Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Too often the only thing people know about the Christian faith is what they learnt before they left primary school and what they see in the news headlines. At the heart of this is the growing hostility, at first in radical circles but increasingly in broader circles, to the holistic view that Christians have of marriage, life and family. Properly presented, Christian teachings are not threatening, but they are at odds with the zeitgeist. Today those teachings are attacked by people who have a different view, some of whom have hostility to organised religion and Christianity in particular.

The diminished public standing of the church is not a problem created entirely by its own detractors. Some of the decline in the standing of the church as an organised religion is self-inflicted. Failures of leadership and moral corruption have undermined the standing of faith communities and faith leaders. Among ordinary churchgoers, people of faith have at times been unwelcoming and usurped God's role as judge by failing to take a pastoral approach to those who differ or find themselves falling short of the standards the church encourages. But, despite being sorely tested, the church has always had countless good leaders and faithful people whose lives demonstrate extraordinary virtue, which contributes immeasurably to the common good. The central tenets of Christian faith—love for your neighbour, practices of forgiveness and confession, and a commitment to holiness coupled with a commitment to grace—have enriched the lives not only of faith filled people but of every one of us.

Since European settlement, Christian values have been reflected in our laws, even if not explicitly stated. Yet over the years these values have been undermined. But today, too, Christians are increasingly suffering discrimination. In a case brought by the Human Rights Law Alliance in 2020, a committed Christian was banned from a Canberra cafe for reading the Bible and praying with her friend who has autism. Staff at the cafe saw the two ladies reading the Bible and praying and assumed that the woman with autism was being taken advantage of. When the two women went up to pay, the manager accused the first woman of brainwashing, and banned her from the cafe. In another case, a Christian GP displayed a notice in her practice advising patients that she didn't consult on contraception, assisted reproductive technology or the termination of life. When her notice went viral on social media, the public furore was intense. Two activists lodged complaints to the medical board about her practice, challenging her professional registration. The practice was embroiled in a media firestorm.

When I brought faith leaders in my community together about two years ago, I heard things that I thought I would never hear in the Australia in which I was raised. I was told by Christians about being worried about quoting the Bible and sharing Jesus's teachings, about what they can teach in their schools, about who they can employ, about the use of discrimination law as a weapon and about a deep-seated media bias against Christians.

Then there's the legislative attack on Christians. Whatever the Labor Party may say to faith communities, my message to faith leaders is not to listen to what Labor says but to look at what Labor does in government. One only needs to look at the Andrews Labor government in Victoria to see the way in which, at every turn, the Andrews Labor government has sought to restrict the space in which people of faith are able to exercise their freedom of religion, from the attacks on the seal of the confessional and multiple attacks on the exercise of religious conscience, to the attack on the right to gather to protect human life and the attack on the right to provide preference in employment, or even the attack on the right to pray. All of these rights have been under a full-scale assault by the Victorian Labor government and provide the best insight into what a federal Labor government might do. All of these factors contribute to the need for this bill.

I want to acknowledge the Attorney-General's very thorough consultations on this bill. It's hard to imagine a bill that has been the subject of more community input, from all points of view. No-one has got everything they wanted, but everyone has had their opportunity to be heard.

I know others have spoken about amending the Sex Discrimination Act. Those sensitive matters will be properly and soberly considered by the Australian Law Reform Commission, and, save for government amendments to this bill, the appropriate time to deal with them is after the ALRC process has concluded. They too deserve the same level of extensive consultation and input that this bill has had.

The discussion about religious freedom is essentially about how we can live together with difference and create a truly pluralistic society, and how we can respect people of faith and of no faith. In the same way we protect people from being discriminated against on the basis of their sex, race, age or disability, we should also protect people from being discriminated against on the basis of their faith.

Religion is, however, different to other protected attributes in two ways. First, religion is about more than just identity. The nature of being male, old, black or disabled may mean that you have certain experiences in common with others who share that attribute, but they're derived from a state of being. However, the nature of being a person of faith is different because religion provides a moral and ethical framework ordained by God, or whatever supreme being a person might believe in, and a series of related practices by which they should live. These help guide people on not only their identity but the meaning of their life. To the genuine believer, religious doctrines, practices or commands are not suggestions. When a Hindu doesn't eat beef, it's not like vegetarians choosing to be vegetarian because they don't like meat. They are not eating beef because they believe that the cow is a sacred animal.

Second, religion is different to other protected attributes because it's inherently communal. Unlike other protected attributes, religion often requires practices to be done in concert with other people for the actions to be religious. Therefore, unlike other protected attributes, religion doesn't just require the protection of the individual believer but the religious institution, be it a church or an organisation established by people from a religious community. It may be for a purpose of education, social welfare, health or aged care, but it is a way in which a group of believers come together to put their beliefs into action.

Finally, I want to observe that this bill has had the unintended benefit of bringing faith leaders together—this has occurred in many cases for the first time—to work in common cause to protect people of faith from discrimination and to allow faith based organisations, in the words of the Catholic archbishop of Melbourne, Peter Comensoli, to 'embody and pursue their religious mission'. This has created deeper relationships across faith communities and helped faith leaders to better understand the particular challenges each face. The strengthening of these relationships can only lead to a stronger and more harmonious Australia.

Last year, faith leaders representing a wide range of Christian denominations, including Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Presbyterian, evangelical and Maronite churches, as well as Muslim and Jewish communities, penned a letter about the Religious Discrimination Bill, setting out their views. In it the leaders noted that, while there were a range of provisions they would have liked to have seen included in the bill, including greater protections for conscience and protections against employer codes of conduct, 'We welcome this bill because it will protect people of faith from discrimination on the basis of their religious beliefs and will allow faith based organisations to act in accordance with their doctrines, tenets and beliefs without this being disallowed as religious discrimination.'

This bill doesn't give everyone everything they want, but it's a balanced and reasonable compromise. I commend it to the House.

