Anti-discrimination law changes risk undermining values, say Anglicans

Anglican school principals are urging Scott Morrison and federal MPs to resist overhauling anti-discrimination laws.

St Andrew’s Cathedral School head John Collier yesterday. Picture: James Croucher

The principals of some of Australia’s most famous Anglican schools are urging Scott Morrison and federal MPs to resist pressure to protect gay teachers by overhauling anti-discrimination laws, a move they warn would undermine their faith’s core “ethos and values”.

The schools are concerned any proposed overhaul of anti-­discrimination laws would also have profound unintended consequences and undermine the ­ability of children to receive a ­religious education.

A letter signed by the heads of the 34 Sydney Anglican diocese schools and sent to all MPs — ­including the Prime Minister and Bill Shorten — argues for the protection of religious freedoms and sounds the alarm on the removal of key exemptions in the Sex ­Discrimination Act for faith-based educators.

The group of 34 includes the King’s School at Parramatta; ­Barker College and Abbotsleigh in the northern suburbs; Sydney Church of England Grammar School (Shore) at North Sydney; Trinity Grammar School in the inner west; and St Andrew’s Cath­edral School in Sydney’s central business district.

In the letter, the headmasters argue that the exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act are “the only significant legal protections available to schools to maintain their ethos and values with regard to core issues of faith”. Anglican schools say removal of the exemptions would go against the “reasonable ­expec­t­ation … of many parents and families” — a warning that will fuel arguments that religious freedom is not adequately protected in Australia.

Debate over the treatment of gay students and teachers was triggered by the leak of the ­Ruddock review into religious freedom days before the crucial by-election in Wentworth, home to one of the largest LGBTI ­communities in Australia.

The loss of the seat formerly held by ­Malcolm Turnbull will force the Coalition into minority government and throw into doubt the ability of the Morrison ­government to pass a new Religiou­s Discrimination Act.

Attorney-General Christian Porter will take the proposed act to cabinet.

While the Coalition flagged before the Wentworth by-­election that it would swiftly pass legislation to protect gay students against discrimination, it failed to reach agreement with Labor by the end of last week’s parliament­ary sitting — pushing out resolution of the issue until the end of next month.

Existing exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act — strengthened by the former Labor government in 2013 — allow religious schools to discriminate against students and teachers on the basis of sexual orientation, but they are rarely used for that purpose.

“The debate has been polemicised as the right to expel gay students, with little evidence that this occurs, and the right to dismiss gay staff members, again with ­little evidence that this occurs,” the Anglican schools say.

John Collier, the head of school at St Andrew’s, told The Australian yesterday he felt ­compelled to sign up to the letter to ensure the views of the faith-based education sector were made clear.

“It is a significant moment when my fellow school heads feel strongly enough to write an open letter to MPs,” Dr Collier said. “Our joint concerns go to the heart of school ethos and missions.”

While Labor and the Coalition will endeavour to strike out the exemption allowing schools to discriminate against gay students, some Labor MPs have joined the Greens in arguing for teachers to receive the same protection.

 

The Anglican schools have today drawn a line in the sand against this step, arguing that it would deny them the right — ­enjoyed by political parties and corporate entities — to employ staff who share their key values.

They argue the exemption is “clumsy”, but say its removal — in the absence of a more “positive right” that a Religious Discrimination Act would provide — would prevent them from firing or rejecting teachers opposed to their fundamental beliefs.

“Until such time as religious freedom is codified in legislation, the exemptions should remain,” the Anglican schools say.

“Some schools require evidence of an active faith that is consistent with the philosophy and ethos of the school.

“In other schools, there is a preference for employment of ­active adherents of the faith, but other staff, who may not personally identify with the faith, are still expected to support the over­arching mission and ethos of the school.

“This is not inconsistent with the practice of most employers and their corporate goals, let alone political parties.

“It is overly simplistic to state that a teacher merely delivers ­academic content in the classroom. This ignores the powerful mentor and exemplar role all teachers play, and are expected to play in the education of young people. Therefore it is essential that a teacher supports the values, ethos and mission of the school as much as he or she can.”

Education Minister Dan Tehan this morning sidestepped the issue, saying any decisions on anti-discrimination laws would be made by Attorney-General Christian Porter, not him.

“What my view is that the Attorney General is looking at this very carefully. There is a balance here ... we do have to protect religious freedom,” he said.

“At the same time we got to get the balance right on so when it comes to discrimination based on gender, based on sexual orientation.”

But when it comes to controversial university research grants, Mr Tehan said “his neck was on the line”.

The education minister’s proposal to allow ministers to send back grants approved by the Australian Research Council if they do not meet the “national interest” has been controversial.

Mr Tehan said this morning that a change in the grants process would hold “democratically elected governments” more responsible.

“If there was a problem with a grant, as the minister, I’ll ultimately be held responsible, it’ll be my neck on the line,” he told ABC radio.

“At the end, we want our ministers held responsible for the decisions we’re making ... If it’s at arm’s length with the ARC it means I’m still held responsible but I have no bearing on what’s approved or not.

“I’m just wondering, in the end, why we want to have democratically elected governments? We do we put ministers in (positions) of responsibility?”