Spender’s Religious Schools Bill: A Fair Look

Spender’s Religious Schools Bill: A Fair Look

Religious Schools, Anti-Discrimination Law and the Spender Bill: Where Faith and Fairness Collide

Few issues in Australian public life are as sensitive as the one now back before Parliament: when, if ever, should a religious school be allowed to treat students or staff differently because of their sexuality, gender identity, marital status or pregnancy?

This week, independent MP Allegra Spender introduced a private member’s bill in the House of Representatives aimed at changing the law. A recent news report on The Daily Declaration by Riley Battiato, written as the bill was about to be introduced, describes the proposal as reopening “a longstanding debate” between anti-discrimination protections, religious freedom and the autonomy of faith-based schools.

This post looks at what the bill proposes, what the law currently says, what the Australian Law Reform Commission recommended, the strongest arguments on each side, and how Christians might think about it. It’s a topic where thoughtful believers disagree, and it involves real children, real teachers and real communities, so we’ve tried to be careful and fair.

What Has Been Introduced

According to reports, on Monday 12 October 2026 Allegra Spender, the independent member for Wentworth, introduced the Sex Discrimination and Fair Work Amendment (Equality in Treatment in Religious Schools) Bill. Key points reported so far:

• It would amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and the Fair Work Act to protect students and teachers at religious schools from discrimination on the basis of sexuality, gender identity, marital or relationship status, and pregnancy.
• Spender has said she supports religious organisations having exemptions that allow them to hire people whose faith aligns with that of the institution. In other words, the proposal isn’t aimed at removing faith-based hiring as such.
• She has said that most Australians would be surprised to learn that under federal law a religious school can still expel a student or sack a teacher for becoming pregnant, getting divorced or being gay.
• The bill has the support of the Greens, and advocacy groups such as Equality Australia have urged Labor to back it, arguing there’s a clear path through Parliament if the Government does.
• As a private member’s bill from a crossbench MP, it’s unlikely to become law unless the Government, or enough other members, support it. The precise wording and its legal effect will matter, and will need close reading.

The Daily Declaration report was published as the bill was being prepared, and it rightly cautions that its implications depend on the precise wording and the exemptions it keeps.

What the Law Says Now

The key provisions are in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth):

• Section 37 provides a general exemption for religious bodies, allowing acts that conform to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the religion, or that are necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents.
• Section 38 provides a specific exemption for educational institutions established for religious purposes. It allows them to discriminate against staff and students on the grounds of sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy, where the discrimination is in good faith to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents.

In practice, a religious school can, under federal law, make decisions that would otherwise be unlawful discrimination. How often that happens is disputed. Religious schools argue that they don’t expel students for being gay or transgender, while advocates point to cases of teachers and staff being dismissed and to the lack of legal protection for those who might be.

The background also matters:

• 2018. Prime Minister Scott Morrison said that laws would be created to ensure no student could be expelled from a religious school because of their sexuality, and later made a similar promise about teachers. The Coalition’s Religious Discrimination Bill later collapsed in 2022 amid divisions within its own ranks.
• 2022. The Albanese Government promised to act on the issue and referred it to the Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC).
• 2024. The ALRC’s report was tabled in Parliament, with 11 recommendations (see below).
• 2026. The Government responded in March to a Senate committee, saying every Australian should be able to live in any community without prejudice or discrimination, while also recognising the role of faith-based schools and stressing that reform requires a bipartisan approach.
• Some states and territories have already narrowed religious exemptions in their own laws, to varying degrees, which means the rules differ depending on where a school is located.

The ALRC Compromise

The ALRC, headed by Justice Stephen Rothman, made recommendations that attempted to find a middle path. According to the Australian Human Rights Commission and other summaries:

• Remove section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act, so religious educational institutions can’t discriminate against students or staff on the grounds of sexuality, gender identity, marital or relationship status or pregnancy.
• Keep the right to preference staff of the same faith, where this is reasonably necessary and proportionate to building or maintaining a community of faith.
• Allow reliance on sections 23 and 37 in some circumstances, which preserves some protections for religious bodies.
• Protect “personal associates,” such as the partner or child of a person who has a protected characteristic.

