Privilege for Prejudice and Perverse Outcomes: The Proposed Religious Discrimination Bills

Privilege for Prejudice and Perverse Outcomes

The Proposed Religious Discrimination Bills

Alan Berman* and Mark Brady**

The bill says this is about freedom for faith, but it’s not, it’s really about privilege for prejudice.1

In a world where, historically, religion has been the cause of much suffering and oppression,2 the rights around freedom of religious expression are often in tension with other human rights.3 The Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 (‘RDB’),4 the Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 (‘RDCA’)5 and the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021 (‘HRLA’)6 (collectively, ‘the religious discrimination bills’) propose inter alia to give equal weight to rights of religious expression with other human rights, and to allow religious bodies to engage in conduct that further erodes the already limited protections for LGBTIQ+ individuals under existing anti-discrimination legislation in Australia. While this is the stated aim of the bills, in practice, it privileges freedom of religion and religious expression over other human rights, which is problematic as religion has often been a main cause underlying the abrogation of human rights throughout history.

Where freedom to discriminate is granted to a religious body, an even greater potential arises for an unfair or unjust outcome due to the power imbalance between the religious body and individual natural persons. Where that religious body is a corporation, the extended right to interfere with or abrogate human rights is being granted to a non-human entity. This paper examines some problems arising from the proposed religious discrimination bills in Australia.

* Associate Professor (BA (Magna Cum Laude), JD, LLM (Hons 1), PhD), Dean of Law, Charles Darwin University School of Law.

** (BA, LLB (Hons 1), PhD, AALA), Lecturer in Law, Charles Darwin University School of Law.

I Introduction

While the intended operation of the religious discrimination bills was to protect the integrity of religious parties and organisations, the actual legal operation serves to increase the likelihood of discrimination against minorities. The potential for discrimination is exacerbated where those minorities live contrary to the ethos of religious organisations, which includes members of the LGBTIQ+ community. It has been estimated that between ‘one third and one half of the workforce in education, aged care, healthcare and welfare agencies in Australia are employed in organisations with religious af liations’,7 which are almost entirely government-funded to provide services to the general public.8 For this reason, the religious discrimination bills may have potentially wide-ranging implications for the LGBTIQ+ community.

The relevant provisions include, inter alia, cl 7 of the RDB, which broadens the de nition of a religious body9 beyond educational institutions or registered charities to include ‘any other kind of body (other than a body that engages solely or primarily in commercial activities)’.10 Clauses 9–11 of the RDB allow organisations having a publicly stated policy, grounded in religious belief, to hire and re according to

II Background

In 2016, the Australia-wide LGBTIQ+ population was estimated at 651,800.14 The phenomenon of homophobia and transphobia in Australia signi cantly impairs the health and wellbeing, and dignity of those who identify with the LGBTIQ+ community.15 This impairment compromises the productivity and participation of LGBTIQ+ individuals in the workforce, and jeopardises the social, economic and cultural contribution this community makes to Australian society. Recent literature has found this group particularly vulnerable to poorer mental and physical health outcomes.16 The proposed religious discrimination bills compound the problems facing the LGBTIQ+ community and expose and reinforce societal homophobia, thereby slowing progress towards genuine substantive equality.17 It is arguable that the provisions will have unintended consequences, fostering discrimination against people who don’t t within the ethos of religious organisations. As a Member of Parliament (‘MP’), Garth Hamilton, stresses, ‘those unintended consequences should be unacceptable to a diligent House’.18

Helen Haines MP argues that this bill ‘rolls back current anti-discrimination laws in favour of a proactive right to discriminate on religious grounds’.19 Of equal concern is the effect this legislation might have on vulnerable members of the Australian community. Rebekha Sharkie MP asserts:

[T]his bill has the potential to cause a real harm to women, to people with disabilities, to people from the LGBTQIA community and to people who rely on other anti-discrimination laws to protect them from offensive, insulting, humiliating and intimidating conduct.20

