Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

On Tuesday morning I attended Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church of Canberra at Kingston for the service that takes place before every parliamentary year. As leader of the Labor Party I gave a reading from 1 Corinthians 13:4-8:

Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;

does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;

does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;

bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never fails.

To me, the best of people of faith in this diverse multicultural nation of Australia is all about love: love of our humanity in all its diversity—straight people, gay people, people of diverse gender identity; men, women; people of different ethnicity; people of different faiths. What this debate should have been about is enhancing national unity, bringing people together, and a next step in an acknowledgement that this great nation's greatest strength is our diversity, is our common humanity. Unfortunately, the flawed Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 does not do that.

From my perspective, we come at religious discrimination as a complex issue with guiding principles that are clear. We support people's right to practise their faith free from discrimination, consistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But this should not remove protections that already exist to protect against other forms of discrimination. The idea that there has to be conflict between people such as children and people with disabilities, who potentially will be really hurt by the flaws in this bill, and members of minority faiths in particular, who will be protected by this bill, is a false dichotomy. We surely should be able to do both, to enhance protections against discrimination without enhancing discrimination against others. That was always the objective of all of the groups of faith I've met with, both formally and informally, over a process that's taken years.

Yet we have, after four years of a process that began in 2018, a circumstance whereby the opposition has been given 24 hours to consider the complexity of what is being advanced. That's what's happened to the opposition, let alone the fact that state and territory governments that will be impacted by this haven't been consulted at all and people of faith and people in the general community haven't been consulted properly either. This bill wants to pit those groups against each other. I want to defend all of them. We need shields from discrimination, not swords for discrimination. That's the fundamental principle that I bring to this debate, and it's a principle that I hold dear.

In my first speech, back in 1996, I emphasised that there was not equality of opportunity across gender, sexual preference and ethnicity. In my first term in parliament, I moved a private member's bill about superannuation entitlements for same-sex couples. That was part of a debate to then broaden out how we get equality for people regardless of their sexuality, something I fundamentally agree with. I went on to say that cultural diversity and respect can lead to a more peaceful, equitable and fulfilling life for all. They're values for which I've stood up. They're values for which I've argued. They're values for which I've fought. Dr Martin Luther King declared, 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice,' and that's true.

In 1996 it was a different world. The idea that this parliament could, with just a few exceptions, vote for marriage equality is something that wouldn't have been conceived of back at that time. But, as we mature as a nation, we have, as our core value, support and respect for each other. The idea of having legislation that removes discrimination on the basis of faith is an important one. Some people have said to me, 'Why do you need any of this debate?' The truth is that, as a Roman Catholic who went to St Joseph's Camperdown and then St Mary's Cathedral in Sydney, schools where a lot of the values that I have were entrenched as a part of who I am, I can say I haven't been discriminated against at any stage. But I'll tell you what: I know women who've been spat at in the street because they were wearing a hijab. I know Sikhs who've been denied employment. I know people who've had their house attacked because they had a shrine at the front of it.

Adding discrimination against people on the basis of their faith to the other forms of discrimination that we say are unacceptable is an important principle and one that I support. But I don't support doing it at the expense of increasing discrimination against others. This should have been a unifying moment. The Prime Minister wrote to me on 1 December—late at night, it must be said. The letter was dropped round to my office at around 7.30 on the Wednesday sitting night. He said that he sought to put the passage of the bill through the next day. He said:

To assist with this process and in keeping with my Second Reading Speech, where I stated there is no place in our education system for any form of discrimination against a student on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity, the Government will move an amendment to remove the provision of the Sex Discrimination Act which was included in 2013 which limited the protections provided under this act for these and other matters.

Well, this legislation doesn't do that. It just doesn't. He invited me to meet that night. I wrote back saying that we wanted the consideration of the committee processes. I said:

As you are aware, I believe that protection against religious discrimination should be a uniting, and not dividing, moment for the nation.

Faith leaders have expressed to you, and me, their strong desire for the Parliament to consider legislation that prevents religious discrimination in a non-partisan manner.

I remain willing, as always, to discuss this important matter in person.

Do you know how much discussion I've had with the Prime Minister since I put that in writing to him? Nothing. Not a phone call, not a meeting, nothing whatsoever. At the conclusion of my speech, I will seek leave to table that correspondence.

This legislation is flawed, but we want to fix it. We will be moving amendments in the House of Representatives. If that is not successful here, we won't stand in the way of the Senate considering the legislation. But we will move the amendments in the Senate. We hope they're carried here, but, if not, we expect they will be carried in the Senate, and we will insist on them. We will insist on them, because this legislation needs to be improved. We know that, if they're not carried, this legislation will simply not be good enough.