The Australian Human Rights Commission welcomed the report and urged the Government to legislate in line with it. The Government has been cautious, saying it wants reform that brings Australians together.

Spender’s bill is, broadly, in this territory: faith-based hiring is retained, while the broader discrimination exemptions are narrowed. Whether it follows the ALRC’s recommendations precisely, and how it defines the key terms, will determine whether religious schools believe their ethos is adequately protected.

The Case for Strengthening Protections

Supporters of the bill make several arguments:

• Children are vulnerable. Students who are gay, transgender or pregnant, or whose parents are separated, may be at a particularly fragile time of life, and supporters argue that no child should face expulsion because of who they are.
• Employment fairness. Teachers who are divorced or in same-sex relationships may be dismissed from jobs they do well. Spender highlighted the case of Dr Karen Pack, who says she was dismissed from a senior teaching position at Morling College in 2020 after marrying her same-sex partner.
• Public funding. Religious schools receive substantial government funding, and supporters argue that publicly funded institutions should follow the same discrimination laws as others.
• Consistency. Federal law already prohibits discrimination on the grounds of race, disability and age, and supporters see the exemption as an anomaly.
• The exemption rarely used? Some argue that if schools genuinely don’t expel students for sexuality, the exemption isn’t needed, and removing it would cost them little.

The Case for Protecting Religious Schools

Religious schools and many Christian leaders respond that:

• A school’s ethos is its purpose. A Christian school exists to educate children within a Christian worldview. Staff are not only teachers but role models who communicate the faith through their conduct and teaching.
• Religious freedom includes communities. Freedom of religion isn’t only an individual right. It includes the right of religious communities to establish institutions and run them according to their convictions, as the Daily Declaration report notes.
• Terms like “marital status” and “gender identity” are broad. Schools worry that the removal of exemptions could limit their ability to maintain expectations on conduct, relationships, dress, pronouns and the teaching of the faith.
• Faith-based hiring isn’t enough. Schools argue that preferencing people of the same faith doesn’t protect them if a staff member of the same faith holds a different view of marriage or sexuality than the school’s teaching.
• A parents’ choice. Families choose these schools because they want a particular environment. Forcing a change in ethos, they argue, undermines the choice of parents.
• The cost of litigation. Some small schools fear being dragged into costly legal disputes over staffing decisions.

What Christians Say, and Where They Differ

Christians are not united on this question.

• Many Christian schools and organisations want the existing exemptions retained, or replaced with stronger and clearer religious freedom protections, arguing that these are essential to their identity.
• Some Christians support protecting students from expulsion while seeking to keep the right to employ staff who uphold the school’s beliefs. They note that they don’t want schools to be seen expelling children, and that the pastoral care of vulnerable students is central to the Christian mission.
• Some Christian teachers and staff have spoken about the pain of being forced to hide their lives, and others have supported the school’s right to set expectations. Both experiences are real.
• Some Christian lawyers argue for a “positive” religious freedom law to protect schools and individuals before any narrowing of exemptions.

A Christian Lens

Scripture doesn’t provide a legislative blueprint, but several principles bear on the debate.

Educating children in the faith. Deuteronomy 6:6–7 commands parents to teach God’s words to their children. Proverbs 22:6 speaks of training up a child in the way they should go. Christian schools are one way that communities seek to fulfil this calling.

Care for children. Jesus said, “Let the little children come to me” (Mark 10:14) and gave a stern warning to those who cause a little one to stumble (Matthew 18:6). Any Christian school should be known above all as a place of welcome, protection and care.

Honesty and consistency about a community’s identity. The early church had to work out how to hold its identity while welcoming outsiders (Acts 15). Paul spoke of becoming all things to all people while remaining faithful to Christ (1 Corinthians 9:19–23). A community can have clear convictions and still be warm.

Treat others as you would want to be treated. Luke 6:31, the golden rule, applies to the way we think about other people’s positions. We would want our own schools to be treated fairly, and we should want the same for those whose lives differ from ours.

Gentleness and respect. 1 Peter 3:15–16 calls Christians to defend their hope with gentleness and respect. Galatians 6:1 tells us to restore people gently. How a school handles staffing or student matters, and how it speaks about them, is part of its witness.

