Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Hansard source

The circumstances of our democracy and the liberties that we enjoy in our form of government are underpinned by the ethos that surrounds faith—for me, my Christian faith, the egalitarian treatise that one should love one neighbour's as one's self, not better, not worse, but as you would expect to be treated yourself. This took the place of the historical hierarchal structure that was the lived human condition since we left the cave: I am the king; you are the peasant; you are the slave; you are merely sport and have no value; you are dispensable. That has been the way of the world till very recent times, till faith succeeded in saying, 'No, this is not how you treat your fellow person.' Sadly, now, democracy is in decline across the globe.

As democracy is in decline then the principle of equality is replaced by another person's or group's unquestioned tenure of power becoming the lived experience of others, that their rights are greater and your role is subservient. Democracy is underpinned by the convention that you and I are equivalent in our rights. Ancient Greece did not invent democracy, not like we experience it today. It is a very, very, very distant and quite different ancestor. What we can take from the ancient Athenians, however, is how long it took to grow to the actual rights that we enjoy in this chamber. The fertilizer, the nutrients that allowed that growth and, to be frank, its most abundant forms in very recent times, was the ethos of faith—in my instance, the Christian faith, and, in other people's, other faiths.

Paradoxically, and somewhat obnoxiously, many now want to pull out the roots of the tree which we shelter under. In Australia, we acknowledge that people should not be discriminated against by reason of their gender. We acknowledge that people should not be discriminated against because of their sexuality. We acknowledge that people should not be discriminated against because of the colour of their skin. We acknowledge that people should not be discriminated against by reason of physical appearance. But in our nation we missed a fundamental element of what a person is.

For many, what is more important than their physical appearance, their gender, their sexuality or the colour of their skin is their faith. It is, for many, what differentiates them from the animals. We're endowed with a belief structure that transcends to the supernatural, the deity, a god. It is a unique thing about the human condition. People's belief structures are a unique thing; cultures that have been separated by seas and thousands of miles and millennia of time nonetheless have faiths. I believe there is a spiritual and an eternal aspect to our terminal human condition.

The emblems of these varying faiths were in the centres of the villages in Papua New Guinea, in jungles in Central America, in the deserts of the Middle East, in the cities of Europe, or in the psyche of the person as they walked across their land. Without faith, so many people are left without reason, devoid of purpose. They are alone on a planet crowded with people. Faith comes with caveats. You can't use faith for the destruction of another person, in any of their forms, for your own reasons, outside the law, or in the impoverishment of others who do not share your belief. Faith must come with a caveat. You must respect the rights of people who hold completely different beliefs or who hold none at all.

The Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 is a major step—in fact, a belated step—to make sure this nation allows faith to remain unshackled by the state, and by so doing preserves the full expression and enjoyment of the freedom that is the birthright of this democratic nation. Part of our democratic inheritance is the freedom of people to express their views and contribute to the public debate. Rod Chiswell, the Anglican Bishop of Armidale, said, 'Considering the federal discrimination laws already in place dealing with sex, race, age, disability, it is only right that religious belief be among those protections,' and I think most Australians would agree with that.

The right to faith, the refuge of the adherent and the source of a code which has given us the foundation of so many of the rights and freedoms that today we mistakenly believe grew organically—the implausible inspiration from a void—must be protected. This right to have faith must be protected to protect democracy itself. The great threat to faith is when it's usurped by the excessive powers of the state, when the state annuls or corrals the spirit. The paramount state enviably sees faith as their biggest threat and so brutally abolishes it or corrupts it and uses it, replacing it with their alternative belief structure.

Importantly, the Australian Christian Lobby notes that this bill directly addresses the Porteous matter by delivering an override for section 17 of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act, which provides that a person can bring an action if they are offended by statements pertaining to a protected attribute. The fact that a Catholic prelate was going to face legal sanction by a simple profession of faith in a document is evidence of the state brutally corralling and neutering to usurp the role of faith in the public square.

In New England, the introduction of this bill has been welcomed by local faith based schools. One school principal in Tamworth says: 'I believe that those using the excuse that these laws will promote the sacking of staff are missing the point, as the very purpose of Christian schools is to hold a world view that is Christian. We don't seek to discriminate but to adhere to the bias by which the school was formed.' I believe that it is creating a strawman that there will be some sort of purge on good teachers doing a perfectly reasonable job, and that parents must be allowed to send their children to a school that adheres to their faith. To elucidate the argument: there would be a proper outcry if a teacher in a non-denominational secular school brought teachings, tenants and exams on bible studies into a mathematics class.

Catholic schools in my area are conscious of the need to have the freedom to employ staff who are supportive of their mission. In welcoming this bill, they say:

The proposed legislation simply enables Catholic schools to preference the employment or enrolment of people of the Catholic faith, and those willing to support the ethos and values of the school. This is reasonable and fair in a free, pluralist society.

Many of my constituents feel strongly about this too. As one wrote to me recently: 'The Church of God is called to a higher standard than the citizens of Australia. It should be allowed to expect their members, and especially their leaders, to follow the teachings of the Bible.' The vast majority of Australians believe in respecting the inherent dignity of the individual. In this regard, it means letting them live the life they wish and raise their families according to their values. It's important to note that this is a belief that stems from Christian teaching and, to a varying degree, has shaped the various iterations of this bill.

This was a promise taken to the last election by the coalition and it is essential that we keep faith with those who voted for us on this issue in 2019. This is something the Nationals believe in deeply. It also underpins our commitment to ensuring parents have a choice in how they educate their kids. While some will say the legislation does not go far enough, others say it has gone too far. That is part of our democratic inheritance. It also suggests that the bill has to take into account the breadth of views held by the community and that it is worthy of bipartisan support. It finally provides Australians with protections against religious discrimination at a federal level that are long overdue, and I'm pleased to support this bill.

In going through the amendments, I hope that we make sure that we adhere to the tenets we provided at the election and that we support it. It is an addition to the rights we currently enjoy. Of course, to do so, it must go beyond what is currently the status quo.

See this speech in context