Anne Aly (Cowan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to stand here today, serving as the deputy chair of the Human Rights Sub-Committee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, presenting this interim report titled Legal foundations of religious freedom in Australia. The terms of reference of the report were much broader than specifically looking at the legal foundations for freedom of religion in Australia. It looked at the status of freedom of religion or belief as recognised in article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights around the world, including in Australia.

I must pay heed to the wonderful work done by the committee secretariat and the committee in producing what, I believe, is quite a comprehensive report, particularly at a very critical time when these issues are starting to be debated in our parliament, with the impending delivery of the marriage equality bill—hopefully by the end of this week. We do hope that this report will offer a basis for the impending inquiry that is to be undertaken by Philip Ruddock.

The report, as I mentioned, is quite comprehensive. I don't have enough time to go through everything, but there were some things that I did want to speak about here today. The first of those is the examination in the report of the difference between holding and manifesting belief. This is a really important issue and one that I think will come up in the very nuanced debate that we're about to have around the protection of religious freedoms in the context of marriage equality and that we'll be voting on.

In particular, the report makes mention of several submissions which emphasised the distinction between having or holding a religious belief and the manifestation of that belief or the freedom to manifest that belief. In Australia, we accept that, under our Constitution, particularly section 116, there is a separation of the state and religion, and that Australia welcomes religious plurality and the freedom to practice a belief, within certain confines, and those confines being that, if the manifestation of your particular religious belief calls for you to do something which is against the law or which is unlawful, there are limitations on that manifestation. This is evident in examples such as someone arguing that female genital mutilation is a religious practice. I personally believe it is not a religious practice. But where someone argues that female genital mutilation is a religious practice then of course the law comes in and says, 'That is unlawful,' and prohibits the manifestation of that professed belief. The coming weeks will, I hope, allow us to debate with more intellectual rigour the crux of this argument about holding a belief and the manifestation of that belief.

Another part of that argument is the practice of a belief as an individual or in a community with others. The question here is whether or not we extend the protections for freedom of religion that we have for religious organisations to religious individuals. This is where some people may argue, for example, that a baker or a marriage celebrant who holds particular religious beliefs might be able to then discriminate against a same-sex couple by refusing them their services should they want to marry. We have some exemptions in place at both state and federal level for religious organisations to allow, for example, Catholic schools to hire only Catholics or other religious organisations to employ only people of that faith as part of the duties of their employment. Do we then extend those to individuals, as opposed to just organisations? I think that's something that is really going to come up in the discussion as we proceed—whether or not we extend those exemptions for religious organisations to individuals who profess a religious belief so that they are able to then, effectively, discriminate against same-sex couples in the provision of their services.

The question I would ask is: in doing that, would we also then be extending the idea that individuals can also manifest their religious beliefs in ways that have an impact on others, and, in many regards, a negative impact on others? These are legitimate concerns that I think will be brought up by both sides of the argument—by those who seek more protections for religious freedoms, and those who will argue that religious freedoms are fairly comprehensive.

It's very fortuitous to have this interim report on hand as a basis for informing those arguments, particularly because it is so comprehensive and looks at issues like legitimate limitations on freedom of religion and belief—where we accept that certain religious practices, or certain practices that people profess are religious, are indeed unlawful or illegal in Australia. We currently have a range of instruments to deal with that. But we also currently have a range of instruments that make it unlawful to discriminate in Australia. So should we permit limitations if they are the result of balancing the claims to fundamental human rights? Should we permit limitations on the freedom of religion and belief if, in permitting those limitations, we are in fact balancing one human right against another and protecting people from discrimination? Again, that is something that I believe will come up in the final report and in the ensuing debate. The report also looks at the important issues of existing protections for freedom of religion, both at the national level and at the state level, and very comprehensively canvasses the balance between the right to freedom of religion and other rights.

