Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Prime Minister. Isn't it the case that, if your Religious Discrimination Bill is passed, even with your amendments, a school can sack an unmarried teacher because she's pregnant, if it's against the school's beliefs; a doctor can tell their patient that their sickness is a punishment from God because they're gay; and a student can be expelled because they're transgender? We all support protecting religious groups from victimisation. But why are you using the dying days of this parliament to push through a Trojan Horse for hate that will mean more discrimination, not less?

Andrew Wallace (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just before the Prime Minister rises, I'm concerned—and I'm happy to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House—that the question involves legal opinion. I'm happy to hear from the Manager of Opposition Business.

Does the member for Melbourne wish to rephrase the question?

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to address your point of order.

Andrew Wallace (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Melbourne has the call.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, that goes to questions about things that the Prime Minister has said previously about what is in this bill and what is not in this bill and the effect of this bill. So it is asking about things that the Prime Minister has already said. It is about what the effect of legislation will be—not about giving legal advice about an existing situation but, 'What will be the case if the legislation is passed?' If you can't ask government ministers, 'What will be the effect of your laws if they're passed?' because it amounts to legal advice, then none of us can ask anything about any government legislation in this parliament.

Andrew Wallace (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I accept the explanation of the member for Melbourne. The Prime Minister has the call.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm very happy to answer the member's question. If he is seeking a legal opinion on the matters that he has raised, about what the impacts are, as he has outlined them, then he should check with the member for Isaacs, because the very issues that the member raises are a result of the laws introduced by the Labor Party in relation to transgender children or children of different sexual orientation. Those laws, to allow the expulsion of those students, were introduced by the Labor Party when they were last in government.

I'm asked whether I should be coming here and making changes to laws that were introduced by the Labor Party that have the exact effect of what you are speaking about. What I am introducing and what I introduced at this dispatch box was a set of positive laws which weren't about the Sex Discrimination Act—positive laws that prevent discrimination against people of religious faith or who have no religious faith. The issues that are contained in that bill do not provide the powers to do the things that you talk about. Those powers exist in the law as it stands today, as was introduced by the Labor Party when they were last in government.

So our laws are about speaking to all of those Australians that have come from places far and wide around the globe—and we were at a Greek Orthodox church today, but we could easily have been at a Maronite church or at a Coptic Orthodox church; we could have been at those churches. I can tell you that their parishioners would say this to you, as Bishop Tarabay—a good friend of many in this chamber—has said to me: they came here to flee religious persecution and discrimination, and they came to this country believing this was a country where those things would be protected, and they are finding that not to be their experience. So I'm prepared to legislate on behalf of our government. I took this to the Australian people and they supported us, and they supported, at the ballot box, those protections being provided to people of religious faith.

Now, if those in this chamber want to speak about multiculturalism and how great a multicultural society it is, then they must acknowledge the role of faith and culture in this country, and if they want to support multiculturalism in this chamber then I urge them to support the bill, because I know the faith communities of suburban Melbourne, whether they be the Sikhs or the Hindus, or the Muslims of Sydney and Melbourne, or the Christians of north-western Sydney or Queensland or southern Tasmania or northern Tasmania or wherever you happen to be. If you support religious freedom and opposing religious discrimination, support the bill. (Time expired)