Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Hansard source

[by video link] I'd like to start by explaining where I start with the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, and, more particularly, the concepts and principles that underlie a bill like this. As an Irish Catholic whose forebears suffered through sectarianism in Australia, as someone who studied political and legal history—much of which traverses the wars, battles and political disputes concerning religion and its relationship with political power—and as a law student whose law library was named after St Thomas More, I am very conscious, aware and supportive of ensuring the freedom of religion in Australia.

A fundamental belief of Labor is that everyone should be able to live free from discrimination, to feel respected and to get a fair go. Laws that prohibit discrimination are fundamentally laws about fairness, and the Labor Party is the architect of the antidiscrimination law framework in this country. We enacted the Racial Discrimination Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act, and, of course, we supported the Age Discrimination Act.

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief are fundamental human rights. There is a gap in our law in terms of not protecting the right to be of the religion of one's choice. This is protected under the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it's important to think about what those two key documents actually say. They say:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

But they also say that freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject to such limitations necessary to protect 'the fundamental rights and freedoms of others'. Article 19 goes on to say:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds …

But it also says that this 'carries with it special duties and responsibilities' and that it may therefore be subject to certain restrictions for 'respect of the rights and reputations of others'. Of course, it also states in the covenant that the parties undertake to respect the liberty of parents in ensuring the 'religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions'.

Labor supports the extension of the federal antidiscrimination framework to ensure Australians are not discriminated against because of their religious beliefs or activities, just as Commonwealth law currently prohibits discrimination on the basis of age, disability, race, sex, gender identity, sex characteristics or sexual orientation. But why has this not been protected before? We do need to acknowledge that the Liberal Party of Australia, in the coalition, in various guises over a long period of time in Australia, has actively acted against the implementation of antidiscrimination legislation in this country, only to start to change its spots in the 21st century with the Age Discrimination Act. It was in that context that the Prime Minister announced in December 2018 that his government would enact the Religious Discrimination Act and appoint a religious freedom commissioner. That was before the 2019 election. That promise was not honoured, and it's become one of the government's election commitments for this term of government now, and we're dealing with it at the eleventh hour.

There is overwhelming support for extending the federal antidiscrimination framework to protect people of faith. This is an important point, and we must not allow it to be obscured by the significant controversy over a handful of contentious provisions in the government's Religious Discrimination Bill. At the same time, though, the fact that aspects of the government's Religious Discrimination Bill are highly contentious cannot be ignored, and those aspects should not be downplayed. This is largely a function of the way in which the government has approached the task of developing this legislation.

Labor governments across Australia have strong records when it comes to protecting people of faith against discrimination. It is important to protect religious freedom. It's important to recognise that here in Australia we have had a history of sectarianism all the way through to the 1980s, according to Bernard Salt, and arguably there are echoes of that now. And that's not to mention the feelings that are felt by those of other religions in Australia. Australia, though, is now a multicultural, multirace, multireligious community. We should be celebrating that diversity but protecting it too.

Protecting against discrimination is primarily about attributes. Attributes get absolute protection because we can't change them. Speech and actions can be a reflection of such attributes but also something further. Speech can be where a freedom can impinge on other freedoms. This is why freedoms regarding speech are constrained in human rights conventions, because it's about getting the balance right. Getting that balance is very important.

The core of this bill is non-contentious. It prohibits discrimination on the ground of religious belief and activity in different areas of public life, including in the context of employment, education, access to premises, the provision of goods and services and facilities. It would also establish, within the Human Rights Commission, the Religious Discrimination Commissioner, who would have a number of functions.

While most of the provisions are straightforward and drafted in a manner broadly consistent with the Commonwealth antidiscrimination statutes, other parts of the bill are more complex and the precise scope and practical implications of those provisions need to be taken into account. The bill doesn't provide an opportunity for balance. There are some glaring omissions. In his second reading speech, the Prime Minister said:

People should not be cancelled or persecuted or vilified because their beliefs are different from someone else's in a free liberal democratic society such as Australia.

Yet the bill introduced by the Prime Minister would not prohibit vilification of people on the basis of religious belief, religious dress or religious activity. The bill will not protect a Muslim woman in Thornlie who was abused in the street or a Hindu man in Piara Waters who was vilified for his religious beliefs. Labor has raised these issues with government, but so far the government has refused to entertain the introduction of an antivilification provision. The government claims that this has been raised at the last minute and there isn't time to work through the drafting. This is a nonsense. Since the first exposure draft of this bill was released, over two years ago, a range of religious groups have argued that the bill should include an antivilification provision; they have even put forward suggested drafting. And of course now the government is trying to proceed with its own last-minute amendments, though they are welcome.

The bill, as it is, is also silent on the treatment of students, and that issue clearly needs to be addressed. Whilst we would like to be able to rely on a pastoral approach from religious schools, that cannot be guaranteed. I know that members of the government are troubled by this as well. Dealing with this issue will also be part of Labor's amendments. We need to get the balance of these competing rights right. I know that it's difficult, but it's also very important.

I also would just like to note that we should have seen a bill that was properly reviewed before we even got to this point of debating it. A two-month inquiry through a parliamentary committee was not enough, especially when that period was held over Christmas with limited time for hearings. We saw the pause on the Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry, which should have actually been the process for dealing with important legislation such as this. Legislation like this should have had extensive review and oversight to get this balance right. Instead, we saw the government actually put a pause on that process. What we have seen with Prime Minister Morrison's bill is a rushed process, without proper consultation and without the care and attention to detail that such important human rights protections deserve. The human rights committee found that the bill introduced had at least one serious drafting error, in fact.

Labor's approach to this bill is being guided by a number of simple fundamental guiding principles: first, that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes clear that religious organisations and people of faith have a right to act in accordance with the doctrines, beliefs and teachings of their traditions and faith, subject to the limitations necessary to protect public safety and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; second, Labor supports the extension of the federal antidiscrimination framework to ensure that Australians are not discriminated against because of religious belief and activity; and, third, consistent with the international covenant, any extension should not remove protections that already exist in the law to protect Australians from other forms of discrimination.

It's important that this bill protects people of faith from discrimination. But we need to understand the real fears in our community about how it is currently being done. That is why Labor proposes the amendments that we have put forward and supports this bill on the basis that it is amended as we propose—to protect children, to prevent vilification, to ensure that there is a better balance. The Australian Labor Party has a long history of fighting to prevent discrimination against people of faith. This legislation should unite our nation, not divide it.

As is said in 1 Corinthians 13:

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails …

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Legislation to protect against discrimination based on religious belief and adherence should exist. It should exist in balance and harmony with other recognised human rights protections. It should embody a love of God and a love of our fellow person. That's why this legislation can only proceed with the amendments Labor proposes.

See this speech in context