has little interest in the investigation.
“Scott conducting an investigation into who made the phone call is THE VERY SAME embedded structural silencing culture that drove the call in the first place and misses the point entirely,” she said yesterday (emphasis hers).
“Stop deflecting, Scott. It’s not about the person who made the call. It’s the fact they felt like they had to do it.”
‘Poor form’: Independent MP hits back
Michaelia Cash’s letter, detailed below, has not swayed Rebekha Sharkie. The independent MP has responded publicly, saying her amendment to the discrimination legislation was “sound”.
Ms Sharkie has also pointed out that Ms Cash did not share the legal advice she was referring to, instead only summarising it.
“Similar arguments were made by the government when medevac laws were passed,” she said.
“Unfortunately the Minister has not shared the legal advice referred to in her letter. My amendment was identical to Labor’s proposed amendment. It is a sound amendment.
“Poor form.”
It is true that Ms Sharkie’s amendment was identical to one proposed by Labor, as Ms Cash noted when she cc’d Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus in her letter.
Ms Sharkie said she had asked Ms Cash to provide her with the legal advice.
“I am asking the Attorney-General for the legal advice underpinning the letter and, if released, will consider that advice carefully,” she said.
“However, I have deep concerns over the cited but unseen ‘legal advice’, and have a sense of deja vu after the government previously misrepresented legal advice on the medevac transfer bill.
“If the government was genuinely worried about the so-called unintended consequences, it could draft its own amendments in the Senate to address said issues. I am disappointed that the government has decided to play politics.”
The government’s legal advice
Righto, let’s get stuck into this fresh legal advice, which the government is citing to justify its shelving of the religious discrimination legislation.
The Attorney-General, Senator Michaelia Cash, has written to independent MP Rebekha Sharkie, whose amendment to the legislation was passed by the House overnight, to explain the advice from the government solicitor.
“The purpose of this letter is to draw your attention to significant concerns that have now been raised with me regarding the potential unintended consequences of the amendment to Section 37 of the Sex Discrimination Act,” Ms Cash wrote.
“Concerns have been raised with me that a potential consequence of the amendment is that religious educational institutions will now be able to discriminate against students on the ground of the student’s sex, intersex status or breastfeeding.”
To remind you, Ms Sharkie’s amendment would repeal Section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act which allows discrimination against students and employees based on their “sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status, or pregnancy”. That is the part which has received the most attention today.
Here we’re talking about a paragraph it would add to Section 37.
“It is Section 38 of the SDA that provides specific, and limited, exceptions for religious educational institutions,” Ms Cash wrote (emphasis hers).
“In contrast, Section 37 provides a general exception for religious bodies (essentially churches, mosques, synagogues and similar bodies) to discriminate against people on the basis of all attributes and in all areas of public life.
“Amending Section 37 to refer to religious educational institutions could allow these institutions to rely on the general exception in that section, rather than the more limited exceptions in Section 38.
“This could allow religious educational institutions to discriminate against people on broader grounds than currently provided for in Section 38.
“By expressly stating that it is unlawful for a religious educational institution to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy, this drafting leaves open the possibility of religious schools to discriminate on other grounds, being a student or prospective student’s sex, intersex status or breastfeeding.
“This drafting could therefore undermine the existing protections for students against discrimination.”
Ms Cash said it was imperative to “protect against unintended consequences”, and that is why the government’s proposal was to wait for the outcome of an Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry. That inquiry is still about half a year away from finishing.
PM’s election promise in tatters
So, the religious discrimination bill is technically still alive, but the likelihood of it being passed before the election in May is very slim.
The Senate has just two sitting days left before the election, which means there is very little time for the government to resolve its differences with Labor and the crossbench to get its preferred version of the legislation passed.
And now the government is reportedly pushing for an inquiry, citing that legal advice from the Australian Government Solicitor. Inquiries take time.
The upshot is that Scott Morrison’s promise to pass a Religious Discrimination Act, made before the 2019 election, is in serious, serious doubt.
(Fun fact: when he first announced his intention to pass such a law in December of 2018, he actually wanted to pass it before the last election. So this issue has been bubbling away for quite some time.)
Mr Morrison would of course argue the situation is not his fault. The amendment passed last night was forced on him – it was introduced by independent Rebekha Sharkie and supported by Labor, along with five Liberal MPs.
Now he can cite the legal advice from the Australian Government Solicitor, suggesting the amendment could actually increase the risk of discrimination in schools, as a reason to proceed with caution. Which is to say, slowly.
We got a preview of this argument from Nationals MP Bridget McKenzie on ABC TV a short time ago.
