Palácio do Planalto, Wikipedia
CV NEWS FEED // The Archbishop of Melbourne has called for existing protections against religious discrimination to remain in place following an announcement by Prime Minister Anthony Albenese last week that his latest attempt to pass new legislation has failed.
According to a diocesan report, Archbishop Peter A. Comensoli expressed regret at an Aug. 9 press conference that the legislation was not able to pass during this term of parliament.
The bill had aimed to patch gaping holes in the country’s current protections against religious and sex-based discrimination that has sparked controversy on both sides of the aisle.
“However,” the Archbishop stated, “I trust that the Prime Minister will be true to his word that protections for people of faith will not go backwards under his leadership. In the absence of any new protections, today’s announcement should also mean that existing protections remain in place.”
The Prime Minister explained during the announcement in a press conference last week that the bill had failed to pass after the bipartisan coalition tasked with suggesting improvements was unable to reach an agreement on potential amendments.
“We provided legislation to the Coalition a long time ago now… on the basis that we wanted to see if we could get some bipartisan support,” Albanese said when explaining his reason for appointing the coalition, adding, “One of the things I’ve spoken about is the need for greater social cohesion.”
“The last thing that Australia needs is any divisive debate relating to religion and people’s faith,” he continued: “I respect people’s faith, and I think that they should be able to engage free of discrimination … I don’t intend to engage in a partisan debate when it comes to religious discrimination.”
The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference has reportedly been in conversation with legislators over the bill for several months, according to the report, and has provided “detailed suggestions to address its concerns and ensure the proposed legislation would not take protections for people of faith backwards.”