Justice. Micah 6:8 calls us to act justly, love mercy and walk humbly. Both the freedom of religious communities and the dignity of vulnerable people are justice concerns.

Our Take

Here’s where we’d like to add some commentary.

1. Religious freedom is not just about individual belief.

The right of a community to run an institution according to its convictions is a core part of religious freedom, and it’s right for Christians to defend it. A school that can’t hire people who support its mission, or maintain expectations of its community, would struggle to remain faith-based.

2. But no child should feel unwelcome.

Christians should be more concerned than anyone that vulnerable students are cared for. A school that would expel a child, rather than care for them, would be at odds with the gospel it professes. Many Christian schools say they don’t do this, and if that’s so, clear policies and commitments would reassure the community.

3. The detail matters enormously.

Terms such as “gender identity,” “marital status” and “religious ethos” can mean very different things in practice. Whether a law protects a student from expulsion, protects a teacher from dismissal for a characteristic, or limits a school’s ability to require adherence to a code of conduct are different questions. Christians and schools should read the bill carefully and engage with the actual text.

4. Seek a real balance, not a victory.

The ALRC’s report tried to preserve faith-based hiring while protecting students and staff. That may or may not be the right balance, but it’s the kind of approach that treats both interests seriously. A process driven by bipartisan negotiation is more likely to produce a stable outcome than one forced through by either side.

5. Clarity is a kindness.

Schools can reduce conflict by being transparent about their beliefs and expectations in enrolment and employment documents, and by treating anyone affected with dignity and pastoral care. Clear communication also helps staff and families make informed choices.

6. Be fair in how we speak.

Language such as “attacks on religious freedom” or “licence to discriminate” frames the debate before it begins. We should be able to describe the other side’s concerns in terms they would accept: supporters want children to be safe and teachers to be treated fairly, and religious schools want to keep their identity and mission.

The Other Side of the Conversation

In fairness, here are the main objections you may hear from each side:

• From critics of the bill: It could pressure religious schools to employ staff who don’t support their ethos, expose them to litigation, and shift the balance of religious freedom in a secular direction. They also point out that laws in some states have already narrowed exemptions, and that there’s no agreed definition of “reasonably necessary.”
• From supporters of the bill: The existing exemption is too wide, public funding comes with obligations, the protections for religious preferencing of staff are enough, and delay has left vulnerable people without legal protection for years.
• From those in the middle: The best solution is a package that protects students, narrows the exemption for staff where the religious ethos doesn’t require it, and creates clear, positive protections for religious freedom, in the same legislation.
• From some religious educators: The debate itself damages trust, because it presents schools as hostile to students, which they say doesn’t reflect most schools’ practice.
• From LGBTQ+ advocates: Even if schools say they don’t act on the exemption, the existence of the law sends a message to young people that they could be treated as lesser, and they want it removed.

What Readers Can Do

• Read the bill and the ALRC report rather than relying on summaries from either side.
• Talk to your school or church. If you’re connected to a faith-based school, ask how it handles these questions, and what its policies say.
• Contact your MP to explain your concerns, whichever way they lean, and ask how they intend to vote.
• Take part in any inquiry or consultation that follows, and focus on specifics.
• Pray for students, teachers, school leaders and legislators.
• Listen to people whose experiences differ from yours, including former students and teachers.

Questions to Reflect On

• What do I think a Christian school is for, and what does it need in order to fulfil that purpose?
• How would I want a vulnerable child to be treated at a school I support?
• Can I describe the strongest argument for the position I disagree with?
• Where do I think the line should be between a school’s ethos and a person’s protection from discrimination?
• What practical steps could my church or school take to be both faithful and welcoming?

A Short Prayer

Lord, you love children and welcome all who come to you. We pray for every student and teacher in our schools, especially those who feel afraid or alone. Give wisdom to those who write and vote on our laws, and give school leaders courage to hold fast to your truth and to treat every person with dignity and care. Protect freedom of conscience, and keep us from fear and contempt. Make our schools places of learning, safety and grace. Amen.