Helen Haines (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Freedom of thought, conscience and belief is a fundamental human right. I support that right and I support the intent of this bill, the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, to protect people of faith or nonfaith in Australia from discrimination on that basis. I know that the people of Indi, who I represent, support that intent. No-one should be declined a bank loan, treated differently in a rental application or asked to leave a cafe because of their faith, for example. No-one should be unwelcome simply because of their faith.

I believe we can all agree on that, and if that were all this bill sought to do then I could offer it my wholehearted support. But that isn't the case. As many of us who have spoken before me have pointed out, this bill does not just create a shield from discrimination on the basis of belief; it also creates many swords. Whenever we talk about human rights, be those the right to religion, the right to life, the right to privacy or countless others, we must ensure that in protecting one right we do not gratuitously supersede another. This idea of getting the balance right is not a new one and, in my view, we haven't yet got the balance right on this legislation.

Firstly, the government's amendments to section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act, revealed only yesterday, do not afford LGBTQIA+ students and teachers adequate protections from discrimination in religious schools. That's simply a fact. As it stands, religious schools will still be in the position to proactively discriminate against LGBTQIA+ students and teachers—except specifically for expelling gay students. As we know, LGBTQIA+ students are often subject to bullying and other discriminatory tactics that lead to those students dropping out or changing schools. This happens and yet allows the school to say that they were never formally expelled. Schools have been known to prevent gay teachers and students from bringing their same-sex partners to school events, for example. This sends such a clear message that their love is not acceptable and that these people are somehow lesser and othered.

The amendment that is here at present will not offer wider protection to these students and teachers, and I feel that it must. The amendment also provides absolutely no protection for transgender students, without justification. It is truly horrifying. That we, as a federal parliament in 2022, could actively choose to afford no protection to these young people is not something that I can support.

With this knowledge, I cannot say, hand on heart, that we have the balance right in this legislation. When the Prime Minister committed to protections of this nature during the Wentworth by-election in 2018, he said that he did not want any child to be discriminated against. I don't believe the amendments that we have in front of us live up to that aspiration. I know that many MPs within the government's own ranks know this too. Some have sought to extend the feeble protections offered in the government's amendment, but to no success at this hour. If we are prepared to legislate and, indeed, elevate the rights of religious schools, we must be prepared to offer full protections for LGBTQIA+ students and teachers too. That's the very least we could do, and we haven't done that here.

The second reason I cannot support this bill is that it rolls back current anti-discrimination laws in favour of a proactive right to discriminate on religious grounds. Under section 12, employees, students or people accessing health care and other services will have to accept offensive, uninformed, insulting, demeaning or damaging statements made about them regarding their age, their disability, their gender or another protected attribute because of a religious belief. I want to be clear here: I believe in the fundamental right to hold such a religious belief. But legislating a right to put that view into the public square at the expense of other protections is a step too far. While there are some safeguards, like the need for the statement to be made in good faith and without malice, it's still unclear to me, to the committees which reviewed this bill and to the Australian public just how far this roll-back will go. Countless stakeholders on both sides oppose these provisions too, from the Australian Human Rights Commission itself to Diversity Council Australia and the Uniting Church.

I simply cannot support such a monumental steamrolling of our antidiscrimination laws, based on two hypotheticals in an explanatory memorandum and a lack of broad based support. Again, it's obvious that we haven't got the balance right. We're not there yet.

This bill was an opportunity for us to come together and legislate this protection in a measured and collaborative way. I know that the people of Indi, who I represent, wanted that to be measured and collaborative, to bring us together. I've heard from people of faith and non-faith who seek balance, compassion and safety for all. As a legislator and a member of this broader Australian community, I can't give them that assurance right now. I don't think we've achieved those things.

Australia is a proud secular society. Over time, we have striven to be as inclusive as possible of diverse faiths and have come to celebrate that diversity. I want us to continue in that direction.

I'll be watching the Senate debate very carefully, when that comes about, and any further proposed amendments with great interest—with great interest. I will watch them conscientiously, and I will reassess this bill if it returns to the House in a better form. But it would take a lot. There is a world in which this bill could be improved to a standard that I could support, but right now we are not there. Unfortunately, the time for passing this bill is not now.

Garth Hamilton (Groom, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you to all who have written in to me on this issue, both in support of and in opposition to this bill, the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021. Overwhelmingly, the correspondence received by my office has been in favour of the bill, and perhaps, from my electorate, that is not surprising. What was very clear in the correspondence we received was a level of passion on both sides, clearly articulating concerns that exist, needs that need to be filled and the desire, across the board, for certainty.

My area is often described as a strongly conservative place. I think of the German Lutherans and later the Irish Catholics who settled in the Toowoomba region and had a significant impact on the way of life that continues to this day and can be felt very much. Toowoomba is a place where people feel free to make expressions of faith in confidence that they'll be met in a spirit of good faith and respect. Having lived all around Australia, I appreciate very much that this is not a universal. It is something that Toowoomba should be very proud of. In fact, I would argue that the region's approach to religious expression is one of the reasons we've been so successful as a haven for recently arrived refugees—something we're very proud of—many of whom come to these shores with very strongly held religious beliefs and who, in some very sad cases, as in that of the Yazidi community, were persecuted for holding those beliefs before coming here. I'm very glad they feel proud to come to Toowoomba and feel at ease in expressing their religious beliefs. I'm very proud that we are a refugee welcome zone.

Toowoomba's brand of conservatism is not an act of resistance to change but rather a desire to continue Western civilisation's momentum through small and regular steps towards the righteous and the good. That balance we seek, of progress and stability, of freedom and security, was well displayed in the communications I received. Once again, I thank all of those in my community who reached out. I spoke to many this morning, preceding this speech, thanking them for taking that time.

I believe this bill does seek compromise. I believe this very fully. While not everyone who wrote in to me will get what they want, what they will get is an improvement upon what is.

