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

by leave—I move Greens amendments (1) to (12):

(1) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 10), after item 5, insert:

Fair Work Act 2009

5A Section 12

Insert:

educational institution means a school, college, university or other institution at which education or training is provided.

5B Paragraph 153(2)(b)

After "institution", insert "(that is not an educational institution)".

5C Paragraph 195(2)(b)

After "institution", insert "(that is not an educational institution)".

5D Paragraph 351(2)(c)

After "institution", insert "(that is not an educational institution)".

5E Paragraph 772(2)(b)

After "institution", insert "(that is not an educational institution)".

(2) Schedule 1, item 6, page 5 (lines 4 to 7), omit subsection 47C(4).

(3) Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 10), at the end of the Schedule, add:

10 At the end of section 23

Add:

(4) Paragraph (3)(b) does not apply to accommodation provided by an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed:

(a) in connection with the provision of education or training by the educational institution; or

(b) in connection with employment by the educational institution.

11 After subsection 37(2)

Add:

(3) Paragraph (1)(d) does not apply to an act or practice of an educational institution that is conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed, if:

(a) the act or practice is connected with the employment of a member of the staff of the educational institution; or

(b) the act or practice is connected with the position of a contract worker that involves the doing of work in the educational institution; or

(c) the act or practice is connected with the provision of education or training by the educational institution; or

(d) without limiting paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of this subsection—immediately before the commencement of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Act 2022, the act or practice:

(i) was not unlawful under this Act; but

(ii) would have been unlawful apart from section 38.

Note: Former section 38 provided that certain provisions of this Act did not render it unlawful for a person to discriminate in certain circumstances connected with an educational institution conducted in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion or creed if the person discriminated in good faith in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion or creed.

12 Section 38

Repeal the section.

These amendments do one thing and one thing only, and it's a very simple thing that has been identified by a number of members during this debate as being of great concern with the bill. These amendments remove the statement of belief provision. That is all they do. They don't insert anything else. They remove the statement of belief provision from the bill.

That needs to be done for two important reasons. The statement of belief provision, firstly, is the most novel provision of this bill and, secondly, is the most pernicious. It's the most novel in that this bill is supposedly about protecting people from victimisation on the basis of religion. Now, the principle of including religion as a prohibited attribute, as it were, on the basis of which you can't discriminate or victimise is something that I think most people in this parliament would agree with. It would probably have universal agreement in this parliament. But this bill does something that other discrimination legislation doesn't do: it inserts a new provision, a statement of belief provision, that is not found in other pieces of discrimination legislation. It is novel, it is unnecessary and it's gravely concerning. And this goes to the point about it the most—or a—pernicious aspect of this bill. Not only will it allow things to be done that will override state legislation—and we've heard about that and about how it would take away protections that are enshrined in legislation in, for example, Tasmania.

What it also does, this statement of belief provision, is open up new grounds for discrimination to occur. We've heard example after example, from members from both sides, of statements that could be made that now might offend other provisions, other discrimination provisions, but will become lawful. These are the statements that will cause a lot of harm. These are the statements that are made when someone working in a healthcare area says to someone else, 'I think that your condition, your illness that your suffering, is a punishment from God because you're gay.' Or statements that are directed at a transgender student or staff member that might not be about expelling them, but might be something that is designed to make, or has the effect of making, their life a misery. These are the statements that would currently not be protected, but are going to open up a whole new suite of discriminatory and harmful behaviour.

What this amendment does is remove that provision that opens up a whole new suite of discrimination. It still allows other provisions in the bill to continue, including protections for religious belief against victimisation and against discrimination, so those are untouched; however, what it does is very simply say one thing: 'This new statement of belief provision is unnecessary. It's new and untested and broad. And it's harmful.' I would say to the House that I know there might be some others who will move amendments around the statement of belief section, but there is a reason this one is first in order of proceedings, and that is because it does a very simple job. It just says that statement should be removed. We can still have the rest of the legislation, which includes protection on the basis of religion, if that's what people want to vote for, but it removes the ability to introduce what has been called a sword into this legislation. So the shield will remain, but the new provisions that open up a range of potential new harm will go.

I say to the House, with respect to others who are moving amendments, this is the simplest way to do it. This new, untested and potentially harmful provision should not survive in this legislation. We can have a debate or a discussion another day, about whether something like this is needed, but lets now, for those who want to support this legislation, allow it to proceed on the basis of other forms of legislation, to stand side by side with other protections in discrimination, but without this harmful provision.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support this amendment, which would remove clause 12 from the Religious Discrimination Bill. The government is of the view that simply communicating one's genuinely held religious beliefs in good faith is not and has never been discrimination. The purpose of this provision is to clarify that people should not be subjected to complaints of discrimination on that basis.

