Fundamental questions need to be asked about the changes to the NT’s discrimination laws, writes former independent MLA Gerry Wood, who argues the repeal of 37A shows no attempt at balance, just one way bias.

Dear Editor,

I have written to all members of the Legislative Assembly, in the hope that when they make their decision over the changes to the Anti-Discrimination Act, they will take into account that in our country we have the right to freely express an opinion and the right to send our children to a school of our choice and in some cases a school that has the teachings of Christ as its core foundation.

I also hope they use common sense and not be swayed by certain single-minded groups, some politicians and academia who have little time for religious schools.

In the 60s, this was called sectarianism and unfortunately it is also now returning and is reflected in the anti-Catholic school bias shown by completely repealing Section 37A. That bias is also shown when we know that there was no consultation over the total repeal of 37A with the schools, as noted by the Bishop of Darwin and the president of the Christian Schools on Katie Wolf’s 104.9 radio programme even though the Attorney General claims there was.

Who is speaking the truth, that is your responsibility to find out? Please do not support this repeal or at least reject a vote on it until we know what the Commonwealth will decide on its own piece of Legislation.

But if Labor, or other members of the Legislative Assembly, vote to repeal Section 37A of the anti-Discrimination Act this week, will they show they are not hypocrites by not attending school assemblies, sports carnivals, school concerts, or give out sponsorships and book prizes, etc, at their local Catholic and Christian schools. If they try to, perhaps they should be locked out – no hypocrites permitted.

But that could be classified as political discrimination or perhaps offensive!

And that could lead to a complaint under the other bright idea of the Labor left, the introduction of a law which says if you say or do something relative to a person’s or group’s attribute which is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to cause offence or be insulting you could be in trouble.

This is simply an overkill by the government. It means that a considered opinion about the views of people or groups like religious leaders, rainbow warriors, extreme greens, female activists, non-binary supporters, land councils, etc, if likely to offend or insult them, could be the cause of a complaint.

We saw what happened to Bishop Porteus in Tasmania where a Green MP complained about his views on marriage, especially his arguments to support his view, and took that complaint to the Commissioner.

I do not agree with the views of some of the groups mentioned above but as a free country (Australians all let us rejoice, for we are one and free, as our national anthem says) I will not be intimidated by legislation which says, speak up only when you agree, otherwise shut up or accept the consequences.

I am reminded of what happens in Hong Kong where individuals who are found guilty of insulting the anthem, and therefore the Chinese Communist Party, could be fined and jailed for up to three years under the National Anthem Ordinance law. Comrades take note.

Fundamental questions need to be asked about these changes.

Was there a real problem with the existing legislation, or was this just someone with nothing else to do or an activist agenda?

Why does contemporising or modernising make legislation any better or is it a fancy term to disguise the proposed changes?

Who asked for the changes and where was the problem that required such a draconian attack on free speech and the repeal of Section 37A?

Why was there no proper consultation over the latest changes?

The repeal of 37A shows no attempt at balance, just one way bias.

Lastly, I ask, would a member of One Nation who applied to work in a government electorate office or in a minister’s office be permitted to? I doubt it?

What would be the basis of that rejection?

Common sense and balance please.

Gerry Wood

Howard Springs

If you want your letter to the editor published send it to ntindependent@protonmail.com. Please include your name, address and phone number for verification. We will only publish your name and suburb or town. We do reserve the right to edit the letter for length and clarity purposes. PRIVACY POLICY: You can find our privacy policy by clicking here.