Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Cities and Urban Infrastructure) Share this | Hansard source

The purpose of antidiscrimination law is to secure a society that is equal, to recognise that there are unacceptable prejudices and other structural barriers that prevent everyone from participating economically and socially, and to set standards of conduct that address these. For me, fighting discrimination in all of its forms is a large part of my reason to be here in this place. It has been a large part of my life's work as an adult—as a lawyer, before I came here, and in all the other involvements I have had.

I want to be clear that I am concerned that gaps remain, as we conduct this debate right now, in Australia's antidiscrimination law legal architecture, which presently does enable discriminatory treatment on the basis of some religious beliefs and activity. I see that in the diverse communities that I'm privileged to represent. I see that in my role as Labor's shadow minister for multicultural affairs. I see people treated differently and wrongly by reason of their faith. I think particularly of members of the Islamic community but also of Hindus and Sikhs, members of Christian groups, and Jewish Australians.

I'm further concerned, though, that the legislation which has been presented to the House does not address these concerns. It doesn't fill these gaps, including the most obvious of gaps, which perhaps really demonstrates the appalling cynicism of this government and its leader. There's nothing in the bills that have been presented by the government which deals with religious vilification. There's nothing which addresses the harms that are being done, despite the overwhelming body of evidence. It has been often reflected, by me and many others, that we are seeing a very troubling increase in racism at the moment. But it isn't just racism that we're seeing; it's hatred based on faith. We're seeing a rising tide of xenophobia and anti-Semitism, amongst other things. These are things that should be addressed by a genuine attempt to deal with religious discrimination in our society. Of course, this is happening while the legislation before us raises other questions of discrimination.

Yesterday the Prime Minister spoke, misleadingly and wrongly, of this legislation being unifying. This is far from the case because of its substance and also because of the process through which it has been advanced. Removing discrimination from our statute books should be unifying. I think the speech of Anthony Albanese, the Leader of the Labor Party, made that powerfully clear earlier today. But this package of bills has always been a cynical exercise much more than an attempt to reach any unity. It's an exercise in promoting division.

Australians should have been brought together to discuss the principles that should inform legislation of this type, to reach agreement on these and then have regard to how this agreement should be enacted. As other Labor speakers have noted, it should have included respectful conversations with other jurisdictions which deal with this—the states and the territories, whose laws would be overridden in important respects should the bills before the House be passed in an unamended form. Strangely enough, this was recognised by the Prime Minister, who spoke some time ago about the need for this to be progressed cooperatively. He recognised this but then completely ignored it cynically, as again was demonstrated by the exchange of letters between him and the Leader of the Labor Party referred to today, because he's always interested in division and never interested in bringing Australians together.

As I prepared my remarks I was yet to see the significant amendments that had been foreshadowed. They took obviously a long time to get through the government room. The form of these amendments could well have determined the attitude of many members and probably senators to the bill. So, regardless of their views on the substance of this issue. I think all Australians would be horrified that debate on such significant legislation—legislation that goes to the fundamental rights and raises complex legal and potentially also constitutional questions—commenced without members knowing actually what position was being advanced by Australia's government. What a shameful and dangerous abdication of responsibility. Of course, there is a wider abdication of responsibility here too to those most affected by this debate on the legislation before us.

Many people, particularly young people and those who care for them, are anxious. It is very difficult to dispel the anxiety. Not for the first time under this government Australians are having their value and their innate dignity questioned by their own government. Australians are made by their own government to feel less than who they are, and that is utterly shameful. This should not and should never be the case, especially not where we are on the face of it, if you look at the titles of these bills, attempting to end discrimination, not exacerbate it. But that has been happening. It has been exacerbated and compounded by the rolling uncertainty of the process that has led us to this point.

I was recently contacted by distressed parents of trans children. I've been struggling to effectively address their concerns. I was here yesterday for the extraordinary contribution of my friend the member for Whitlam. If I were a person of faith I would say that I pray that others listen to the call that the member for Whitlam made—to think about what we should be doing in this debate and to think about what this is about. It's about people and their ability to be valued on their terms, not diminished by prejudice. That is what is at the core of this debate. This is no way to make a law and this is no way to treat people.

Yesterday in question time the Prime Minister sought to link support for multiculturalism in this great country to support for these bills. Those remarks were unworthy, irresponsible and wrong, particularly in two respects. Firstly, neither he nor any of us should presume to speak for the enormous diversity that is multicultural and multifaith Australia. Secondly, he should not mislead the parliament as to the views expressed by multicultural organisations on this matter. He should have regard to the submissions made to the parliamentary inquiries by a wide variety of groups and the powerful statements made by multicultural representative organisations that directly repudiate his offensive suggestion.

It's clear to me that this process falls well short of what Australians, and those Australians directly affected, should be entitled to expect from their national government and also that the legislation which is before us now, late at night, leaves our work unfinished when it comes to our collective task, as it should be, of removing discrimination from our statute books and advancing the rights of all Australians to go about their lives free from this ugly stain. So I want to be very clear. Whatever happens when the vote comes up today, and I am hopeful—and whatever happens when the vote comes up in the Senate, and I remain hopeful there too—I remain committed to this goal of working towards an Australia that is free from the stain of discrimination and to working collaboratively to making it a reality; recognising, I think, the key principle at the heart of this debate, which is that all people, not necessarily all views, are entitled to respect. All people are entitled to respect.

I really ask that members opposite think about this and that they think about the comments and the anguish that is being experienced in each and every one of our electorates right now. I see the member for Maribyrnong is here. I want to particularly acknowledge the concern that he has advanced on behalf of so many Australians with disability, and the potential and, I like to think, unintended consequences for those people of passing this bill in unintended forms.

I turn very briefly to the amendments which Labor is proposing—four of them: firstly, and for me most importantly, to make this bill worthy of its name and to deal with antivilification provisions which should have always been at the core here—I can't imagine how anyone would oppose that if they are interested in putting their name to a bill which speaks of ending religious discrimination; secondly, amending clause 12 in the bill, which is probably the most egregious element of it, to deal with provisions which presently would increase discrimination; thirdly, to deal with concerns that have been expressed around in-home care arrangements; and, fourthly, to delete section 38(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act.

To do this would be to advance the cause of antidiscrimination. To do this would be to take a step forward, a unifying step forward. It costs no-one anything. It would elevate the principles that have been spoken to by many on the other side of the House and would give so many Australians not only relief from anxiety but a sense that they really are respected for who they are. For those who are directly affected, and for those who care about them, it would take an enormous weight of anxiety off their backs and be a powerful symbol of the country we can be. This journey doesn't end here, whatever happens in this debate. It can't. We have more to do to build a society in which everyone is respected and everyone is equal.

I want to end by noting that my clear view remains—and this is borne out by history and it's borne out by the sad circumstances which lead to this bill coming before the House—that the path towards an enlarged Australian settlement, the path towards an Australia that's free of discrimination, will be lit by a Labor government. It's an Albanese Labor government that will finish this job, because there's work that needs to be done. I'm proud that my party, the party which has been at the forefront of every effort to end discrimination, is affirming today our longstanding commitment that we will legislate to end discrimination, including discrimination affecting people of faith. But, in particular, we will think about some of the people most affected by the ugliness that underpins this debate and we will act to protect all children and all teachers from discrimination on any grounds.

This is something that we should have had happen earlier. This is another broken promise made by a Prime Minister who always looks to divide, who always look to diminish Australians, who is only ever interested in cynical politicking and who is absolutely heedless of the awful human cost of his, frankly, disgusting cynicism.

See this speech in context