This followed his earlier comments that the religious exemptions contained in the act were not intended to "license students being kicked out of school because of their sexuality". Pointing to the ACT's recognition of the right to freedom from discrimination in the Human Rights Act 2004, Barr suggested that, to the extent that religious schools could discriminate against gay students in this manner, it was nothing more than a "loophole" in the law.

To an extent, he is correct. Under the Human Rights Act, "everyone has the right to equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground". But that's not where this story ends.

Section 33(2) of the Discrimination Act specifically provides that it is not unlawful to "discriminate against someone ... in relation to the provision of education ... by an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion ... if the [discrimination is] in good faith to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion".

The act's explanatory memorandum is even less equivocal: "[it] is not unlawful to discriminate in ... training students at the institution if the discrimination is done in good faith to avoid offending the religious feelings of people who belong to that particular religion".

This doesn't sound like a "legal loophole" to me. Rather, it sounds like a specifically legislated exemption to anti-discrimination law, carved out especially for religious institutions and allowing them to discriminate against gay students if homosexuality is against that religion's teachings.

I have chosen to write about this not because I necessarily want to draw attention to this law, nor the changes that will be brought through with Barr's amendment – in fact, I don't wish to disclose my opinion on the matter either way through this forum. I am writing about this because I want to draw attention to how public figures, including Barr, have engaged with anti-discrimination legislation in the course of national debate about balancing our rights and responsibilities.

When we discuss anti-discrimination legislation in Australia, it is essential that we do so with a proper understanding of current law. How can we possibly expect to have an educated, effective and respectful discussion about anti-discrimination when public figures, such as Barr, mischaracterise the current legislation? We have already seen discussions about human rights in Australia derailed in this manner: the recent furore surrounding section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 seemed, to me, to have very little to do with the actual legislation in question.

So here is a (brief) rundown of anti-discrimination protections in Australia as they relate to employment, some of the exceptions that apply to these protections, and where to look if you want to see for yourself what Australia's human rights laws look like.

The starting points are the different jurisdictions responsible for anti-discrimination legislation: the Commonwealth, and the states and territories. As well as the federal legislation, each state and territory has enacted its own anti-discrimination act; I mentioned the ACT's above.

The Discrimination Act operates generally in the ACT and prohibits discrimination in the workplace on the basis of 24 protected attributes, including age, religious conviction, sexuality, race, disability and many others. The act also provides several exceptions to these protections. I've already mentioned one: the exemptions for religious bodies.

However, possibly the most important exemption (at least for discrimination in the workplace) is the exemption for disability discrimination against a worker if that worker is unable to carry out work essential to the role due to their disability. For example, a construction company may refuse to hire someone with a disability as a builder if that person's disability would prevent them from performing the role. However, if that person's disability would not prevent them from performing essential work associated with the role, the same company would be banned from discriminating against that person on the basis of their disability under the act.

Whereas state and territory anti-discrimination legislation tends to be contained in one generally applicable act, federal legislation is divided between multiple acts, each with a specific focus and each operating to prohibit discrimination in the workplace. The four key Commonwealth acts are the Age Discrimination Act 1992, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.

Similar exemptions to those contained in the ACT's Discrimination Act are also written into the federal acts, permitting discrimination against workers on the basis that they are unable to fulfil the inherent requirements of a position. Notably, the Sex Discrimination Act (which prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender, gender identity, sexuality and intersex status, among others) also carves out exemptions for religious bodies.

Finally, the last major piece of legislation governing anti-discrimination protections in the workplace is the Fair Work Act 2009. As part of the general protections regime established under this act, it is unlawful for employers to take adverse action against an employee on the basis of certain characteristics, including race, sex, sexual orientation, carer status and many others. There are also exemptions for religious bodies in the Fair Work Act, and exceptions for when an employee is unable to perform the inherent requirements of a position.

Of course, there are many other statutes, regulations, cases and policies that touch on discrimination in the workplace (particularly if your workplace happens to be the Australian Public Service). But whether you agree or disagree with the current state of Australian anti-discrimination legislation, or think the exemptions should be extended or wound back, it's important that you have as full an understanding as possible of what the law actually is.

I would therefore encourage everyone to pick up the acts, and maybe even read some cases. Hopefully, the next time a public official discusses the law, the conversation about human rights in Australia won't be derailed as it was on so many occasions in the past.

John Wilson is managing legal director of BAL Lawyers and an accredited specialist in industrial relations and employment law. He thanks his colleague Robert Allen for his help in preparing this article. ballawyers.com.au