I'd offer a personal reflection as part of my contribution: I wasn't a church goer. I seldom make an expression of my beliefs at all. Neither right nor wrong, good nor bad, I was raised to see religion as an intensely personal matter. I'm not sure this view will prove, in the long term, compatible with political life, but, for now, it's how I've lived. I've lived largely free of personal experience of discrimination on the basis of my beliefs, and I would guess this is the experience of most Australians. But, for now, my contribution comes from my role as a parent, overseeing with as much care as I can the growth and education of my own children. I obviously didn't attend a religious school, but two of my three children have benefited from Catholic education, attending the same school as their mother, St Saviour's College in Toowoomba. It was there I had my first experience of the sense of religious community and family continuity.

It's with a view towards the impacts on educational institutions that I'll address the bill. I think it's appropriate I do so, as the member for Groom. We are something of an educational hub. We have 28 independent schools. About a quarter of the schools in our region are faith based. We have people come to Toowoomba from all across western Queensland and northern New South Wales. We are even lucky enough to be able to host a couple of flights of people from Arnhem Land every year, who come down and board in our educational facilities. My wife and I chose Catholic education, as many parents do each year, right around Australia, not just because of the high quality of educational outcomes delivered but for that somewhat intangible element that religious education provides. It's not just the words that are read out to the kids. It's not the historical facts or fables that hopefully help our kids to become better and more just and compassionate versions of themselves. In fact, I think of one constituent, a good friend, who told me the story of taking the time as a parent to find the right school for his kid, as a Catholic. He went to all of the Catholic schools in the region and eventually settled on the local state school, as it was the best fit for his child. I think this understanding of what a school offers, what its beliefs are and how they will come out to play in act, indeed, is what's important to parents. It's not in the words spoken but rather in the deeds practised that the full value of education is revealed. As a parent, I look for that ability to apply those teachings in one's life as a demonstration of a good education. This is, for me, an issue of practice and habit rather than one of instruction, and these are the freedoms I believe this bill seeks to protect.

We here in Australia enjoy many freedoms—freedom of thought, freedom of association, expression of belief—and this bill seeks to enshrine in law something of each one of these. In this place, much work has been done to prevent discrimination on the basis of race, sex and ability, and it's right that that work has been done. I have lived in countries where that work has not been done, where there are no protections afforded to the vulnerable in the community, where systemic discrimination denies equality of opportunity. During my time in Saudi Arabia, I lived amongst a people whose potential could not ever be met, not because of any fault in themselves but because, by design of government, they were restricted and limited in their freedoms. It may perhaps be an extreme example, but it is one I make to highlight the advantages of addressing discrimination and what that brings to the nation. It is within the context of this broader framework of antidiscrimination that I believe this bill is best appraised. I would encourage the House to view the bill as a welcome addition to the suite of existing legislation that is of so much credit to this nation.

It would be wrong at this point to ignore the events of recent days—the debate sparked by the actions of Citipointe Christian College. It is right that the college has expressed regret for their actions following what was very clearly a declaration of community expectations. I know that the leaders of the religious schools in my area that I've spoken to share this view. This episode, however, raises two points that I believe both speak to why this bill is needed. Firstly, there exists a void in our legislative framework when it comes to religion and religious expression, and it's a void—a pothole, perhaps—in a high-traffic area. Every year, parents, much like Louise and I, engage with religious schools on the basis of certain understandings. We enter into these agreements well informed as to the school's offer, and, in many cases, the school goes to some effort to understand the needs and commitment of the parents. This is, in the view of a humble engineer, a simple market transaction, an understanding between two bodies. However, as the Citipointe case reveals, there is a lack of certainty as to what legislative protections are in place.

As mentioned, most parents enter into this agreement with their eyes wide open, and so they should. They have certain expectations as to the words and, most importantly, the deeds in the religious instruction that they sign up for. I think this leads to the second point, which others have addressed, and that is how religious freedoms relate to other freedoms that we in this place have worked to achieve. How do we ensure that we don't create a hierarchy of freedoms that privilege one over the other in a way that is contrary to our social expectations? I very much welcome the recommendation to review the Sex Discrimination Act to ensure that religious freedoms do not enable discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I think this is a perfectly sensible approach to bringing together a raft of different protections. I would see this as a positive step, and one that acknowledges that we have much to do. We have much work in front of us and we shouldn't shy away from that.

With respect to those who've spoken against the bills on the basis of the problems that are created when we look at religious discrimination in light of other areas we've already covered—as I mentioned, discrimination on the basis of sexuality, race or disability—I would argue that this is not a challenge that should prevent us from taking a step forward. Rather, it's something we should see as a challenge that we must inevitably overcome, and it's a challenge I very much believe we can overcome. It's clear, when taking a broader view, that we are going through a period of change in our society and we have yet to find the balance. Perhaps we'll always be going through periods of change, and so we should—that's how we bend Western civilisation ever more in the arc towards a better place. We have to find that balance where in both word and deed religious institutions can engage with confidence and comfortably make expressions of their beliefs.

This is the outcome that I would seek to focus the debate on to ensure that we as a society can continue to benefit from the contributions that religious organisations have made to our society. When a parent picks up their kids from school and asks them what they learned that day, there should be no surprises, and that statement cuts both ways. It has taken us a long time to get to where we are today in regard to sexual discrimination. We're certainly not perfect; we're not yet at an end point. But we are better and we are continuing to get better. That is what working to enshrine freedoms does: it improves us. This legislation is not the silver bullet that the previous speaker sought, but rather a step that must be followed by many others as we continue down the path to a better, more just and more compassionate world.

I thank the House for the respectful way in which they've conducted this debate. I think being able to have these conversations very much reflects the spirit of this bill. While some contributions have focused on the extreme implications of this legislation—and it's important to acknowledge those; those unintended consequences should be unacceptable to a diligent House—I would like to end my contribution by noting that in the majority of instances this legislation is enshrining the everyday. This is how we are. I would argue that freedom of religion has long been a core value of Australian society and today it's thankfully largely respected. Again, I would say that goes both ways with the freedom of religion to express our religious beliefs or our non-religious beliefs. But as we've moved to legislate other core values, I'm glad to see us doing so in this legislation. I commend the bills to the House.