Scholars view the recent amendment to the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) (‘Marriage Act’) providing same-sex couples with the right to marry as the impetus for the religious discrimination bills.21 As Douglas Ezzy et al assert:

[W]hile the right to employment discrimination may be held as central to religious freedom, LGBT+ people are also deserving of equality and respect and evidence suggests that any increase in discriminatory practices is harmful to LGBT+ people in many ways.22

Adam Bandt MP claims the Bill is ‘a Trojan horse for hate’ and argues ‘if you’ve got existing protections under state laws, because you and your community have fought so hard for equality, those protections are going to be taken away’.23

III Response to the Marriage Act

The primary drivers behind the religious discrimination bills are groups that view the amendments to the Marriage Act as an offence to the religious susceptibilities of their adherents.24 The politicisation of marriage equality has been present in Australian political discourse and parliamentary debates surrounding changes to the Marriage Act stretching back to before the passage of the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004 (Cth), which entrenched the common law de nition of marriage as the ‘union of a man and a woman for life’.25 Moreover, the Howard era reforms greatly expanded the role of religious organisations in providing social services,26 education, health care, aged care and social welfare.27 Senator Grieg of the Australian Democrats identi ed debates surrounding the Marriage Act as being pushed by ‘religious zealots and deeply conservative MPs’ and in the future would be viewed by history as similar to ‘the introduction of the White Australia Policy’.28 As Yvonne Sherwood notes:

The con ict between religion and sexuality (and particularly homosexuality) has become an incendiary cultural ashpoint and a stage for the trial of competing freedoms because religious belief and (homo)sexuality are more insecure and vulnerable than age, maternity, disability, or race.

29

Elenie Poulos asserts the push for religious freedom has ‘become the dominant discursive frame for the political debate on marriage equality’.30 Moreover, these debates are often politicised by MPs as ‘position taking’31 to appeal to their constituents.32 Peter Khalil MP stated the religious discrimination bills are being used ‘for base political purposes, to try and nd or even create a problem that’s not quite there’ and cautioned ‘under this government it’s been weaponised for political purposes — in the eleventh hour, a few months out from the federal election’.33 Some scholars contend political discourse is often the location of battles for power by various groups in society. The discourse surrounding the religious discrimination bills re ects a struggle for power by Parliamentarians seeking to appeal to the alleged sensitivities of their constituents by arguing marriage equality poses a threat to religious freedom. The countervailing argument suggests that the encroachment of various rights has seen religious organisations and bodies put in a dif cult place with respect to the ability to continue to exercise their faith unimpeded by the rights of minorities. Patrick Parkinson on behalf of Freedom for Faith argues ‘[f]aith-based organisations should not have lesser rights than secular groups’.34 While this might be a legitimate fear for some sections of the community, it has been described as ‘a monumental steamrolling of our antidiscrimination laws, based on two hypotheticals in an explanatory memorandum and a lack of broad based support’.35

IV Proposed Changes

The religious discrimination bills propose a raft of changes involving Australia’s antidiscrimination legislation.36 One area subject to amendment is the insertion of a clause that provides all human rights are to be regarded equally, which according to the Explanatory Memorandum to the HRLA ‘echoes the well-established international human rights law principle that all rights must be treated with equal importance’.37 At rst blush, this might seem innocuous, but, when subject to closer scrutiny, some problems arise. The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is a fundamental right acknowledged throughout the world.38 However, where the right to religious expression interferes with other human rights, which it often does, it is argued that individual human rights should always take precedence. Under the new religious discrimination bills this is not the case. The religious discrimination bills prioritise freedom of religion over ‘the most basic principles underlying international human rights law: equality and nondiscrimination’.39 As Kerry Weste of Australian Lawyers for Human Rights observes:

Rather than increasing protection against discrimination in Australia, the Religious Discrimination Bill seeks to create an anti-human rights situation whereby all Australians can potentially be harmed by permissible discrimination on the basis of religious faith.40