“We’re not going to rush through a bill that has unintended consequences,” she said.
“We have potentially opened a whole can of worms here ... it would be derelict of us as a government, with something so important, to actually proceed with debating and potentially voting on these bills in the Senate today.”
Government pushes for Senate inquiry
Why is the government shelving its own discrimination bill? The Australian reports the Prime Minister has received legal advice from the Australian Government Solicitor which warns the amendment passed in the House last night could actually increase the risk of discrimination in schools.
The advice warns of “unintended consequences”, including the possibility that schools will be enabled to discriminate on the basis of a student’s sex, intersex status and breastfeeding.
The government is now going to push for a Senate inquiry into the matter.
‘I’m in a state of confusion’: Farce in the Senate
There has been some very entertaining confusion in the Senate, and indeed inside my brain, involving the religious discrimination legislation and whether it will be considered today.
Short version: no, it will not. And the Senate doesn’t sit again until March 29. So the bill everybody’s been fighting about, the bill for which everyone stayed up until 5am in the House of Representatives, will not be passed until at least the end of March.
Even then, it’s doubtful. The government doesn’t appear to have the numbers to pass its preferred version of the bill, and that March sitting is only two days long. The Senate won’t convene again after that until after the election.
OK, now here’s the long (and funny) version.
The Senate was voting on a motion to exempt the religious discrimination bills from the cut-off order. What is the cut-off order, you ask? I shall quote from parliament’s website.
“Cut-off refers to a deadline for the receipt of bills. If a bill is received from the House more than two-thirds of the way through a sitting period, it is automatically adjourned until the next period of sittings ... blah blah blah ... with the agreement of the Senate, bills can be exempted from the cut-off, allowing them to be moved, considered and passed.”
SO, that was the motion before the Senate: to exempt the religious discrimination stuff from the cut-off, enabling it to be considered today.
The government voted against doing that, which means the legislation now cannot be considered until the next sitting.
It did this on purpose. The government wants to spend some time speaking to “stakeholders” to figure out its position, given the amendment that passed in the House yesterday.
However, not everyone knew the plan, as evidenced by the confusion on the floor of the Senate. Multiple senators literally had to ask the President of the Senate what they had just voted on.
“I’m trying to understand what just occurred there with the religious discrimination bills. What was the result of that vote?” said Labor Senator Katy Gallagher.
“That item was negatived,” said President Slade Brockman.
“So they weren’t exempted.”
Next up was Liberal Senator Eric Abetz.
“I am in a state of confusion. And I think the vast majority of my colleagues are as well,” Mr Abetz said.
“Can we have explained to us what has actually been put to us?”
Mr Brockman ran through the details of what had just been voted on, again. Nationals Senator Matt Canavan then rose to say he was still “confused”.
“You said we put the motion. What was that motion?” he asked Mr Brockman.
“The motion to exempt the bills from the cut-off order. And that has been negatived,” Mr Brockman explained, AGAIN.
Hilarious stuff. Top tier. And yes, no discrimination bill today, or indeed for several weeks.
‘What a c***’: Insult caught on tape
Samantha Maiden
Liberal frontbencher Amanda Stoker has accused a Labor media adviser of calling her a “f***wit” and a “c***”, but the man who uttered the sledge insists he was talking about NSW One Nation leader Mark Latham.
The conversation was clearly overheard by Senator Stoker’s press secretary this morning as she was observing her boss defending the government’s religious freedom legislation during an interview with Sky News host Peter Stefanovic.
A Labor adviser could be heard talking to Labor MP Stephen Jones, and saying “what a c***” and describing someone as a “f***wit”.
The conversation was also unintentionally recorded by the press secretary, who was recording Ms Stoker’s interview, and a copy of the audio was provided to news.com.au by the Senator’s office.
“I’m a big girl, and able to cop insults, however unfair,” Ms Stoker told news.com.au.
“But my staff shouldn’t have to put up with an environment like that, and given Labor spend a lot of time talking about respect and tolerance, it would be nice to see them practise what they preach. Utter hypocrites.”
Mr Jones has told news.com.au that the conversation was not about Ms Stoker. He said he and the Labor media adviser were discussing Mr Latham’s criticism of Mr Jones’ high heel wearing teenage son, Paddy.
At 8am, Mr Latham posted a tweet referring to 14-year-old Paddy’s interview with The Sydney Morning Herald, in which he discussed his father’s decision to speak about him on the floor of the House.