I said in my first speech to parliament that I do not believe that the rights of some people trump or override the rights of others. I believe that all human rights are worth pursuing with vigour. So, for me, getting this balance right and ensuring that all people feel protected, including those who want the freedom to practise and to express their religious beliefs as well as those who support marriage equality, is fundamental. I don't think that this is something that is unachievable for Australia. I think that we can get to this point of adequately balancing rights without having to wind back our antidiscrimination laws.

I will make one more point here before closing. That is that the report notes that Commonwealth protections for freedom of religion or belief are limited. The report also notes that there is a cause to strengthen protections for religious freedoms, including a religious discrimination act. I might say that, when I suggested that, the member for Goldstein, who is sitting opposite, claimed that I was asking for blasphemy laws. I do hope that the member for Goldstein will change his mind when people on his own backbench call for the same thing.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise as a strong defender of freedom, period. That includes religious freedom as well.

An honourable member: Freedom Boy!

I wear the moniker of 'Freedom Boy' very proudly—don't worry. Despite being without faith, I have always been a strong advocate for religious liberty, because it goes to the heart of people's identity and security. A person's faith does not end at the church door, any more than sexual orientation ends at the bedroom door. They inform the fullness of our lives, our characters and our choices. I take all people's freedoms very seriously. A free society does not seek to homogenise belief or conscience but instead affirms individuality and diversity and fosters tolerance and mutual respect.

The choice that has always faced our country is whether we are a social democracy or a liberal democracy, and I am in the liberal democracy camp. Social democracies empower government to legislate permissible conduct, but in a liberal democracy we remove barriers to freedom, just like the barrier that is removed by the bill on marriage for same-sex couples. We are expanding the freedom for people to marry, but that doesn't mean religious liberty should be discarded. It should be considered as part of the thought process of any legislation.

The unlimited freedom of conscience is the freedom to hold and form opinions, religious or otherwise. That is not inhibited by the bill that is before the parliament. Freedom of speech is the freedom to express and communicate ideas and your conscience. That is not inhibited by the bill before the parliament either. Of course, everybody's free to disagree with law. Those advocating for change have demonstrated that point clearly. As the members know, I will always stand up against laws that make it unlawful to offend where they arise. Religious freedom is the freedom to manifest your conscience, as is demonstrated in the report being delivered by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Free speech and religious freedom have always been tempered by law. They are not an unlimited licence. If you care about everybody's freedom, not just your own, the objective should be to enlarge the space for these freedoms for everybody, as I always seek to do.

Left-Green progressives would have us believe that religious freedom comes from the United Nations and international treaties. It does not. It comes from a system of law and culture that respects the freedom of the individual and their right to pursue their life, their opportunities and their enterprise. It comes from honouring the traditions of our liberal democracy, where everything is legal unless it explicitly is made illegal. Religious freedom is not protected by creating group rights, bills or charters of rights or by entrenching the language of international treaties in domestic law. The latter is particularly dangerous because it allows courts to use legal interpretations from foreign jurisdictions to interpret Australian law. Not only does it lead to potentially limiting religious liberty; it also undermines our national sovereignty. That is why I will always start from a position of opposing efforts to codify the boundaries of religious liberty, because they will only lead to narrowing it. We should want as much space in the public square for as much freedom as possible for all people, religious or otherwise, so long as we take account of the rights and freedoms of others. That is the approach I will continue to take in this parliament.

I would also like to quote from a speech I gave last year, specifically dealing with some of the issues around religious liberty and what it means in 21st century Australia. It is from my paper Rediscovering Humilityfor the Centre for Independent Studies' Acton Lecture of 2017. I said:

The state of religious freedom in Australia today is, frankly, unsettled and perpetually evolving. It is one of the few Rights that is explicitly protected in our Constitution prohibiting the Commonwealth 'from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion' under section 116. Yet many people of faith feel that changes to government laws increasingly dismiss or deprioritise religious liberty. For example, State governments have been reviewing antidiscrimination laws and look likely to water down some provisions around respecting the freedom of religious service providers to employ staff and adopt practices consistent with their faith traditions. I don’t plan to enter into those specific debates—

as a federal member when they're around state law—

but to highlight that they reflect a growing tension within Australian society about the place of religion. Not that it is new. In his speech to the 1897 Constitutional Convention, future Prime Minister, Edmund Barton, encapsulated the view of the role of government over religion at the time:

'The whole mode of government, the whole province of the State, is secular ... The whole duty is to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s ... secular expressions should be left to secular matters while prayer should be left to its proper place.'