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

While the country is tuned in to listen to Grace Tame's and Brittany Higgins's fight for more equality, the Prime Minister is here legislating for more discrimination and hate. Make no mistake, this bill is a Trojan horse for hate. It looks like it's not just the government that's backing it but that the opposition might as well.

This bill will mean more discrimination, not less. This bill does harm. The debate around this bill is already doing harm. We know that already, under existing law, it is legal in many places to discriminate against, victimise and bully people on the basis of their identity. We've seen that play out over recent weeks, as a school says it's going to start expelling students on the basis of who they are. That is under the existing law. The response of the government and the opposition isn't to come in here and say, 'Let's fix that up.' It's instead to take trans kids and throw them under the bus. The debate, before this bill has even passed, is already doing harm. No child in this country should have to wake up to headlines that say they are being traded off as political collateral in an attempt to get a hateful bill through. But that is what is happening just with the debate, and it will get worse if this bill passes. It will get worse.

It's worth reminding ourselves of a couple of basic things. The first is that I suspect everyone in this parliament would agree that we should stop victimisation on the basis of religion. A simple piece of legislation that's based on our existing discrimination laws could do that. But that's not what this bill is. This bill doesn't just have some shields; it has a lot of swords, and those swords can do a lot of harm. Why does this bill have so many swords? You have to remember the second basic fact: how did we get ourselves here? We didn't find ourselves here because there was an identified gap in the law—even though there is, and it's one that we could fill with, I suspect, unanimous support if the government had goodwill. We're here because the hard right of the government didn't want marriage equality. They didn't want love to be equal in this country. So the price they secured for allowing a vote on marriage equality was to be able to come back and unwind some of those protections by increasing discrimination against some of the people who fought for and obtained equality in the first place.

That is why this bill is before us. That is why this bill contains provisions that allow people to go and do things tomorrow that would not be lawful today, as well as extending so many things that are lawful today but shouldn't be. If this bill proceeds, with Liberal and Labor support, then a doctor will be able to tell their patient that they think their illness is a punishment from God because they're gay. A school will be able to sack an unmarried teacher because she's pregnant and that's against the school's beliefs. That is where we are going with this legislation.

Worse: if you've got existing protections under state laws, because you and your community have fought so hard for equality, those protections are going to be taken away. This bill explicitly says that the ability to do all of those things takes away protections you've got under state law. This bill is based on the presumption that, somehow, trans kids are victimising and discriminating against religious bodies and that, somehow, religious bodies need protection from trans kids and people. That is wrong. And that is why this bill does harm: because the discrimination and the hurt are happening the other way around. As a parliament, we should be able to say that we can protect one group of people without taking away the rights of another group. But this government is so intent on delivering for the Tony Abbotts and the Eric Abetzs, and all of those lobby groups that come out and preach hate that it is willing to throw others under the bus. That is unacceptable.

This bill trades the rights of trans people for votes, and it looks like Labor's also getting ready to support it. As things stand at the moment, thanks to a few members of the government backbench who have seen sense and understand that in modern-day Australia we need less discrimination, not more, it looks like the government might not have the numbers to get the bill through. It looks like the only way the government will get its legislation through is if the Labor Party backs it. In other words, the Labor Party is in a position to block this bill. We are calling on the Labor Party to join with the Greens, the members of the crossbench and the members of the government backbench, who know this bill is wrong, and block it and send the government back to the drawing board to come up with a bill that protects people's rights without taking away the rights of others. That's what we could do.

Quite a few of us are going to be pushing for amendments in this place and in the Senate. We hope that we will improve a bad bill. The numbers may be there to do that. The question is: what happens if those amendments don't get passed? What happens if, after all those amendments, the government says, 'No, we still want it to be legal for a doctor to tell their patient they're sick as a punishment from God,' or 'We want it to be legal for a trans kid to be expelled from school,' or 'We want it to be legal for an unmarried teacher to lose her job because she's pregnant'? What happens then? That's what we should do when we have the numbers to block his bill. It is not enough to say, 'Oh, we might fix it up later on.' I've heard that script before, and these things tend not to get unwound. That happened with marriage equality. It got passed in this House, with Labor voting for it, and it took us years and years of campaigning to get those freedoms back. It didn't happen overnight, and a lot of harm was done in that time. We now have the opportunity in this place to stop hurt and discrimination from happening. We know that hurt is happening right now. People in the community are listening and watching and reading the debate and saying: 'Why am I political collateral? I am a kid trying to live my life; why do you want to make it easier for people to discriminate against me and hurt me?' We can stop that.

In this government's dying days it is trying to fight a culture war because its got nothing else left in the tank. It is trying to increase discrimination and hate, because that's what it promised the preachers of right-wing hate it would do. I am pleading with the Labor Party not to throw the Prime Minister a hate-filled life raft in the dying days of this government by trading off trans kids for votes. Yes, we will all come in here and try to improve this bill. The question is: what do we do if it's still a bad bill and we can block it? Do we block it or do we wave it through? Over the weekend, I was really proud to march again in the Pride March in St Kilda. I saw members of the Labor Party there. I think it's great they were there. They were wearing T-shirts that said 'Equality is non-negotiable'. Let's find out whether that's true. I sincerely hope that we block this bill. That will be a great day.

We expect hate from this government, because, as I said, this bill is only here as a sop to the far Right within the government. It's not here out of a genuine desire to protect religions from victimisation. This government has perpetrated victimisation against so many groups. I've heard the Islamophobia coming from this government and members of this government. I've heard them round on groups in my community when they thought it would win votes. This government doesn't care about protecting people from discrimination. It wants to increase it, so we expect it. We expect it from this government. But, if this government is supported, and this Trojan Horse for hate gets through because of the Labor Party, we will let every person in this country know, right up until the election and beyond, that the Labor Party just facilitated the Prime Minister's bill to increase discrimination and increase hate in this country. That will be something that every voter needs to hear, because it's about what you do when you have some power, how you exercise it. Do you exercise it on behalf of those who need help or do you trade them away in the hope that you might win some votes somewhere else?