The statement of belief, in and of itself, under clause 12, will not constitute discrimination, and that means that a person cannot be found to have discriminated against a person under any antidiscrimination law for merely expressing, discussing, and debating their genuinely held religious beliefs in good faith—for example, merely stating a biblical view of marriage or an atheist view on prayer. This bill only applies to statements and not to conduct, or a course of conduct. It does not protect statements that are malicious or that a reasonable person would consider would threaten, intimidate, harass or vilify a person or group, and I suggest that's the response to a number of the factual circumstances that the member mentioned in his contribution.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor have our own amendments in relation to the statement of belief, which is clause 12 of the Religious Discrimination Bill. While we have some sympathy for the amendment that has been moved by the leader of the Greens party, which is to delete clause 12 in its entirety, after consideration, our view is reflected in the amendment that I will later move as an amendment to the government amendments. We've concluded that a better approach is simply to remove the override of state and territory discrimination statutes and to remove the specific override of section 17 of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act, but to leave part of clause 12 intact with an amendment which would provide clarity that a statement of belief or religious activity in and of itself won't constitute discrimination under the Religious Discrimination Bill. We think that that is a better way to reassure people of faith that, in our view, the mere expression of a non-malicious statement of belief should not contravene any Australian law—and I will have more to say about this—but it's certainly the case that there has been a great deal of disagreement about what clause 12 would allow, what it would not allow. It's simply that we think that the better approach is as set out in the amendments moved by the Greens party.

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

The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment circulated in my name.

(1) Page 21 (after line 8), at the end of Part 3, add:

17A Religious objections to COVID-19 vaccination

(1) To avoid doubt, if:

(a) conduct is engaged in because a person has not received a COVID vaccination; and

(b) the reason, or one of the reasons (whether or not it is the dominant or a substantial reason) the person has not received a COVID vaccination is that the person genuinely considers that doing so would be inconsistent with a religious belief held by the person;

then, for the purposes of this Act, the conduct is taken to be engaged in for the reason of that religious belief.

(2) This section applies in relation to conduct engaged in because a person has not received a COVID vaccination of a particular type (for example, vaccination with a particular brand of vaccine, or a first, second or third etc. booster) in the same way as this section applies in relation to conduct engaged in because a person has not received any COVID vaccination.

(3) Sections 37 and 38 do not apply to discrimination constituted by conduct to which subsection (1) of this section applies.

Vaccine passports

(4) Without limiting subsection (1), conduct is taken to be engaged in because a person has not received a COVID vaccination if:

(a) the person has not received a COVID vaccination; and

(b) the conduct is engaged in because:

(i) the person does not demonstrate that the person has received a COVID vaccination; or

(ii) does not demonstrate in a particular way (such as by producing a particular type of vaccination certificate) that the person has received a COVID vaccination.

Definitions

(5) In this section:

COVID means the coronavirus commonly known as COVID-19 (including any subsequent variants of that coronavirus).

During this debate, over many hours, I have heard many fine speeches. Most had a common theme—that all Australians should have the right to live free of discrimination. They should have the right not to be thrown out of their jobs because they have a truly held belief. There should be a right to practise your religion as you see fit, with, of course, the one proviso: that it does not cause harm to others. Today in this country there are many people who have a true and genuinely held belief that they wish to be vaccine-free and yet they are being discriminated against; they are being denied the right to participate in the Australian economy. I am talking about airline pilots, nurses, paramedics, teachers, even truck drivers and shop assistants. If we truly want a society where we end all of the discrimination, it should be across all areas. Therefore, the amendment that I seek to move would make it unlawful for a person to be discriminated against on their vaccine status if they hold a genuinely held religious belief that they wished to be vaccine-free.

I acknowledge that vaccination in general has been one of the greatest public health achievements over the last century. But the COVID vaccines, we must admit, use a novel technology that has never been tried or tested in humans before; therefore, it is only fair that citizens in a free, democratic country have the right to decide what substances they inject into their body free of coercion, free of discrimination, and this is what this amendment seeks to achieve.

The only argument against this is: does it put others at risk? Would allowing such an exemption put other Australians at risk? There may have been arguments for that six to 12 months ago, but the data now is crystal clear from around the world: if you are vaccine-free you are less likely to have COVID and less likely to spread it. For someone in my age group, the data from the UK COVID surveillance data shows I would have a double the probability of having COVID if I was vaccine-free.

I hear my good friend, the member for MacArthur, doubt that. I encourage you to get a look at that data—official data from the UK COVID health surveillance. That is clearly what official UK government data shows, so I would hope that members of this House would think about those thousands of Australians who are currently thrown out of their jobs, thrown out of their careers, doing it very tough at the moment. There are no grounds, no reason why those people should not be given the right to get back to work. That is what the amendment I propose would do. I hope it has the support of many members of this House.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support this proposed amendment to the Religious Discrimination Bill in relation to COVID-19 vaccination. The proposed amendments provide that exceptions in the bill, which provide that conduct in direct compliance with certain Commonwealth and state and territory laws and orders, determinations and industrial instruments does not apply to conduct engaged in because a person has not received or does not demonstrate they have received a COVID-19 vaccination.