Our amendments will go to a number of issues. I might need an extension of time. On clause 12, statements of belief, Labor agrees that the mere expression of a non-malicious statement of belief should not contravene any Australian law, and we stand with people of faith on that front. We're ready to work with the government on a better way of achieving what the government claims this provision is intended to achieve, which is to provide reassurance to people of faith. But a law that says, on its face, that one group of Australians should be allowed to discriminate against other Australians is not the way to do it. It's offensive, frankly, to people of faith. The Prime Minister says that he wants to bring this bill together. If that is what he wants, he will support Labor's amendment to clarify the statements-of-belief clause of this bill.

The second issue is that of antivilification. I can't see how any debate about religious discrimination in Australia can ignore the fact that during the term of this parliament an Australian man brutally murdered 51 Muslim worshippers in two Christchurch mosques. Nor should the debate ignore the troubling rise of Islamophobic, anti-Hindu, anti-Semitic and other religious and race based incidents of discrimination, threats and violence on our own shores.

This debate should also be providing greater legislative protection against vilification and incitement to hatred or violence based on a person's religion or religious belief. Labor will move an amendment to ensure that we enact an anti-vilification clause, and it should receive support for it, because, where the government's bill does not even prohibit vilification of people on the basis of religious belief, religious dress or religious activity, that is a flaw. This is despite the Prime Minister's claim in this chamber that the bill draws a clear line against harassment, vilification or intimidation of anyone. It does not do that. The bill, as it stands, will not protect a Muslim woman in my electorate from being abused in the street for being Muslim, or a Hindu man who is vilified for his religious beliefs. This amendment should also be uncontroversial. That is why this bill, without that, doesn't even measure up to the premise of its own title. That's why this anti-vilification amendment is essential.

We've heard a lot about changes to the Sex Discrimination Act throughout this debate. This is a further amendment that we will move. We've been left with an amendment by the government that barely amends the Sex Discrimination Act and leaves many young people exposed to discrimination, which is totally at odds with what was promised in writing by the Prime Minister. For young Australians grappling with their sexual identity, it can be an extraordinarily difficult time. This parliament shouldn't be making it harder for them; we should be protecting them. I would be pretty confident that, overwhelmingly, Australians of faith would agree with this too. That is why Labor will move a simple amendment to delete section 38(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act, in full, to remove discrimination against all children, whether they're gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, recognising that all children should have a right to be who they are and that there are consequences for not having that.

The truth is that most religious schools don't expel or discriminate against their students because of who they are, and they never want to anyway. In my class at St Mary's Cathedral, there were three openly gay students, one of whom went on to be a very famous drag queen in Sydney. And my best teacher at St Mary's Cathedral, the person who inspired me to be an economist and to do an economics degree—and inspired many others, like Paul Cleary, who'd be known to many people in this chamber—was a gay teacher. He was fantastic, and he made a difference to my life and a difference to so many other lives at St Mary's Cathedral. The truth is that this amendment will strengthen the legislation as well. Labor supports removing discrimination against teachers, while recognising the right of religious schools to give preference to hiring school staff of their own faith—that's just common sense—but, because these two rights interact in a complex way, we believe this issue cannot be rammed through the parliament and will need to be carefully considered by the Australian Law Reform Commission. It is something that Labor will do in government.

Can I conclude and thank the House for the opportunity. Today this parliament has the opportunity to again bend the arc of change towards justice: justice for those who wish to pursue their religious convictions without harming others and justice for those who simply want to be themselves. These principles are worth fighting for. We heard it here last night. My great friend the member for Whitlam spoke of the tragic death of his 15-year-old nephew, a young person loved and supported by family but struggling against discrimination in the broader community. Stephen also spoke with love of his own son, who he worries will not have the opportunity to grow up in an Australia where he's simply allowed to be himself without being the subject of hatred or discrimination. That is not too much to ask for our kids.

I've also been moved by the recent comments by the member for Maribyrnong, who notes that many people with disability suffer discrimination from some people of faith who cruelly attribute their disability to the will of God. I'll stand up for the rights of people to practice their religion, but I won't support anyone who uses their religion as an excuse to be cruel and to deny the rights of others who just happen to be different. We have an opportunity here to make a real difference, an opportunity to bend the arc of progress, an opportunity to protect the right of Australians to practice their faith, and an opportunity to fix this flawed legislation so that it sets the right balance between rights and responsibilities, conviction and compassion, and love of divinity and love for each other.

As I said, our greatest strength certainly as Australians has always been our capacity to come together. We have this opportunity as a parliament. We haven't been difficult on this legislation. We are putting out a hand. It should be shaken by the other side. This is an opportunity to advance unity of this nation, not to pit people against each other. This bill as it stands right now, if it is not amended by either the House or the Senate, will only succeed in driving us apart. Ours is a wonderful country, but there is an even better Australia almost within our grasp. This bill in its present form will push it further out of reach. That is not our instinct as a people. It is not who we are. Let's put aside divisiveness and this pointless, petty partisanship. This is a moment for leadership; this is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to show some. It's an opportunity for unity of purpose. We must change this bill. All Australians deserve nothing less. I seek leave to table the correspondence between the Prime Minister and me.

Leave granted.

See this speech in context