I'll tell you this. As a member who has been privileged enough to represent the diverse electorate of Melbourne for a few years now, I know what it is to fight against Islamophobia and to fight against the discrimination and victimisation that so many of our Muslim Australians feel on a daily basis, at the same time as fighting to defend the rights of our LGBTI communities. We had the highest yes vote in the country during the plebiscite, and we have also led the charge against Islamophobia. When you fight on the basis of your values and you say they are not for sale, people respect it. When you start trading off your values and saying that a group of people who struggle every day to go to school, to go to work, to get up in the morning in many instances—not in all but in many instances they do, and the research tells us that many of them are doing it harder because of the messages that come out of places like this. They're the people you fight for when you've got the chance. They're the people to whom you say, when you've got the chance to vote, 'We are going to defend you.'

When we finally achieved marriage equality in this country, after years and years of pushing—the Greens, the community groups, eventually getting others on board—it made a difference. It made a difference not just to people who wanted to get married but to everyone who didn't, because it sent a message from this place that all love is equal, and that's the message we should be sending. That's the message we should be sending now: no matter who you are, you are loved. It is our responsibility as parliamentarians to remove discrimination and say to everyone—every young kid who is growing up in a country town who is unsure about who they're attracted to, everyone who is turning up to school worried about whether they're going to fit in—'You are loved. You are loved the way you are, and we will always defend you.' That's what we will do as the Greens. That's what all of us have the opportunity to do in this place and that's what we should do by rejecting this bill.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's always interesting to follow the contributions of the member for Melbourne, but I'll agree with him on this point: we should treat people with love, dignity and respect. But too often today I think that becomes a one-way street, and certain political views or religious views are to be removed from the public square, but other, approved views are acceptable. It's part of the reason that I think it's important that we're debating the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 today and that this bill be passed. People's religious views form an integral part of their culture.

I represent an electorate in a city—the city of Logan—that has people from 200-plus different cultural backgrounds, and I'm pleased to say that, by and large, the people from those different cultural and, by extension, religious backgrounds get on extraordinarily well. I think it's one of the great traits of this country that we have a multicultural society that respects people's religion and cultural values, and in many regards we now celebrate the food and culture of those different backgrounds and we enjoy that experience ourselves. In looking across the spectrum of public debate today, I came across a quote from the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks from several years ago. He said:

There must be some set of principles that we can appeal to, and be held accountable to, if our common humanity is to survive our religious differences. Religious freedom is about our common humanity, and we must fight for it if we are not to lose it. This, I believe, is the issue of our time.

I think that is a great summary and illustration of the importance of this bill and why we're debating it.

Many mount the argument about organised religion, and there are arguments about what people believe or do not believe. This bill covers those who take part in organised religion, but, equally, it protects people who are of no religious faith as well. But what's important and common for all of us in that space is that we all have a belief system. We all have a belief system that underpins our values and our view of the world, and that should be protected. We protect other rights, through the Sex Discrimination Act and various other acts. Equally, I believe we should be protecting the right of people to hold religious views—or to not hold those views—and to articulate those views in a considered, thoughtful manner.

Despite some of the comments that others have made about the ability for people to say hateful, hurtful things as a result of this bill passing, that is not the case. If that were the case, I wouldn't support this bill, because I don't believe that is appropriate. It certainly would not assist our nation going forward if people had open slather to say hurtful, hateful things to other people on the basis of their religion or their sex or any other attribute. But, in my experience across my electorate, I don't see that that's the case. There might be the odd person who does. That person should be held to account for expressing views that seek to ridicule or demean others who might have a different view on life or a different set of beliefs. As Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said, we need to work together to focus on our common humanity and see how we can make our society a better place for everybody to live in.

A point a number of people have made in this debate is around the actions of our schools. I was particularly disappointed by the decision that Citipointe made. They made that decision for whatever reasons they decided to make it. But, over the 11 or so years that I have been the member for Forde, I have never encountered that sentiment in the Christian schools and independent schools in my electorate. I have never had a representation from a parent that their child or children have been treated in such a manner at a school. And that is not only in the private school sector but also in the state school sector. Both have done an extraordinary job of looking after our children and supporting them, wherever they are at.

I would say the same applies to the many faith based organisations across my electorate, who each and every day go out and do an extraordinary job in our community, helping people from all walks of life. I've seen firsthand the work they do. They don't ask people what religious background they come from. They don't ask people if they have a particular lifestyle. They seek to help those people where they're at. There are those in this debate who wish to demean or cast aspersions or negative reflections on the work that these groups do, and who say that, because of this bill, those groups are now going to do something different from what they currently do. I find that extremely disappointing. In my experience of talking to and working with those groups, that is very, very far from being the case. They want to help those people where they are at, in whatever situation they are in.

As I've said, this bill will implement three recommendations from the Religious Freedom Review. It's important to remember that this is not something that we have come to in just the last five minutes, as others have tried to argue. To get to this point, this has been worked on for the last three years, with hearings, discussions and reviews. It has been an enormous piece of work, and I think this legislation will go a long way to addressing a number of the issues raised by various bodies. It implements recommendations 3, 15 and 19 of the Religious Freedom Review. Importantly, it broadly follows existing federal antidiscrimination law structure and would operate alongside those existing antidiscrimination laws.

The bill provides specific and general exemptions to the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or activity. Others in this debate have outlined a variety of circumstances where that has occurred and why these bills are important. This bill will also provide that certain conduct by religious bodies would not constitute discrimination. Under the bill, 'religious bodies' are defined to include religious schools, religious charities or other religious bodies that are not primarily or solely engaged in commercial activities. Clause 7 of the bill provides that it is not unlawful for certain religious bodies to engage, in good faith, in conduct that a person of the same religion as the religious bodies would reasonably consider to be in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of that religion. Importantly, with any of these things, there is always a responsibility on the individual who has the capacity to make a comment to consider the impact of that comment on others. This has not become an open-ended opportunity for people to say things to deliberately denigrate or hurt or inflict pain on others. I would caution those who seek to, or think that they can, take advantage of that; it's not what the intention of this bill is.