Barton’s words are apt because they highlight the binary lens through which most people look at the relationship between religion and the state. In the 21st Century there are many more shades of grey. The Constitution makes it clear: the Australian government is secular. The grey is where government ends and society begins, and whether we are a secular or pluralist society. A secular society is one which respects religious liberty, but recognises its place as a primarily private practice. Faith ends at the temple door. It has a limited place in the public square. There is no room for religion in public institutions, such as schools and hospitals. Equally unless they want to accept secular strings, religious institutions can’t accept public monies to deliver services to the community.

A pluralist one respects that, like other individual characteristics, faith informs all aspects of people’s lives. Public institutions reasonably accommodate faith and religious institutions are not discriminated against simply because of wanting to act consistent with their traditions. Instead they are embraced as a way of delivering a diversity of services. These different approaches fundamentally inform how different political parties approach issues of religious liberty. The Greens are in the secularist camp. The Liberals and Nationals are in the pluralist camp. Labor used to be in the pluralist camp. Today they are drifting in the direction of secularism with a diminishing understanding of the importance of religious liberty.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I rise to make a contribution on the interim report into the legal foundations of religious freedom in Australia. The Australia that I know and love is recognised as one of the world's most culturally, ethnically and religiously diverse societies. Despite our racist beginnings, modern Australia is a society founded on respect, acceptance and inclusion.

A valued part of this diversity is everyone's freedom to practise the religion of their choosing. It's something often erroneously held in irretrievable conflict with the legislation to allow same-sex marriage—the removal of discrimination from the Marriage Act. Australians have a proud history of removing discrimination in our laws. Our proud initiatives include providing the vote for women and repealing discriminatory migration policies or the recognition of the right of our first peoples to vote, although this took far too long to occur. Reducing discrimination in all its forms is a matter of social justice. Every human being is worthy of respect and equality before the law, regardless of their age, religion, race, gender, sexual orientation, occupation, level of income, ability or political beliefs.

It is indefensible and unjust that two people who love each other are unable to marry, because of their sexual orientation. This interim report evaluates and embraces the ability of everyone to enjoy religious freedom across many areas of society. A Senate select committee has already reported and considered the connection between same-sex marriage and religious freedom at length, including close examination of religious exemptions and exceptions. That particular report was the basis of the construction of the consensus bill being debated in the other chamber right now. I'm not speaking on that momentous legislation, because I do not want to delay change by 10 minutes more.

When reflecting on religious freedom and the report before us right now, it is timely for me to remind everyone that God did not write the Commonwealth Marriage Act. It was written by lawyers and legislators in ink, not etched in stone, and must reflect the views and values of Australians today. Every member of parliament is charged with ensuring our laws best balance and protect the values and beliefs of all the people we represent today, not yesterday and not tomorrow. Following the result of the postal survey, we know that Australians want discrimination removed from our Marriage Act. This can be done without impacting on the ability of everyone to freely observe their own faith, should they so wish.

Every person of faith in Moreton needs to know that discrimination on the basis of religious belief or activity is already prohibited in at least some circumstances in the Australian Capital Territory, the Northern Territory, Western Australia, Victoria and Queensland. I say that up-front. The detail of the legislation is different in each jurisdiction; however, discrimination on the basis of religion is generally prohibited with respect to employment, the provision of goods and services, accommodation, education, membership of clubs, participation in sporting activity and provision of government services. The Australian Constitution includes limited protection for religious freedom in section 116. It prohibits the Commonwealth from enacting legislation that would prohibit the free exercise or establishment of a religion. Australia is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966, which was ratified in Australia on 13 August 1980. Article 18 of that convention gives specific protection to religious freedom.