“He wears heels that give me vertigo and has more handbags than his sister,” Mr Jones said of Paddy, as he explained how his son had helped shape his opposition to Scott Morrison’s religious discrimination bill.
“He has more courage than any boy I have ever met.”
In his tweet, Mr Latham criticised Paddy, as well as Mr Jones’ parenting.
“What is the cause and effect here? Children are impressionable and with two radically left-wing parents who believe in gender fluidity, Paddy is not surprising anyone,” he said.
Mr Latham said Paddy was being “used as a political tool by his father to subject religious schools to more left-wing gender activism”.
(We should note that Mr Jones did ask Paddy whether it was OK to talk about him in parliament before doing so.)
What’s the cause and effect here?
— Real Mark Latham (@RealMarkLatham) February 9, 2022
Children are impressionable and with two radically Left-wing parents who believe in gender fluidity, Paddy is not surprising anyone.
But then used as a political tool by his father to subject religious schools to more Left-wing gender activism. https://t.co/HJOAKiqYBz
“I don’t think parliament works if every private conversation in a green room in Sky is going to be recorded,” Mr Jones told news.com.au.
He said he utterly rejected any suggestion he was sledging Ms Stoker.
“I just received a screenshot of a tweet Mark Latham had sent. Either he or I said, ‘What a c***,’” said Mr Jones.
“I can’t even remember which one of us said ‘c***’.”
In his speech this week, Mr Jones said that while he supported religious freedom, he feared the impact the proposed legislation could have on his loved ones, including Paddy.
“I know that the love and protection that he enjoys with his mother, with his friends and family is very different to the reception he may receive in the world outside,” he said.
“Could this be the day when we get ac all telling us that something has happened? That he has been attacked just for being who he is?”
The leaked audio recording follows a week of controversy over leaked texts calling the Prime Minister a “liar” and a “complete pyscho”, and the treatment of women in parliament.
The numbers in the Senate
Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus is confident the Senate will pass further amendments to the discrimination legislation, even though they were rejected by the House (I’ll bring you his quotes shortly). That’s because the numbers are very different in the Senate.
The government has a wafer-thin majority in the House, with 76 of the 151 MPs.
The government does not have a majority in the Senate. It holds 35 of the upper chamber’s 76 seats, with Labor holding 26. Fifteen are held by the various crossbenchers: the Greens have nine, One Nation has two, and then we have independents Rex Patrick, Jacqui Lambie, Stirling Griff and Sam McMahon.
When it comes to this legislation, the government can count on the support of One Nation, but that isn’t enough. Should Labor oppose the bill, Scott Morrison will need to seek the support of other crossbenchers as well.
Christian Lobby tells government to ditch bill
Liberal Senator Amanda Stoker mentioned the government was consulting with “stakeholder groups”, including religious groups, before deciding what to do about the amendment to its religious discrimination bill.
One of those groups, the Australian Christian Lobby, has withdrawn its support for the legislation this morning.
“Taking away protections for Christian schools is a price too high to pay for the passage of the religious discrimination bill,” said Wendy Francis, the ACL’s national director of politics.
“The amendments voted on by Labor, independents and these Liberal MPs unnecessarily interfere with the operation of faith-based schools.
“With the amendments so damaging to religious freedom, the government should immediately withdraw the bills.”
As mentioned earlier, the amendment in question would repeal Section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which allows schools to discriminate against students and employees based on their “sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status, or pregnancy”.
Ms Stoker explained why some lobby groups wanted that section to remain in the law during her appearance on Sky News.
“It excludes people on a range of different bases from the protection of the Sex Discrimination Act in narrow circumstances, so that schools are able to operate according to their ethos without having the threat of litigation hanging over them,” she said.
“One example is that there are some aspects of religious teaching that might offend people of diverse sexuality. There are certain aspects of the management of schools – for instance, let’s say a girls school – that are challenged by the suggestion that a biological male transitioning to female could be accommodated in that school.
“I’m not going to make a judgment either way on those things, but they are really complex.”
What will the government do now?
So, we know Labor’s plan at this point: push for further amendments to the religious discrimination legislation in the Senate. What about the government?
Liberal Senator Jane Hume spoke to reporters this morning and suggested the government would attempt to remove the amendment the House passed.
“The government will inevitably move amendments to try and revert the bill back to the government’s position,” Ms Hume said.
To be clear about what we’re referring to here, the amendment Labor, the crossbench and five Liberal MPs passed last night would repeal Section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act, which allows schools to discriminate against students and employees based on their sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status, or pregnancy.
Scott Morrison had proposed changes to the Sex Discrimination Act to prevent schools from expelling students for being gay.