The Explanatory Memorandum to the RDB provides under ‘rights to equality and non-discrimination’, ‘laws should prohibit discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground’ including ‘sex … or other status’.41 This suggests that the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or marital status has equal standing to religious freedom. Nonetheless, the religious discrimination bills would amend various anti-discrimination legislation in Australia to ensure freedom of religious belief with respect to the provision of facilities, goods or services which are reasonably incidental to the solemnisation of marriage. In other words, any activities related to a wedding could be withheld, if such marriage con icts with religious beliefs. According to Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, ‘[t]he “right to believe” is an absolute personal right exercised internally, but there is no absolute right to manifest or act upon one’s religious belief externally so as to impact upon others.’42

Where these rights impact others, the argument for the equality of all rights transforms religion into a cudgel to visit harm upon vulnerable people. Signi cantly, the religious discrimination bills extend the exemptions in anti-discrimination legislation to religious bodies. The Australian Human Rights Commission (‘AHRC’) argues that the de nition of religious bodies in the religious discrimination bills is too broad.43 According to the AHRC, the current RDB de nes religious bodies as:

[A] religious body is one of the following kinds of bodies established in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion:

- an educational institution, - a registered charity (whether or not it is engaged in commercial activities) - any other kind of body (other than a body that engages solely or primarily in commercial activities).44

Under the religious discrimination bills, religious bodies will now be able to discriminate against individual natural persons whose religious beliefs regarding marriage con ict with those of such individuals, presumably including same-sex partners,45 in order to ‘avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents to that religion’ where that organisation has as part of its objects a statement of belief to that effect.46 The AHRC argues that the proposed legislation involves:

Special rules that provide a more limited scope to engage in religious discrimination … [by] religious educational institutions, hospitals, aged care facilities, accommodation providers, disability service providers and operators of camps or conference sites that provide accommodation.47

V Non-Human Rights

Where a religious body is a corporation or a body corporate the religious discrimination bills effectively grant the right to abrogate human rights to a non-human entity. Bodies corporate are arguably amoral entities,48 and bestowing religious ‘morality’ on them is deeply concerning where individual human rights may be threatened. The countervailing argument by Patrick Parkinson of Freedom for Faith asserts ‘it would be perfectly possible to adopt a rule of “attribution of belief” for a corporate body that has regard to the genuine beliefs of the leaders of the institution, its documents, and its conduct.’49 However, the availability of human rights should be restricted to natural persons as provided for in the Preamble to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (‘ICCPR’) which recognises that these ‘rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person’.50 The granting of such rights to unnatural persons in the form of a religious organisation or a body corporate represents a paradigm shift in the application of human rights and is arguably in contravention of art 18(3) of the ICCPR, which provides that ‘[f]reedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.’51

VI Other LGBTIQ+ Impacts

The amendments contained within the religious discrimination bills effectively allow religious bodies to ‘discriminate generally in the hiring of staff, regardless of whether religious belief or activity was an inherent requirement of the role’.52 Basic principles of human rights, such as ‘privacy, personal dignity, autonomy and equality necessarily subsume within their reach’ the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, particularly for sexual minorities.53 For LGBTIQ+ people, the proposed changes in the HRLA represent a serious encroachment on human rights as many religions condemn same sex relationships, not just Judeo-Christian religions, making the impact of these amendments even greater. Currently, in some jurisdictions such as New South Wales, there are wide-ranging exemptions to anti-discrimination legislation. Carolyn Evans and Beth Gage assert such legislation allows schools or organisations associated with particular religions to be excepted from actions involving ‘education in or employment by a “private educational authority” based on the attributes of “sex” … “marital or domestic status”, “trans-gender” [and] “homosexuality”’.54 It is important to note that the current Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (‘SDA’) already provides the ability

for a person to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person’s sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy in connection with employment as a member of the staff of an educational institution that is conducted in accordance

The amendments contained in the religious discrimination bills will enable this right to be broadened to encompass not just individuals but also religious bodies or institutions which will be exempted from discrimination claims when acting within their reasonably held beliefs,56 and effectively privileges discrimination based on religious belief above other basic human rights. This adds to the existing discrimination allowed under s 38 of the SDA. 57 In the second reading speech to the religious discrimination bills, Anthony Albanese MP demanded the deletion of s 38(3) of the SDA ‘in full, to remove discrimination against all children, whether they’re gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender…’.58

