Bill
Religious Discrimination Bill 2022
lapsed, as at 2022-07-25. Attorney-General portfolio.
- Sponsor
- Not recorded
- Portfolio
- Attorney-General
Recorded stages
- introduced — 2021-11-25
- second reading — 2021-11-25
- second reading — 2021-12-02
- second reading — 2022-02-08
- second reading — 2022-02-09
- second reading — 2022-02-10
- committee — 2022-02-10
- third reading — 2022-02-10
- introduced — 2022-02-10
- second reading — 2022-02-10
- other — 2022-07-25
Divisions
- The majority voted against a motion to disagree with an amendment to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time*" - parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill. Because this motion passed, the second reading motion will remain unchanged. The amendment was introduced by Clark MP [Andrew Wilkie](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/clark/andrew_wilkie) (Independent). There was one rebellion, with Bass MP [Bridget Archer](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bass/bridget_archer) (Liberal) crossing the floor to vote 'No' against the rest of her party, who voted 'Yes.' Note that the electorates of Clark and Bass are both in Tasmania and that MP Wilkie's amendment was Tasmania-specific. ### Amendment text > *That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:* > > *"the House declines to give the bill a second reading and notes that:* > > *(1) this bill will have a greater negative impact on Tasmania than any other state or territory because our anti-discrimination legislation is currently the best in the country; and* > > *(2) the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 has the full support of the Tasmanian Parliament and been strongly endorsed by the Liberal Premier the Hon Peter Gutwein MP"* ### What does the bill do? According to the [bill homepage](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6821), the bill was introduced with the [Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6819) and [Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/r6820) in order to: * *prohibit discrimination on the basis of a person’s religious belief or activity in a range of areas of public life, including in relation — 2022-02-09, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 97, noes 6
- Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 - Second Reading - Agree with bill's main idea — 2022-02-09, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 98, noes 6
- Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 - Consideration in Detail - Statements of belief — 2022-02-09, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 91, noes 5
- Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 - Consideration in Detail - Statements of belief — 2022-02-09, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 64, noes 62
- The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with [amendments](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fr6821_amend_31568dc0-a744-4ca5-aeb1-faed9126d411%22) moved by Isaacs MP [Mark Dreyfus](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/isaacs/mark_dreyfus) (Labor), which means the amendments failed. There was one rebellion, with Bass MP [Bridget Archer](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/bass/bridget_archer) (Liberal) crossing the floor to vote 'No' against the rest of her party, who voted 'Yes.' ### What do the amendments do? MP Isaacs [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2022-02-09.157.1): > *The amendments that Labor is moving now would introduce into this bill a provision to protect people from vilification on the grounds of their religious belief or practice. This is a very important provision that the government has deliberately left out of this bill, despite requests from a range of faith communities for such a provision to be included. Indeed, it's difficult to understand how the Prime Minister can insist on what he imagines is the desire of people of faith to be able to make discriminatory statements about other Australians in what would otherwise amount to a breach of state antidiscrimination laws while ignoring their clearly stated desire to be protected from vilification on the grounds of their faith.* ### Amendment text > *(2) Clause 4, page 3, after line 30, insert:* > >> *Religious vilification is unlawful, with certain exceptions (see Part 4A).* > > *(4) Clause 7, page 10 (line 8), omit “this Act”, substitute “Part 4”.* > > *(10) Clause 9, page 12 (line 24), omit “this Act”, substitute “Part 4”.* > > *(17) Clause 12, page 17 (line 15), omit “.”, substitute “; or”.* > > *(18) Clause 12, page 17 (after line 15), after paragraph (2)(c), insert:* > >> *(d) that is unlawful under Part 4A (religious vilification).* > > *(19) Clause 16, page 20 (lin — 2022-02-09, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 63, noes 61
- Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 - Consideration in Detail - Aged Care — 2022-02-09, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 64, noes 61
- Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 - Third Reading - Pass the bill — 2022-02-09, House of Representatives: affirmative, ayes 91, noes 6
Plain-language summary
No machine-written summary in this export.
Sources
em
em supp
em
em revised
billhome