His proposal would not have protected transgender students from expulsion. Mr Morrison argued parliament should wait for the outcome of an Australian Law Reform Commission review before dealing with that issue.
That stance did not satisfy all of his own MPs. So the amendment, proposed by independent Rebekha Sharkie, was supported by Labor, along with the five Liberals who crossed the floor.
According to Ms Hume, the government will now attempt to ditch it in the Senate.
Her colleague Amanda Stoker, appearing on Sky News this morning, was more circumspect. Ms Stoker stressed the need to consult with “stakeholder groups” and “fully appreciate the implications” of the amendment before deciding on a course of action. More on one of those stakeholder groups in a moment.
“Will you try to roll them back?” host Peter Stefanovic pressed.
“We’re going to check in with our stakeholders first,” Ms Stoker responded.
“We’re going to make an informed decision, and we are really intent on honouring the commitment we made to all the multicultural groups, to all the religious groups, and also all of the LGBTI groups in the consultation process.
“We want to do the right thing by the people in the community that are affected by this bill.”
Albanese: Labor will ‘pursue further amendments’
Labor leader Anthony Albanese held a press conference earlier to talk up the amendment his party managed to pass, with help from the crossbench and five Liberal MPs, to extend protection for gay school students to transgender kids as well.
“We support the removal or the extension of any discrimination legislation to cover discrimination on the basis of religion, or on the basis of faith, but we don’t believe that should be at a cost of increasing discrimination against other groups,” he said.
“In particular, we were concerned about the impact against students who may be struggling with their gender identity, or who have a sexual orientation which they are coming to terms with, and the pressure on a young person at that time should be respected.
“Labor believes very clearly that we need to respect every child for who they are. That is a fundamental principle we took into the parliament and were determined to pursue.
“The amendment carried will prohibit schools discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, relationship, or marital status. That makes an enormous difference.”
Mr Albanese accused the Prime Minister of going back on his word, citing a letter Scott Morrison wrote late last year.
“The Prime Minister wrote to me in December and said that there’s no place in our education system for any form of discrimination against a student on the basis of their sexuality or their gender identity,” he said.
“Had the legislation passed without this significant amendment, against the government’s wishes, it wouldn’t have fulfilled that commitment.
“And then, when the amendment was carried, the government, in an act of extraordinary petulance, voted against their own legislation.”
OK, you get it, he’s happy about the amendment.
“You have conceded that this legislation is bad legislation and that it could have been better. What do you say to Australians who are waking up to see that Labor has ultimately allowed it to pass through the House?” a reporter asked Mr Albanese.
“We fixed the major issue that was raised,” he replied.
“Had we simply said, ‘We’re just voting against that legislation,’ and not tried to improve it, that would not have occurred, and the legislation would have passed without amendment.
“As a direct result of the position that we took, this bill has been improved.”
Mr Albanese said Labor would pursue “further amendments” in the Senate, alluding to the ones that failed in the House. Those amendments would change the statements of belief clause and ban discrimination on the basis of religion by aged service providers.
House passes discrimination bill after marathon debate
The religious discrimination bill Scott Morrison has been pushing for was passed by the House of Representatives a bit before 5am this morning after MPs debated all night.
But it’s not all good news for the Prime Minister. Labor, the crossbench and five Liberal MPs joined forces to pass an amendment against the government’s wishes, expanding a provision preventing schools from expelling students for being gay to protect transgender kids as well.
The five Liberals who crossed the floor were Bridget Archer, Dave Sharma, Trent Zimmerman, Fiona Martin and Katie Allen.
“This has been one of the most difficult weeks of my time in parliament,” Mr Zimmerman told the House, explaining his stance.
“I cannot support a situation where we solve a problem for one community but in fact enhance a problem for another (transgender students).
“If we solve one problem and not another, by omission we are sending a message to those people in the transgender community.”
Another proposed amendment to scrap the statements of belief clause – which protects religious statements even if they offend, insult or humiliate others – was narrowly defeated after the Speaker, Andrew Wallace, was forced to cast a deciding vote.
Now the legislation, in its amended form, will head to the Senate, where the government’s numbers are weaker.
Originally published as Australia politics live: Religious discrimination bill passed by the House with key amendment, now heads to the Senate
Read related topics:Scott Morrison
Warning after truck explosion on major road
Residents have been urged to stay inside after a truck collided with an allegedly stolen luxury car in a fiery crash.
Read more
Chaos as strike hits major airports
Hundreds of Qantas engineers are expected to walk off the job in a fight for better pay.
Read more