As I've touched on, the faith community across my electorate has spoken to me at length about this. As with anything, there's a variety of opinions. I've had people write to me in support and I've had people write to me in opposition to this bill. I take all those comments and all that feedback into account. But, on the balance of what I see in this bill and the importance of this bill in providing protection for people of religious faith—not just of Christian faith but of all religious faiths, and, equally, those who hold no faith—I'm very pleased to stand in this House to speak on this bill and to be part of a government that seeks to introduce these very important protections. Importantly also, as part of this bill we will establish a religious discrimination commissioner in the Australian Human Rights Commission. The Australian Law Reform Commission will also be tasked with some further work in review.

It's essential that we have legislation against all forms of discrimination. We have that in many other areas. That's why it's so important that this bill pass, to protect religious freedoms. The combined bills will work together to improve the confidence of those in Australia who have faith, or have no faith. Equally, they'll work together with other legislative mechanisms we already have in place. I commend this bill to the House.

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and the related bills. Last September I was sitting on a chair outside Brisbane Airport when I saw a taxi in the queue, with other cars shuffling around the car and going to the front of the queue. I was a little intrigued. Had the car broken down? What was going on? Then I saw a man on his knees, on his prayer mat, on the pavement. He was praying. He was uninterrupted; he quietly and earnestly practised his faith. The man then rolled up his prayer mat, opened his car door, started the car and rejoined the taxi queue.

I smiled. I remember at the time being so proud of our Australian community, thinking that in so many countries of the world such an open act of faith could face persecution and perhaps even death. I don't believe there's a single person in this place who does not support the concept that a person should be able to practise their faith and not incur fear, abuse or obstruction. I think that view is also universally shared across the Mayo community. I note we have many churches and Christian schools held in high regard by my wider community because of their inclusive culture and the care they've provided to our whole community. This was particularly seen during the bushfires and, more recently, during COVID.

I consider myself a person of faith. I don't attend a specific church with regularity, but I do believe that it's a determinant of the depth of my faith or relationship with God. I attended a Catholic secondary school and all three of my children have attended faith based schools.

Firstly, I would like to thank the hundreds of people from Mayo who have written to me to express their views about this bill. Some were campaign emails for and some against. Many were heartfelt and personal, and I thank them for helping me to shape my position in voting on this bill. While I support protection against discrimination on the basis of religious belief or activity, I do hold a number of concerns about this bill. It will privilege some and yet weaken existing protections for others. Specifically, this bill has the potential to cause a real harm to women, to people with disabilities, to people from the LGBTQIA community and to people who rely on other anti-discrimination laws to protect them from offensive, insulting, humiliating and intimidating conduct. In short, I cannot support this bill in its current form.

I'd like to mention to the House the particular clauses that I have concern with. Clause 9 gives licence for religious hospitals, aged-care facilities, accommodation providers and disability service providers to discriminate by allowing such bodies to have a hiring policy that would privilege employment of those of the same religion or denomination. Essentially, a Catholic aged-care facility could have a policy of only hiring Catholic employees. Effectively, we are saying to institutions that sit within a secular society, which effectively operate due to government funds for the delivery of services, that they can take secular dollars and create an exclusive club on the grounds of religious belief. I believe this is harmful and unnecessary. Surely the threshold should be that the employee hired—whether that be a nurse, a careworker or indeed a doctor—is qualified and competent? Surely those employed could be more representative of the people they serve and of Australian society?

Clause 11 is another clause that I have particular issue with. It provides powers to override some state and territory laws. Effectively, this clause gives schools the right to discriminate in their employment practices, which would override state and territory antidiscrimination laws that prohibit such schools from terminating employment or refusing employment based on sexuality or gender.

The following are some examples of discrimination that have occurred in the past. These were highlighted by the Independent Education Union and detailed in their submission to the bill. I think it's important to mention some of these examples, as discussed, but I have to say that they are difficult to hear:

A male primary school principal in western NSW was contacted by the Catholic Education Office to advise that they "had become aware" that his marriage had broken up and that he was reportedly in a new relationship, as was his wife. The view of the employer was that his current lifestyle was no longer compatible with that of leadership of a Catholic school and that he needed to move.

Another example:

Two women teachers had been in a same sex relationship for over ten years. One was in a co-ordinator role in a metropolitan Diocese secondary school and the other worked in a Catholic independent school. They decided to have a baby and were subsequently reported to the Diocese Bishop after being seen with the baby at a shopping centre (not in area of the school). CEO said that it had no other option than to move their employee to another school and remove her co-ordinator's allowance. She did not accept the offer and resigned …

…   …   …

A teacher at a Christian school had been associated with the school for over 25 years and three of her four children were also at the school. When her marriage broke up, with some associated—

family violence—

issues which required time for medical, counselling and legal appointments … the Principal spoke to the member about the responsibilities of Christian marriage. The implication was that the member's current marital status was no longer consistent with her role at the school and that she should consider moving on——

So, effectively, there was the loss of a marriage, domestic violence and the loss of a job—

A teacher at a Brethren school in WA was separated from his wife an in the process of obtaining a divorce. He commenced a relationship with another partner. He was dismissed by the school.

A teacher employed by a Catholic diocesan school was dismissed as a consequence of becoming pregnant via IVF.

…   …   …

… regional diocese is currently requiring applicants for employment to fill in a form that the union says would permit discrimination on the grounds of disability as a detailed medical history, which is not limited to issues relevant to the requirements of the job, is required to be disclosed.

…   …   …

Regional diocese. Divorced teacher. A male colleague's car was seen outside her house. The member was formally warned and lost her position of leadership. There were no consequences for the male colleague.