Recent studies suggest such exemptions to anti-discrimination legislation have a deleterious impact on the experiences of students and teachers who identify as LGBTIQ+.59 This leads to the inescapable conclusion that the right of religious bodies to discriminate based on sexual orientation in the religious discrimination bills enjoys primacy over the right of LGBTIQ+ individuals to personal dignity, autonomy and equality. As Peta Murphy MP notes, ‘[e]veryone deserves the opportunity to lead their best life, and to not feel that being ful lled in who they are also means being hated or despised or discriminated against’.60

VII Conclusion

While the religious discrimination bills have not been passed in Parliament, they have potentially unintended consequences for marginalised and vulnerable groups in society, including members of the LGBTIQ+ community. The religious discrimination bills operate to negatively impact the health, wellbeing and dignity of those who identify as LGBTIQ+ individuals. Once again, this privileges prejudice and oppression under the guise of religious freedom and reinforces regressive societal homophobia. Moreover, the politicisation of religious freedom in response to long overdue changes to marriage equality, for political gain, is problematic. It undermines the participation of LGBTIQ+ individuals in the workforce and compromises the social, economic and cultural contribution this community makes to Australian society. Furthermore, where religious organisations are bodies corporate, the religious discrimination bills will effectively prioritise the rights of non-living entities over the rights of living human beings, arguably breaching Australia’s international human rights obligations under the ICCPR. In the 120 years since Federation, Australia has made giant strides towards equality, inclusivity and participation by all members within society. Despite the progress made thus far, the passing of the religious discrimination bills would represent a signi cant retrograde step on the path towards a truly egalitarian Australian community.

1 Caroline Riches, ‘What is the Religious Discrimination Bill and How Could It

Affect Australia?’, SBS News (online, 18 November 2021) <https://www.sbs. com.au/news/article/what-is-the-religious-discrimination-bill-and-how-could-itaffect-australia/b5wp47cn2>. 2 See generally Ian G Hansen, Valerie W-Y Jackson and Andrew Ryder, ‘Religion and Oppression: Cross-National and Experimental Investigations’ (2018) 8(4)

Religion, Brain & Behavior 369–93. 3 See Alice Donald and Erica Howard, ‘The Right to Freedom of Religion or Belief and Its Intersection with Other Rights’ (Research Paper, ILGA Europe, January 2015). 4 Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 (Cth) (‘RDB’). 5 Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 (Cth) (‘RDCA’). 6 Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 (Cth) (‘HRLA’). While not passed in Parliament, these bills represent a signi cant threat to LGBTIQ+ rights by prioritising religious belief over actual extant rights, such as the right to the opportunity to gain a living by work. See International Covenant on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights, opened for signature 16 December 1966, 993 UNTS 3 (entered into force 3 January 1976) art 6(1). 7 Douglas Ezzy et al, ‘LGBT+ Equality, Religious Freedom and Government-

Funded Faith-Based Religiously Af liated Educational Workplaces’ (2022) 57(1)

Australian Journal of Social Issues 185, 186. 8 See generally Marion Maddox, God Under Howard: The Rise of the Religious

Right in Australian Politics (Allen & Unwin, 2005). 9 RDB (n 4) cl 7. 10 Ibid cl 5(1) (de nition of ‘religious body’). 11 Ibid cls 9–11. 12 Ibid cl 12. 13 Ibid cl 5(1) (de nition of ‘statement of belief’).