This amendment, in the government's view, is misguided. Introducing such an amendment would result in significant complexity for high-risk workplaces and could undermine public health measures. COVID-19 is a very serious illness and is especially dangerous for vulnerable people in the community. The Religious Discrimination Bill will not affect the ability of the government or employers to impose requirements for persons to be vaccinated against particular diseases, including COVID-19.

Although some religious groups may have certain religious beliefs surrounding vaccination, it would not constitute discrimination under the bill for an employer to require employees to have such vaccinations where the requirement is reasonable. Whether such a requirement is reasonable depends upon all of the circumstances of the particular case. The amendment would also override the exception in clause 37 of the bill, which ensures that employers are able to comply with work health and safety laws and other laws.

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

The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.

Question agreed to, Mr Kelly dissenting.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and ask leave of the House to move government amendments (1) to (22), as circulated, together.

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

On that matter: speaking on behalf of myself and the member for Clark, there's a number of the government amendments that we want to support and a number that we would oppose. I'd be happy to identify those. We don't want to speak to them, but I'm just wondering whether there's capacity to put them into two blocks so that we can support the ones we want to support and vote differently on the ones we don't want to support.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If we proceed from here granting leave for them all to be moved together, then I think what the member for Melbourne has just asked for becomes impossible. So, I think if we take the member for Melbourne up on his offer to identify the ones he wants to vote in favour of or the ones he wants to vote against, you can put one lot of them in a block, then get leave to do all of them together and then do the others all together. Otherwise, we'll end up doing all of them individually—which I suspect people don't want.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the member for Melbourne wants to indicate which of amendments (1) through (22) he wishes to support, then I will be happy to seek leave to move those together.

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

I thank the minister and the Manager of Opposition Business. The amendments that I—and I think I speak on behalf of the member for Clark as well—wish to support are amendments (10), (12), (17), (18), (19), (20) and (21). I'd ask that those be put as a block, and then we'd support those, and then the others can proceed and amendments can be moved to those, and so on.

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

And all other amendments you disagree to?

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

That's right, but we don't seek them to be done individually; we'll just deal with them as a block.

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

Alright. The minister has the call.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move government amendments 10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 as circulated together:

(10) Clause 14, page 19 (after line 7), at the end of the clause, add:

Burden of proof

(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the person who imposes, or proposes to impose, the condition, requirement or practice has the burden of proving that the condition, requirement or practice is reasonable.

(12) Clause 19, page 23 (after line 26), at the end of the clause, add:

Conduct to which this section does not apply

(3) This section does not apply to reasonable management action:

(a) carried out to comply with legal obligations under Australian law; or

(b) authorised under Australian law.

(17) Page 40 (after line 11), after clause 44, insert:

44A Notice of decisions to be published

(1) The Commission, not later than one month after it makes a decision under section 44, must publish on its website a notice of the making of the decision:

(a) setting out its findings on material questions of facts; and

(b) referring to the evidence on which those findings were based; and

(c) giving the reasons for the making of the decision; and

(d) containing a statement to the effect that, subject to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the decision to which the notice relates by or on behalf of any person or persons whose interests are affected by the decision.

(2) Any failure to comply with the requirements of subsection (1) in relation to a decision does not affect the validity of the decision.

(18) Clause 47, page 40 (line 26), omit "or the Minister".

(19) Clause 48, page 41 (line 5), omit "section 47;", substitute "section 47.".

(20) Clause 48, page 41 (line 6), omit paragraph (c).

(21) Clause 68, page 56 (line 3), omit "to the extent that the law", substitute "that".

The group of amendments before the House at the moment deals with a range of what might be described as, essentially, procedural or administrative matters—for example, the addition of a clause which says conduct in this section does not apply to reasonable management action carried out to comply with legal obligations under Australian law. There's a requirement that notice of decisions must be published. They can fairly be described as sensible procedural amendments that I'd suggest are unlikely to be controversial.

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

The question is that amendments 10, 12, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 be agreed to.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make clear that Labor supports all of the amendments that the government has circulated and is proposing to move, including the ones that are supported, as has been indicated by the member for Melbourne, which are presently under debate. It might save time if I simply speak to the whole of the government's amendments in a compendious way rather than trying to give two speeches and breaking it up.

