Gladys Liu (Chisholm, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

The motion asks the House to recognise that 'there is no legislative protection against vilification and incitement to hatred and/or violence based on a person's religion or religious belief'. That is, of course, incorrect. All Australian governments are responsible for protecting Australians from incitement to hatred or violence. At the Commonwealth level, we do this through the Criminal Code. Sections 80.2A and 80.2B make it an offence to urge the use of violence or force against religious groups or their members, punishable by up to seven years imprisonment. These penalties reflect that incitement to hatred and violence is a very serious criminal matter. Other jurisdictions also make incitement to hatred or violence against religious groups a criminal offence. New South Wales, Queensland, ACT and my home state of Victoria all have criminal offences relating to the incitement of violence against religious groups, but the maximum penalties in those jurisdictions are lower than the penalties that apply under the Commonwealth law.

I want to talk about protecting the ability of religious communities to live in accordance with their faith. A central plank in the government's efforts to protect Australia's religious communities is our Religious Discrimination Bill. That bill, for the first time, will introduce laws at the Commonwealth level that protect Australians from discrimination on the basis of their religious beliefs or activities. The bill will fill an obvious gap in Australia's human rights laws. It will protect Australians from religious discrimination in the same way they are protected from discrimination on the basis of age, sex, race or disability. For example, if it's passed, that bill would, for the first time, make it unlawful for a Jewish man in Victoria to be turned away by a taxi because of his faith, or a Muslim woman in New South Wales to be refused service at a shop because she is wearing a hijab.

The bill also protects the ability of religious communities to say what they believe. The bill simply says that Australians should not face a discrimination lawsuit just for saying what they believe. All Australians should be free to live in accordance with their faith, and to share that faith that others, without being subject to lawsuits because others find the faith offensive. Critically the bill also balances this protection by putting in place very clear safeguards which ensure that there are no protections for speech that is malicious or that harasses, vilifies or incites violence or hatred. This is a balanced, straightforward safeguard that protects all Australians.

The bill also contains protections for religious bodies. Very often it is our religious institutions that are the central pillars of Australian religious communities. For example, the synagogue might be the heart of a Jewish community, and an Islamic community might be built around a mosque. Our Religious Discrimination Bill protects those institutions by making clear that, for the purposes of the bill, they do not discriminate on the grounds of religious belief or activity by acting in accordance with their faith. So I can say that what the motion asks the House to recognise is definitely incorrect.

See this speech in context