In an Islamic school, an issue arose concerning a lesbian teacher whose partner is pregnant. The employer advised her that she could not claim leave. In the event that she does seek leave she has confirmed with school that dismissal will follow.

One of the arguments, I think, that is missing from the conversation is that a teacher, a nurse or a student can be a person of faith and can be divorced, gay or transgender, and many people of faith are single parents. These are not mutually exclusive elements, and surely the threshold for employment for a teacher or a nurse is for that person to hold appropriate qualifications, and with respect to a teacher that they can willingly and competently teach the curriculum as presented to them.

Clause 12 is, I believe, perhaps the most concerning element of this bill: the statements of faith. This effectively will create, I believe, open mic night for some organisations and perhaps some people of faith to say and do whatever they like no matter how hurtful, no matter how discriminatory. It is an incredibly powerful clause that allows such a statement of faith to override existing federal, state and territory laws. I'm always concerned in this place when we seek to override state or territory laws. It is an overreach by the Commonwealth, and in this case it seeks to water down the protection of people in some states and territories. The statement of faith will ensure that discrimination will flourish and bigotry will prosper. As mentioned by the Australian Lawyers Alliance, this statement of faith is:

… effectively legislated bigotry, by enabling religious statements of belief to be used as a cloak for sexism, racism, homophobia and other prejudices.

Many others have touched upon the concerns for same-sex attracted students. We must ensure that all children, all young people, are loved and supported in their school environment. It is supposed to be a nurturing place. Many students do not have a choice of where they are educated and, sadly, for many children and many young people school is the safest place. We need to ensure that it remains so.

Whether you look at the Commonwealth anti-discrimination statutes—the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984, the Age Discrimination Act 2004 or the Disability Discrimination Act 1992—the one element that all of those bills share is that they are set up to be shields, and the main purpose is to provide protection from discrimination. However, I don't believe this bill is the same. It does provide a shield and it does protect people to practise their religion, which is widely supported, and, again, the greatest merit in this bill is that factor. However, in equal measure, it provides a sword—many swords—in the ability to discriminate against others and it privileges the freedom of religious expression above other freedoms from discrimination. Is that the Australia we want to create—a society that places some people's rights and beliefs above others? I don't believe so.

After listening to the debate and reading through many, many submissions, I cannot support this legislation as it currently stands and call on the government to instead introduce a universal bill of rights. We are, I believe, the only Western democracy that doesn't have one. We need to ensure that everyone shares the same freedom and protections. Thank you.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and acknowledge the contributions of all members of this House on this very important issue. I rise to speak in part as a person of deep faith whose parents have been involved in Christian ministry in one form or another for over 40 years. I also speak as the member for Robertson, on behalf of the many faith based communities and individuals in my electorate. I also speak today as a member of a government who took to the Australian people a commitment that we would deliver this bill. I also want to acknowledge the many voices in this debate, the many perspectives, the thoughtful contributions that have been made over the course of the duration of this debate and the conversations that've been had around Australia, including in my own electorate.

The legislation that's before the House has not been rushed. It's been carefully considered. There's been an extensive public consultation process, including two exposure drafts and two parliamentary committee inquiries. It delivers on the government's commitment to introduce legislation to prohibit religious discrimination and is consistent with the government's response to the recommendations of the religious freedoms review report. It aims to navigate the various freedoms and to balance those with the rights and protections in Australia's antidiscrimination acts, such as the Age Discrimination Act, the Racial Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act.

I have held a number of local roundtables in my community to be able to hear the various views expressed by members in my community. I have spoken at length with the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, a number of my colleagues, and a common theme that I'm hearing is the recognition of the importance of balancing the rights and freedoms that we as Australians enjoy, and I know that this bill seeks to address that.

Beyond this being an election commitment, over 60 per cent of our population consider themselves to hold a religious faith and I believe we, as a government, do have an obligation to ensure that we protect the freedom of religion.

This bill will affect individuals, organisations or corporations regardless of whether they identify as religious. As I said before, it does implement a number of the key recommendations from the religious freedom review. It aims to recognise the freedom of all people to have and to hold a religion or belief of their choice and to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of this belief.

In my own electorate of Robertson over 65 per cent of residents identified as being of religious faith at the last census. While the vast majority identify as having a Christian faith of one denomination or another, there are other faiths as well in my community, including Jewish and Buddhist. There are over 50 churches or places of worship across our region. There are also a number of well-known and well regarded faith based schools across the Central Coast, including, in my electorate, Green Point Christian College; Central Coast Adventist School; Our Lady Star of the Sea Catholic School; St Edward's College; my own former school, St Philip's Christian College and many others. This bill is about protecting the freedoms of these faith based schools and other organisations and of each individual to practise their religion. It will prohibit both direct and indirect discrimination on the ground of religious belief or activity. It will guarantee that certain religious bodies, including schools and charities, can make decisions that are consistent with their values in employment, education and a range of other areas of public life.

I recognise that this is a really important and yet somewhat challenging subject. It is an area of much debate in Christian schools and a common topic of conversation when parents of faith decide how to raise their children. It's also a topic that I understand from a deeply personal perspective, having grown up and attended a Catholic primary school and then a Christian school when my family relocated to the Central Coast. I do feel a great sense of privilege to have had the opportunity to complete my schooling in these environments. I do have some very good memories of that time. In the mid-1980s my parents moved our family from Walcha in rural New South Wales—where, as I said, I'd attended a Catholic primary school—to the Central Coast. It was here on the Central Coast that my family really put down our roots and embedded ourselves in the local community that I now have the honour to represent. My father was the principal of a small Christian community school in Point Clare, which then relocated to Narara. But when I first joined the school was very small with only around 50 to 60 students at the time—in the mid-1980s. It quickly became a tight-knit community for me that offered a wonderful education and also instilled in me deeply personal values, including the importance of giving and investing in others, of respect, of kindness towards one another. It also helped me to really nurture, inside of my own perspectives, what it means to build for tomorrow and what it means to help make a difference in the lives of those around me. And I do believe that my time at the school did help to shape my desire to one day seek to serve the community that I now have the privilege to represent as well as the nation that I live in—the greatest nation in the world.