14 Tom Wilson et al, ‘What Is the Size of Australia’s Sexual Minority Population?’ (2020) 13(535) BMC Res Notes 1, 1. 15 LGBTIQA and LGBTIQ+ are the inclusive queer terms used for the non-heterosexual population and includes lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer and asexual and/or allies (LGBTIQA). For a discussion of LGBTIQA health outcomes, see Karinna Saxby, ‘The Religious Discrimination Bill Is Not Just Words: It Will

Make LGBTIQ+ Australians Sick’, The Conversation (online, 26 November 2021) <https://theconversation.com/the-religious-discrimination-bill-is-not-just-wordsit-will-make-lgbtiq-australians-sick-163649>. 16 This includes suicidal ideation, suicidal attempts, destitution, homelessness and substance abuse. See Bep Uink et al, ‘The Time for Inclusive Care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander LGBTQ+ Young People is Now’ (2020) 213(5) Medical

Journal of Australia 201; LGBTIQ+ Health Australia, Snapshot of Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Statistics for LGBTIQ+ People (Report, October 2021) 1 <https://assets.nationbuilder.com/lgbtihealth/pages/549/attachments/ original/1648014801/24.10.21_Snapshot_of_MHSP_Statistics_for_LGBTIQ__

People_-_Revised.pdf?1648014801>. 17 This is analogous to the attitudes underpinning laws having a negative differential impact on the LGBTQ+ community, such as the non-violent homosexual advance defence in Queensland and South Australia which until recently operated as a partial defence to murder. See Alan Berman and

Sher Campbell, ‘“Homosexual Advance Defence” Is a Source of Shame for

Queensland’, The Sydney Morning Herald (online, 31 March 2014) <http://www. smh.com.au/queensland/homosexual-advance-defence-is-a-source-of-shamefor-queensland-20140331-35tze.html>; Alan Berman, ‘A Gay Advance Is No

Excuse for Murder’, The Sydney Morning Herald (online, 27 April 2011) <http:// www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/a-gay-advance-is-no-excuse-for-murder20110426-1duyi.html>; Alan Berman, ‘Queensland’s “Homosexual Advance

Defence” Puts Gay Men’s Lives at Risk’, Crikey (online, 18 March 2014) <http:// www.crikey.com.au/2014/03/18/qlds-homosexual-advance-defence-putsgay-mens-lives-at-risk/>; Alan Berman, Heather Douglas and Paul Kelly, ‘It

Is Better Late than Never to Scrap the Antiquated “Gay Panic” Defence’, ON

LINE Opinion (online, 28 June 2012) <http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view. asp?article=13795>. 18 Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 9 February 2022, 142 (Garth Hamilton) (‘Parliamentary Debates’). 19 Ibid 139 (Helen Haines). 20 Ibid 145 (Rebekha Sharkie). 21 Ezzy et al (n 7) 187, citing Carolyn Evans, Legal Protection of Religious Freedom in Australia (Federation Press, 2012) 147–70. 22 Ezzy et al (n 7) 187. 23 Parliamentary Debates (n 18) 142 (Adam Bandt). 24 Ezzy et al (n 7) 187–8. Note that there are already several state and territory legislative provisions around discrimination: Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT);

Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW); Anti-Discrimination Act 1992 (NT);

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld); Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA); Anti-

Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas); Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic); Equal

Opportunity Act 1984 (WA). 25 Sandra Berns and Alan Berman, ‘Homophobia Perpetuated: The Demise of the

Inquiry into the Marriage Amendment Bill 2004 (Cth)’ (2005) 30(3) Alternative

Law Journal 104, 104. 26 See generally Maddox (n 8). 27 Ibid. 28 Berns and Berman (n 25) 105. See Alan Berman, ‘The Experiences of Denying

Constitutional Protection to Sodomy Laws in the United States, Australia and Malaysia: You’ve Come a Long Way Baby and You Still Have a Long

Way to Go!’, Oxford University Comparative Law Forum (Forum Post, 2008) (‘Experiences of Denying Constitutional Protection’). See also Elenie Poulos,

‘The Power of Belief: Religious Freedom in Australian Parliamentary Debates on Same-Sex Marriage’ (2020) 55(1) Australian Journal of Political Science 1, 10–11; Sven-Oliver Proksch and Jonathan B Slapin, ‘Institutional Foundations of