The tension between the right of nondiscrimination and the religious freedom to discriminate in some cases was a common theme throughout many submissions made by the public. In fact, it was raised in the report of a committee I chaired in 2012, looking at the marriage legislation of Stephen Jones and Adam Bandt. While Moreton has fewer Christians than any other federal electorate in Queensland, I say directly to Moreton's Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs or people of any other religion that the passage of the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 will not affect the right of you or others to practise your faith or to raise your children in accordance with the teachings of your faith and it will not impact in any way on your religious scripture. This change in the legislation is about one thing only: removing discrimination from our Commonwealth Marriage Act.

Religious institutions already have the benefits of exemptions under antidiscrimination legislation. Those exemptions are limited, and the limitations have been tested in the courts. To dispel the misinformation, I refer firstly to the Cobaw case. The Cobaw case concerned the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 2010. That legislation provides two exemptions for religious bodies or individuals. Firstly, anything done by a body established for religious purposes was exempt where it:

(a) conforms with the doctrines, beliefs or principles of the religion; or

(b) is reasonably necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivities of adherents of the religion.

This is not dissimilar to the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act 1991. Secondly, it exempted discriminatory acts that were necessary for the discriminator to comply with the person's genuine religious beliefs or principles.

The facts of Cobaw were as follows: in 2007, Christian Youth Camps operated the Phillip Island Adventure Resort. The Cobaw Community Health Service ran a state funded youth suicide prevention program for same-sex attracted youth called WayOut. Cobaw attempted to book the Phillip Island Adventure Resort for a camp for 60 same-sex attracted youth and 12 health workers. After the manager of Christian Youth Camps inquired as to the nature of the camp, he refused to allow the booking. That case first went to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, with a finding that there was discrimination and the exemptions under the legislation did not apply.

On appeal, however, it was held that Christian Youth Camps was not a body established for religious purposes and could not avail itself of the exemptions under the legislation. It was further held that, even if it were a body established for religious purposes, the refusal of the booking was not necessary to avoid injury to the religious sensitivity of the adherents. The court was required to determine in that case whether the discrimination was based on the attribute of homosexuality. It was argued by Christian Youth Camps that the objections were due to an opposition not to homosexuality but to the syllabus of the camp in promoting homosexuality by telling the youths attending the camp that it was a natural and healthy human sexuality.

That argument was emphatically rejected by the court by way of a strong legal precedent. Judge Maxwell adopted the statement of the Administrative Tribunal, saying:

… an objection to telling a person (same-sex) sexual orientation is part of the range of normal, natural or healthy human sexualities is, in truth, an objection to (same-sex) sexual orientation. It denies same-sex attracted people the same rights to live as who they are, to express their sexual orientation in the manner they choose, and to gather with others of the same sexual orientation and those personally associated with them, to discuss matters of particular significance to them by reason of their sexual orientation, as heterosexuals enjoy.

It is interesting to note that a similar argument to that rejected by the court in Cobaw is being raised by members of the government this week. The member for Dawson said yesterday in his second reading contribution:

I've got to say that refusing service for a same-sex marriage is very, very different to refusing service to someone because they're gay. Refusing service to an individual because of who they are is very different to refusing service for a particular event which you might not be able to be part of because of your faith.

Christian Youth Camps sought special leave to appeal the Cobaw decision to the High Court. That special leave application was refused, with costs. Note this: the Cobaw decision demonstrates that religious institutions do have the benefits of exemptions from antidiscrimination laws to allow them to freely practise their religion, but the exemptions are balanced so that individuals are not discriminated against unless the discrimination is necessary for the practice of that religion.

Often cited is the Tasmanian archbishop case, where the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart, Julian Porteous, had a complaint lodged against him under the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act. Archbishop Porteous produced a booklet outlining the Catholic church's teachings on marriage for distribution in Catholic schools. However, I do point out that the complaint was eventually withdrawn. Maybe the complainant saw that their case had no chance of success. There is no doubt that tensions exist between the protections from discrimination on one hand and religious freedoms on the other. Obviously there are many limbs to the work we do in government. We need to debate and pass legislation. What is happening in the other chamber right now is a change to the Marriage Act.