I graduated in year 12. I remember a deep sense of connection to the school and, as such, I came back and served for a few years as a teacher in that same school. So I feel that I have, to some degree, an empathy and a nuanced understanding of what it means to be a Christian educator in a Christian school, where the intent was to uphold the Christian faith as well as academic excellence in the school community. I can see and understand some of the many concerns that have been raised by other members in relation to some of the provisions contained in this bill, but I do acknowledge that adherence to and the everyday embodiment of the values that were articulated by the school was asked of all of us as educators.

Clause 7 of the bill enables certain religious bodies—including faith based schools, as I've just outlined, such as the one I attended and taught at—to engage in conduct in good faith that a person of the same religion would reasonably consider aligned with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teaching of that religion. This could include giving preference to those of the same religion in employment decisions. This clause enables certain religious bodies to make decisions that are consistent with their beliefs and values in employment, education and other areas of public life covered by the bill.

Clause 9 provides narrower protections for religious hospitals, aged-care facilities, accommodation providers and disability service providers in relation to employment decisions and partnerships. This ensures that these bodies are able to make employment decisions but not discriminate in other areas of public life, such as providing services to the public. Conduct by these organisations must be in adherence with a publicly available policy that outlines when they will rely on provisions, ensuring the position of religious bodies is clear.

This bill provides that simply making a statement of belief in good faith would not be deemed discrimination under any Australian antidiscrimination law. This only applies to statements of religious belief which are made in good faith, and which the individual considers to be in line with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of their religion. This provision does not apply to statements which are malicious or which a reasonable person would consider would threaten, intimidate, harass or vilify a person or a group of persons. Nor does it apply to any statement that a reasonable person would consider counsels, promotes, encourages or urges conduct that would constitute a serious offence. While many are concerned that this legislation will increase discrimination towards members of society, accompanying limitations will help ensure this does not occur. The intention of this bill is not to belittle other people's freedoms, rights or choices, and the bill does not offer freedoms to one group of people at the expense of another. But it is designed to create additional protections for religious people in our community, and close a longstanding gap in the federal antidiscrimination framework.

Australia is a free nation. Our people are free people. We're free to speak, free to move and free to act in accordance with our convictions. We cannot prevent the passage of this bill simply because the religious views of one might offend another. To do so would not only be inconsistent with previous anti-discrimination laws, but mean a large part of our community would be without their fundamental and universal right to respectfully express their religious views.

I've spoken with a number of local pastors and community leaders from across my electorate who do feel strongly in support of this bill. Father Greg from the Catholic Diocese of Broken Bay at East Gosford said to me that 'this bill is long overdue and necessary for the future of Australia' and 'the federal government is right in taking it up.' Pastor Martin Duffy from Elim Church Global said, 'The bill is a positive development for the protection and preservation of faith based religious organisations.' Pastor Joel Small of Erina Community Baptist Church said that he'll 'always advocate for the welcoming and inclusion of all people.' He said 'the gospel of Jesus is above all a gospel of love' and he does not see how this bill runs contrary to that value. 'It's not about discrimination. It's about freedom of belief and practice in a respectful way,' he said.

Finally, this bill establishes a Religious Discrimination Commissioner in the Australian Human Rights Commission who will be required to conduct a review of the Religious Discrimination Act within two years of its commencement. This is an important safeguard to ensure that the legislation is working as intended whilst also looking at possible amendments that may enhance its operation and address unintended consequences.

In speaking in support of this bill, I want to say that I am deeply honoured to have the privilege to represent my community. I acknowledge that there are a diversity of views and opinions in my electorate on a whole host of matters right across the Central Coast, but, in relation to this particular bill, I am expressing my support for this legislation. I would like to place on record my thanks to the Prime Minister for supporting this legislation for the protection of all Australians who choose to live their personal lives guided by their faith. This is an incredibly important commitment. It's one that we made to the Australian people at the last election, and I commend the bill to the House.

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the few minutes I have before we break for members' statements, I want to start my contribution on the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 by saying how disappointed I am at the way in which the government has handled this debate. I stand here, like many members in this place, really feeling for our constituents, for the amount of grief that this government has caused, for the amount of hurt this government has caused and for the amount of anguish this government has caused. People are confused, scared and worried about the consequences of this bill because the government has not taken the time to bring our community with us. I'm standing here, saying to the government: 'You've still got time to do the right thing. You don't need to rush this through in the last days of this parliament.' I'm pleading with them to listen to what the community is saying. This is not the right time to be pushing through this bill. This bill should be a shield. It should be about supporting and protecting people of all faiths. It should not be a sword. This bill, because of the way in which the government have been conducting this debate, is dividing our communities.

In my speech, I want to set out where people in Bendigo are coming from. When I talk to faith based organisations in my electorate, particularly those in aged care, they don't want to talk to me about this bill. They want to talk to me about how they can get staff on their rosters. They want to talk to me about PPE. They want to talk to me about access to RATs. They want to talk to me about how they can get extra money from the government to increase the wages of their aged-care staff. They want to talk to me about how they're exhausted. We're in the middle of a pandemic, and what they don't want to be having is a conversation with their staff about how under these proposed laws they may or may not be able to sack them based upon a religious reason. They don't want to be having those conversations right now. They want to be having conversations about how their staff, who are doing a tough job, can feel supported and protected during the middle of a pandemic.

It's the same for our teachers. Right now our teachers, particularly those in primary schools, are under pressure, where not a lot of children have had the opportunity to be vaccinated or to be double-vaxxed. It's the wrong time to be having a conversation in our community about the right of a school to sack a teacher based upon religious beliefs. The government, by trying to force this bill through, is creating real anxiety in schools, in schoolteachers and in school communities. They're creating fear and anxiety for families, particularly our rainbow families—a lot of families that are still quite hurt because this government, in the previous parliament, put them through a very painful marriage equality plebiscite. We're talking about people—

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.