Legislative Speech’ (2012) 56(3) American Journal of Political Science 520, 521. 29 Yvonne Sherwood, ‘On the Freedom of the Concepts of Religion and Belief’ in

Winnifred Fallers Sullivan et al (eds), Politics of Religious Freedom (University of

Chicago Press, 2015) 29, 41 (emphasis in original). See also Ezzy et al (n 7) 188. 30 Poulos (n 28) 1. 31 Proksch and Slapin (n 28) 521. 32 Poulos (n 28) 2. 33 Parliamentary Debates (n 18) 198 (Peter Khalil). 34 Freedom for Faith, Submission No 96 to the Senate Standing Committees on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Parliament of Australia, Inquiry into the

Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and Related Bills (December 2021) 5. 35 Parliamentary Debates (n 18) 140 (Helen Haines). 36 Explanatory Memorandum, Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2022 (Cth). 37 Ibid 5. 38 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 16

December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976) art 18 (‘ICCPR’). 39 Alan Berman, ‘Human Rights Law and Racial Hate Speech Regulation in

Australia: Reform and Replace?’ (2015) 44(1) Georgia Journal of International &

Comparative Law 45, 53. 40 ‘Religious Discrimination Bill Fundamentally Flawed and Must Be Rejected’,

Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (Web Page, 4 February 2022) <https:// alhr.org.au/religious-discrimination-bill-fundamentally- awed-must-rejected/> (‘Religious Discrimination Bill Fundamentally Flawed’). 41 Explanatory Memorandum, Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 (Cth) 12, quoting ICCPR (n 38) art 26. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has previously ruled that sex should be taken to include sexual orientation: see Human Rights Committee, Views of the Human Rights Committee:

Communication No 488/1992, UN Doc CCPR/C/50/D/488/1992 (31 March 1994) (‘Toonen v Australia’). 42 ‘Religious Discrimination Bill Fundamentally Flawed’ (n 40). 43 Australian Human Rights Commission, Submission No 97 to the Parliamentary

Joint Committee on Human Rights, Parliament of Australia, Religious

Discrimination Bill 2021 and Related Bills (21 December 2021) 38. 44 Ibid 37–8. 45 Where the expansion of the rights of religious organisations to discriminate against rights of natural persons who engage in behaviours which the speci c religion deems unacceptable or ‘sinful’ are privileged, these rights tend to run counter to international human rights legislation. In particular, article 18(3) of the ICCPR (n 38) speci cally provides: ‘[f]reedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others’. 46 Explanatory Memorandum, Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 (Cth) 17. See also, Public Interest Advocacy Centre, ‘Extremely Disappointing Reports Fail to

Address Fundamental Problems in Religious Discrimination Bill’ (Media Release, 4 February 2022) <https://piac.asn.au/2022/02/04/extremely-disappointingreports-fail-to-address-fundamental-problems-in-religious-discrimination-bill/>. 47 Australian Human Rights Commission (n 43) 38. 48 James Hazelton, ‘The Amorality of Public Corporations’ (2005) 6(2) Essays in

Philosophy 366, 366–84; Explanatory Memorandum, Religious Discrimination

Bill 2021 (Cth) 18. 49 Freedom for Faith (n 34) 14 (emphasis in original). 50 ICCPR (n 38) Preamble (emphasis added). 51 Ibid art 18(3) (emphasis added). 52 Australian Human Rights Commission (n 43) 38. 53 Berman, ‘Experiences of Denying Constitutional Protection’ (n 28). 54 Carolyn Evans and Beth Gaze, ‘Discrimination by Religious Schools: Views from the Coal Face’ (2010) 34(2) Melbourne University Law Review 392, 397; Ezzy et al (n 7). 55 Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) s 38 (‘SDA’). 56 Explanatory Memorandum, Religious Discrimination Bill 2022 (Cth). 57 SDA (n 55) s 38. 58 Parliamentary Debates (n 18) 192 (Anthony Albanese). 59 Ezzy et al (n 7) 188. 60 Parliamentary Debates (n 18) 195 (Peta Murphy).