Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I share the sentiments of respect for people's private lives and of promoting a culture of inclusiveness, which have been key hallmarks of this debate. I appreciate the respect shown by both Ministers, particularly Deputy Shatter, for the fact that there are competing values. I agree with many of Senator Hayden's comments. In particular, I was struck by her account of the culture that exists in some quarters of deriding people for their religious beliefs. This is part of the issue that we must bear in mind. We must shape our institutions and policies in such a way that people with competing aspirations can have them reconciled as much as possible.

The purpose of the Bill is to change a section of legislation that allows religious education or medical institutions to take action that is reasonably necessary to prevent a prospective employee from undermining an institution's religious ethos. As it stands, this legislation does not mention homosexuality in particular. It provides a general protection. The right currently enjoyed by religious institutions is subject to an objective test of reasonableness and necessity. We must not allow ourselves to run away or be run away with the notion that there is a blanket right in law to engage in cruel and unjust discrimination. When the Supreme Court considered this matter, not only did it find that the section was constitutional, but it considered submissions from the Attorney General on whether the legislation would be constitutional without it. I am open to correction on that last point. There is a clear issue of competing rights that must be protected.

That there have been no test cases on this issue is testament to a genuine spirit of inclusivity and getting the balance right in institutions. That people cannot point to a single injustice so far speaks volumes. When we discussed the civil partnership legislation last year and I raised the question of whether a registrar would have the right to opt out of providing certain services as long as someone else could provide them, many Senators asked me to show them a case of a registrar having such a problem. I was able to point to a case in England, but the fact that no mischief had arisen in Ireland was deemed to constitute a strong point against the relevance of what I was proposing. The same applies in this instance. We have a good record in our schools and it is important that we appreciate the fact that they are not bastions of homophobia or unjust discrimination. Assuming otherwise does a severe disservice to the sensitivities of their patrons, managers and day-to-day administrators.

In considering the balance between guarantees of equality and the right to work and earn a livelihood on the one hand and, on the other, the right to religious freedom, the Supreme Court held that there was a reasonable balance in existing legislation. The court was clear that equality rights were not absolute. No one's rights, be they to equality, freedom of expression or to run institutions according to their particular values, can ever be absolute. There will always be competing rights. However, a church-run school must be able to protect its ethos in the case of a teacher who, for example, might tell a class that atheism is preferable to Christianity, religion is a waste of time, all of us are nothing more than bundles of atoms devoid of moral worth, the occult is a healthy spiritual community, there is no such thing as objective truth, the unborn child is nothing more than a parasite and can be aborted accordingly, marriage discriminates against polygamists' partners or the State and not God is the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong. These values are not held universally, yet they are essential issues in a church-run school.

Every Senator is united in the belief that we must have greater diversity but, in providing for such among types of schools, we must allow distinctive value systems to breed and thrive. This is not a question of guaranteeing the cold, sterile rights being asserted by institutions that have no compassion. This is about the values held by people who do not believe it is wrong to be a homosexual, but who may very well want to uphold a particular value of theirs, for example, the importance of marriage between men and women in the upbringing of children in society. These people should not be treated as second class citizens or made to feel ashamed of their values. I was encouraged by the Minister's comments because they reveal a sensitivity to the existence of competing values. However, there is a danger that the legislation will strike the wrong balance in circumstances where it is not possible to show that mischief has taken place.

The subculture of bullying that exists in our schools takes various forms. Bullying can occur for a range of reasons, including perceived sexual orientation. This is an important area in which people who have different value systems should be able to work together to ensure our schools are cold houses for bullies of any kind. I was fortunate to attend a school which applied an iron law that came down hard on anybody who bullied or dissed people for any reason, whether sexual orientation or physiognomy. These are the values that could be shared by schools of different kinds.

It is significant that existing legislation provides a test of reasonableness and necessity and there does not exist a situation of unjust discrimination to which anybody can point. It is important that we prepare sensible legislation. I am open to discussing possible changes but let us not treat people as second class citizens for holding values that some would characterise as traditional but which none the less are respectful of others' private lives. We must not pretend they do not have the right to access education for their children according to their values. To portray such people as bigots would be a travesty of a debate and I hope such a debate never takes place in this House.