Another important part of my work in parliament is the work of committees like the one referred to in this report. They have a wider role, inquiring into matters referred to them and reporting on those inquiries. Committees look at the bigger picture. They take a wider view of the world, evidenced from lots of people. They see whether the balance has been achieved or whether change is needed. It is appropriate that this committee is looking at this issue now. It should give people some comfort, especially those of faith who have concerns about the changes to the Marriage Act being debated in the other chamber. I know they have some concerns about their free practice of religion. I do not have those concerns. As a Catholic—admittedly not the best Catholic in Australia, but someone who goes to church regularly—I know I'll still be able to practise my faith freely, in the same way I've done all my life. After the changes to the Marriage Act have been made law there will be no change.

My final message to all those who are concerned about the legislation being debated right now: I wish all people in Australia a very, very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a few brief comments on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's Interim report: legal foundations of religious freedom in Australia. The Australian Constitution, section 116, outlines that:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion …

I am standing to ensure that Australia remains a free, pluralist and tolerant society—a society where commissions and boards are not given Orwellian power to impose belief or prohibit the free exercise of religion. Unfortunately, as acknowledged by submissions to the committee, Australian law—in contrast to the strong and clear protection for religious freedoms under international law, article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—provided weak and inadequate protection for freedom of religion and belief.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, coining the phrase 'wall of separation between church and state', he was emphasising to the church, which had been persecuted in Europe, that it would be protected from an imposed state religion. It was about protecting the church from the state, not the state from the church. Sadly, there does appear to be a slow creep into our public institutions of an intolerance of Christian values, values that have played an important part in Australia and have provided us with the great country that we have today.

I say to all people in this House that we need to make sure that religious protections are protected. The report said that, currently, they are weak and inadequate and we need to do a lot better. I listened to the member opposite, the member for Cowan, and to the member for Goldstein and I say that I hope we can all work together to make sure that protections are stronger going forward.

Tim Hammond (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm delighted to rise to speak on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's Interim report: legal foundations of religious freedom in Australia. I acknowledge the words of the member for Petrie and certainly endorse those words in terms of seeking to help usher in a new era of bipartisanship when it comes to working towards creating that outcome—where citizens' freedoms in relation to religions they seek to practice are protected, but at the same time, of course, ensuring that we strive for a more just and equal society. I will speak more on that in just a moment.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the member for Moreton and his contribution previously made, noting that this year marks the 10th anniversary that the member for Moreton has been representing his community. I note the significant diversity of cultures and faiths in the member for Moreton's community and also the extent to which he fearlessly prosecutes a case for religious freedoms in that community. I note as well that the member for Moreton has a significant track record in relation to making sure that we have freedom of religion and faith in this community, having led the charge in ensuring that the protections enshrined within 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act are upheld at all material times.

This report is an interim report issued as part of the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or belief. Specifically, the interim report goes into the legal foundations of religious freedoms we enjoy in Australia. I have to say that the timing of this report could not be more impeccable, insofar as the debate that is currently taking place in both houses of parliament, insofar as the amendments to the Marriage Act goes, and the extent to which there is absolutely no relationship at all between the amendments that are sought to be made to the Marriage Act, in which marriage equality will be a reality for those same-sex couples who wish to be married. It must be said that at no material time is there any evidence whatsoever that any of those amendments will mean that any religious freedoms are being taken away from any section of the community. In my respectful submission, any assertion that amendments are required in order to bolster those religious protections and freedoms that are sought to be prosecuted—by some on the other side in particular—in many respects have a great risk of achieving the opposite outcome. That outcome is one in which we simply see a situation where, on the one hand, we are seeking to take away a form of discrimination, by virtue of making sure that the amendments to the Marriage Act are being put through, but, on the other hand, we are seeking to protect discriminatory behaviour in a circumstance where there is simply no evidence to suggest that one will equal the other. We have a perfectly well-balanced system of values in this country that allows all religious faiths to go about practising their beliefs and values in a way that ensures they are free from persecution.

