Peta Murphy (Dunkley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, member for Leichhardt, for sharing Kate's story. It's Kate's story—like it is the story of the nephew and the son of the member for Whitlam and like it is the story of friends and family of mine and people in my community—that makes this such an important debate. My community wants the elimination of discrimination based on religion, and so do I. My community wants the elimination of discrimination based on sexuality, and so do I. My community wants the elimination of discrimination based on gender and gender identity, and so do I. Let's be frank: what we want is the elimination of discrimination in all of its forms. But this bill doesn't do that. It doesn't deal with discrimination based on religion in an appropriate way, which it was intended to do; it doesn't deal with the elimination of discrimination based on sexuality; and it certainly doesn't deal with the elimination of discrimination based on gender and gender identity.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, when we come to these debates, what we should be looking for are shields, not swords. Like, I assume, every other member of this chamber, I have been flooded with emails, phone calls, and social media messages from, and have had conversations face to face with, people from my electorate about why they have a particular position on this piece of legislation. I have been privileged to hear many of their stories. And like many other members of this chamber, I have people in my life who I love, who I work with, who volunteer on my campaign, who I see at the local coffee shop or the sports club or when I go to a local production of a play or a musical, who are gay, who are lesbian, who are bisexual, who are transgender, who are non-binary, who are just trying to work out who they are and what their place is in the world. I have promised to represent, to the best of my ability, everyone in my electorate. Many people say 'whether or not you voted for me'—and that is right. But I have also promised to represent in this chamber everyone in my electorate even if their values are different to mine, even if their view on faith is different to mine, even if their sexuality, their gender, their race, their identity is different to mine because everyone deserves to be respected. Everyone deserves the opportunity to lead their best life, and to not feel that being fulfilled in who they are also means being hated or despised or discriminated against.

Sometimes coming into this chamber to try to represent everyone in your community is incredibly difficult, because sometimes the needs and the priorities of individuals and groups aren't the same as the needs and priorities of other individuals and groups in one's electorate. But, again, as the Leader of the Opposition said, it's not a matter of pitting the needs and priorities of one group against another, it's a matter of trying to balance them. It's a matter of looking at the rights and responsibilities that we say are fundamental and how they apply to one group, and looking at the rights and responsibilities that we say are fundamental and how they apply to another group.

One of the challenges we have in this parliament and in our federal politics is that we don't have a charter or a bill of rights and responsibilities to guide us when we do that balancing process. And so it is that we often come to debate things like the issues before us—the right to be free of religious discrimination and to practice one's faith, and the right to be free from discrimination based on sexuality and gender and to be one's true self—without a framework in which to do so. That's why we need to have a charter or a bill of rights in this country, because we can't keep dealing with these issues in an ad hoc way and we can't keep dealing with these issues in a political way. They shouldn't be political and they shouldn't be partisan. They should be part of a charter of rights, within which we do our utmost to balance the needs of all the people and all of the groups in our society. I know there are people on both sides of the chamber who believe that, and that's what we strive to do here. That is why it is so fundamentally disappointing for me, as an individual and as a representative of a community that has overwhelmingly told me they want LGBTIQ members of our community to be protected, to be standing here having this debate about such a deeply flawed bill.

It has been some four years since the Prime Minister said he wanted to introduce legislation to protect religious freedoms, and also that he would protect children while doing so. There have been four years to get this legislation to a position which, as the Leader of the Opposition said, would be one of unity, would be an uplifting moment for this parliament and for the country. Four years, and yet at the last minute, not at the eleventh hour, the legislation which has been flawed from the moment of the exposure draft is sought to be amended by the Prime Minister in a way which has led to transgender children and their parents in particular feeling like they're being used as a political weapon. That is wrong: it's a shame on the Prime Minister and a shame on those who see this as something to do before an election to try to gain votes.

I am proud and pleased that Labor is moving amendments in the four key areas that have been identified by speakers before me to try to address issues in this bill, firstly, to prohibit religious vilification. Most of us don't know what it's like to be vilified because of your religion. We need to put ourselves in other people's shoes and try to imagine what that must be like. The second is to prohibit discrimination against children on the grounds of sexuality and gender identity. The third is to make it clear that in-home aged-care service providers cannot discriminate on the basis of religion in the provision of services and, I add, disability services, as the Leader of the Opposition said. The fourth is to make it clear that the statement of belief provision does not remove or diminish any existing protections against discrimination.

The older you get, the more you realise that life is hard. We face challenges, all of us, that are personal, private and public. And there is no doubt that the move from childhood to adolescence to becoming an adult is hard for everyone, but it is so much harder if your fundamental self challenges the traditional gender and sexuality norms. We should be making it easier, not harder, for everyone to go through that journey. I do not support this bill in its unamended form. On behalf of my community and everyone who has given me the privilege of contacting me to ask me to be their voice, I want to make it very clear that, in my personal view, the amendments that Labor are putting forward are essential.

I support and believe in religious freedom and that no-one should be discriminated against because of what they believe in and no-one should be discriminated against because of who they are. Most of us haven't had to experience what gay, bisexual, transgender and non-binary people and people who just don't fit into a category have experienced. But we need to try to imagine what it's like for them and be part of an inclusive and supportive and, frankly, loving society. I want to end my contribution by saying that I ask everyone in this chamber—no matter which political party you're from or if you're an Independent—who believes in compassion, who believes in self-determination, who believes in the power of love, who believes in the right of every person to live their life fully, who believes in acceptance and inclusion, not to accept that we can support an unamended bill which allows for discrimination on the basis that it might be fixed in the future but to support Labor's amendments and stand up for what you believe in. You can support Labor's amendments and be true to yourself and your conscience.

See this speech in context