Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It's known to colleagues in this place that I've announced I'll be retiring at the next election. The decision has caused me, as would not surprise anyone, to be somewhat reflective about my time in this place, particularly in the last few days. As I sit in this chamber and ponder how few opportunities remain to participate in debates here, I reflect on some quite amazing moments that I was privileged to experience in this chamber—moments where an outbreak of joy and unity and pride caused people to embrace each other in this chamber; you could almost feel the joy from around the country coming through the walls.

Those two particular occasions I remember are the National Apology to the Stolen Generations and the passage of the same-sex marriage legislation, and they epitomise how this place can be a beacon of hope and unity and progress across Australia. There were some who disagreed with those decisions, but, by and large, people felt that parliament and parliamentarians had reflected the best side of Australia and put legislation in place that encouraged all of us to be our better selves.

The antidiscrimination framework in this country is part of that story. From the earliest, we've had sex discrimination, we've had disability discrimination and we've had age discrimination. A number of parts of the framework of antidiscrimination legislation have been put in place, and they are, of course, consistent with our international obligations. This could have been another plank in that framework. Bringing a religious discrimination bill into this place could have been another moment of unity, joy and pride, as has happened in the past, but it isn't. It isn't because the bill before us is so flawed and counterproductive that it does exactly the opposite.

So why are we at this place with these bills before us? Well, a few years ago the Prime Minister made a commitment to bring religious discrimination bills before the parliament. Indeed, it was before the last election. Yet here we are, in the final sitting weeks of the parliament, in the lead-up to an election, and now we've got to urgently pass these bills. Why? If the Prime Minister says it's because he made a commitment before the last election and he feels he has to meet that before he goes to another election, well, do you know what? I would have rather had the National Integrity Commission Bill before this place. But this is what we're faced with.

What the bill does is not what it intends to do. I want to make it really clear. I know some people say there is no need for a religious discrimination bill. I do not agree with that. Many speakers have made the point that the fundamental importance of faith to people is such a significant part of who they are and their participation in our civil modern society, and their sense of safety and security and wellbeing, that it should be protected, and I agree with that.

I have to say that I'm not a person of faith. I am an atheist, but I have a very deep respect and determination to protect the rights of those who are people of faith to hold that faith and to practice that faith in ways that do not result in them being excluded from or discriminated against any full participation in our civil and economic life. That should not happen, and I will always stand up for opportunities to protect their rights in that way. So we should have a religious discrimination bill. It would be a good addition to the architecture of this nation. But you do that by offering protections to people, not by taking them off others. That's never what any form of any antidiscrimination legislation has been about.

What is so devastating and what has caused so much grief is that in this particular instance we are seeing the reality of very negative effects on people who are some of the most vulnerable in our community, in particular the effects on children—children who are gay, who are dealing with their sexuality, who are trying to understand it, or who are dealing with their gender identity. Nothing could describe that more powerfully than the words of my very good friend and colleague the member for Whitlam as he spoke in this debate about his family's grief at the loss of his nephew and as he spoke about his lovely son, Paddy. And I want to endorse the sentiments that he expressed.

How on earth did we get into a position, when we should be debating something that is about embracing, protecting and extending love and participation to people in our community, of dealing with impacts that are devastating? Once again our gay community, our transgender community, our people of a variety of gender identities and gender expression in our community are at the middle of a debate that is divisive and harmful. I really understand how they must feel and their despair at being dragged again into the middle of contention, when we should be saying, 'You are as welcome and as valued and as loved as everybody else in our society.' So I'm really, really frustrated with what the Prime Minister has done in the way that he has handled this bill and the way that he has handled debate, and with the promises that he's made that he's not delivering in this legislation. And I do believe that the amendments that are proposed to be put by the shadow Attorney-General are critically important and deserve to be supported, if the intention of these bills is really what is claimed and if the promises that the Prime Minister has made in the past about unifying people, bringing people together, working in a bipartisan way, protecting children, are to actually be delivered on.

The amendments that will be brought forward will prohibit religious vilification, which this bill does not do. One of the things I know from my own community is that there are people of faith who suffer vilification. The Islamic community in my area have raised this with me over years. This does happen, particularly to people of minority faiths and communities. The amendments will prohibit discrimination against children on the grounds of sexuality and gender identity. This must be done. They will make it clear that in-home aged-care service providers, not just residential providers, cannot discriminate on the basis of religion in the provision of aged-care services. And, very importantly, they will make it clear that the statement of belief provision does not remove or diminish any existing protections against discrimination.

I appreciate and I value the fact that members of the government have indicated their grave concerns and their interest in amendments such as those Labor has proposed. I know that's a difficult thing to do, I really do. But I want my last potential weeks in this place to actually be ones where this whole place can be proud of something that we've done. That is still possible. It can be achieved by supporting these amendments. I would ask that all members meet the spirit of these bills in the way they should have been presented, do the best we can and pass the amendments when they are put forward, and let's all have a moment again where we can take pride in what this chamber does.

See this speech in context