We've just concluded a process in this country in which issues around freedom of religion were given prominence by some in the context of competing rights. In rights-based paradigms there has always been tension between rights wherever they compete or conflict. Take yesterday's incredible media circus of Milo Yiannopoulos. Before Milo arrived in town, I thought Milo was a lovely chocolatey drink to enjoy after school. It turns out this is a very different form of Milo, and I am pleased to say we're not all made of Milo. We saw in this building the exercise of Mr Yiannopoulos's freedom of speech, as well as the freedom of protest from a group of people who disagree with his world view. We know that implied constitutional rights around freedom of speech are not absolute; however, they are quite properly bound by defamation laws inter alia. This report covers a number of implied constitutional rights. However, it is worth noting the High Court has not yet indicated whether the Constitution contains an implied right, for instance, to be a bottom-feeding attention seeker.

I thought that the comments from Senator Jane Hume were fantastic yesterday. She expressed her freedom of expression by indicating that the best way to deal with an attention seeker is to simply ignore them and turn the volume down. She says a young man swaggering into Canberra, attention seeking and saying outrageous things and appeasing the far Right and getting some media coverage sounds like the coalition party room! That is a terrific balance—she has freedom of expression while injecting a bit of humour into what is otherwise sometimes a very long day in this place.

In this report, the subcommittee reflected this notion that antidiscrimination is an important social value but can also exist in tension with rights to freedom of religion. They say:

The right to hold a religion or belief is absolute. The right to manifest a religion or belief is not absolute, as the manifestation of one's beliefs may impact the enjoyment of the rights of other people … Any limitations on the right to manifest one's religion or belief must be specifically prescribed in law, must be reasonable and proportionate, and, significantly, must be necessary to achieve a legitimate aim or respond to a pressing public or social need.

The timing of the release of this report and its debate in this chamber while concurrently the House is considering the marriage equality bill goes to the heart of the anxiety that some in our parliament actually have. We saw during the postal survey the 'no' campaign trying to frame this debate as being about anything except actual marriage, which was at the substance of what was sought to be debated. The 'no' campaign, quite conversely, sought to characterise the survey as a referendum on freedom of religious expression. We've seen in subsequent debate amendments to the marriage equality bill that seek to insert new purported religious freedoms in the Marriage Act. Let's just think about that for one minute. To what extent should we in this place be seeking to use the Marriage Act as a vehicle to articulate, either impliedly or expressly, some form of a bill of rights? That gets to the heart of the reason, even if one buys into the notion that any of these amendments have some sort of community substance in respect of reflecting the values and needs of the community, why we're debating them at a time when marriage equality is long overdue. Much of the debate could be truncated, and any notion of inserting some form of religious freedoms into the Marriage Act could be carved out and dealt with by way of a separate order of business—which has always been the view on this side of the chamber.

Indeed, when you look at what is sought to be done here, which is including effectively a pseudo bill of rights type of provision in the Marriage Act, if we drill down into that we find there are opponents of that approach on the government side. The member for Goldstein, who professes to be a champion of Liberal values, has drawn to the attention of his colleagues that a bill of rights is actually inconsistent with the socially conservative values that are sought to be prosecuted by those professing to be Liberals, big 'L' or small 'l'. The truth is that, while Australia doesn't have a Commonwealth bill of rights that sets out in legislation rights and freedoms that have been expressed in international law, antidiscrimination law does have significant carve-outs for religious organisations. Section 37 of the Sex Discrimination Act, for example, exempts religious bodies for:

… any other act or practice of a body established for religious purposes, being an act or practice that conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of that religion or is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.

Those carve-outs are reflected in this report given the primacy of religious exemptions to antidiscrimination law and public discourse.

In conclusion, the report echoes, in my view, current community values in that there are freedoms contained within legislation that are already enshrined in our community and have been debated in this House considerably over the years. There is no need to extend that through any form of amendment to the Marriage Act, as we currently see. I commend the report to the chamber.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 11:51 to 17:45