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

I think that's a very good idea.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Subject to amendments that Labor will move to the government's amendments—that's a single amendment we've got to move to the next group, technically, just for the assistance of the clerks—which relates to statement of belief, Labor supports all of the modest but worthwhile amendments that the government has circulated. Most of them are relatively minor and noncontentious, and address most of the recommendations that were made by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. They include amending the indirect discrimination provisions of the Religious Discrimination Bill so that, in determining if a condition, requirement or practice imposed on a person resulted in indirect discrimination, the person who imposes or proposes to impose the conditional requirement or practice has the burden of proving it was reasonable. That deals with what was in fact a drafting omission in the bill.

Some of the amendments, consistent with other Commonwealth antidiscrimination statutes, remove the power of the Attorney-General to vary or overrule a decision by the Human Rights Commission to grant a temporary exemption from the Religious Discrimination Act. Other amendments, consistent with other Commonwealth antidiscrimination statutes, require the Human Rights Commission to publish explanatory material in relation to any temporary exemption granted under the Religious Discrimination Act. A further amendment provides that in respect of employment related conduct engaged in by a religious body in accordance with a publicly available policy and removes the power of the minister to determine requirements of the body's policy.

There's tweaking to the drafting to clauses 11 and 12 of the bill to address a constitutional issue that a number of legal experts had raised almost as soon as the bill was introduced to the parliament. Certainly those constitutional concerns were repeated through the two committee hearings that were held over the summer by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and by the Senate's legal and constitutional affairs committee. Those tweaks relate to the way in which clauses 11 and 12 purported to override state laws.

As will be evident to anyone who's read the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, some of these amendments go further than what the committee had recommended. For example, the committee didn't recommend removing the power of the Attorney-General to vary or overrule a decision by the Human Rights Commission to grant a temporary exemption from the religious discrimination act. Labor suggested this amendment to the government, and I thank the Attorney-General for agreeing to move it. Also at Labor's urging, the Attorney-General has agreed to amend clause 68 of the bill, which will assist in clarifying that, other than for clauses 11 and 12 of the bill, no other provision of the Religious Discrimination Bill will override any state or territory antidiscrimination law—which should put to rest some very strong concerns that were expressed about the reach of this Religious Discrimination Bill. Finally, the government has agreed to a suggestion by the Australian Industry Group of a "reasonable management action" carried out to comply with the legal duties of employers under Australian law.

I foreshadow that, when the next group of amendments is moved by the minister, I will move an amendment to those amendments; they're not in this first group.

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

The question now is that amendments (10), (12), (17), (18), (19), (20) and (21) be agreed to.

Question agreed to.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move government amendments (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8) (9), (11), (13), (14), (15), (16) and (22):

(1) Clause 5, page 5 (line 8), omit "section 12", substitute "subsection 12(1)".

(2) Clause 7, page 11 (lines 22 to 27), omit all the words from and including "(about employment)" to the end of subclause (6), substitute:

(about employment), the conduct must be in accordance with a written policy that:

(a) outlines the religious body's position in relation to particular religious beliefs or activities; and

(b) explains how the position in paragraph (a) is or will be enforced by the religious body; and

(c) is publicly available, including at the time employment opportunities with the religious body become available.

(3) Clause 7, page 11 (lines 28 and 29), omit subclause (7).

(4) Clause 9, page 13 (lines 32 to 36), omit paragraphs (3)(d) and (e), substitute:

(d) the conduct is in accordance with a written policy that:

(i) outlines the body's position in relation to particular religious beliefs or activities; and

(ii) explains how the position in subparagraph (i) is or will be enforced by the body; and

(iii) is publicly available, including at the time employment or partnership opportunities (as the case may be) with the body become available.

(5) Clause 9, page 14 (lines 22 to 26), omit paragraphs (5)(d) and (e), substitute:

(d) the conduct is in accordance with a written policy that:

(i) outlines the body's position in relation to particular religious beliefs or activities; and

(ii) explains how the position in subparagraph (i) is or will be enforced by the body; and

(iii) is publicly available, including at the time employment or partnership opportunities (as the case may be) with the body become available.

(6) Clause 9, page 14 (lines 34 to 36), omit subclause (7).

(7) Clause 11, page 15 (lines 22 to 34), omit subclause (1), substitute:

(1) Despite any prescribed State or Territory law, it is not unlawful for a religious body that is an educational institution, when engaging in conduct described in section 19 (about employment), to give preference, in good faith, to persons who hold or engage in a particular religious belief or activity if the conduct is in accordance with a written policy that:

(a) outlines the religious body's position in relation to particular religious beliefs or activities; and

(b) explains how the position in paragraph (a) is or will be enforced by the religious body; and

(c) is publicly available, including at the time employment opportunities with the religious body become available.

(8) Clause 12, page 16 (line 22) to page 17 (line 10), omit subclause (1), substitute:

(1) The making of a statement of belief, in and of itself, does not constitute discrimination for the purposes of any of the following:

(a) this Act;

(b) the Age Discrimination Act 2004;

(c) the Disability Discrimination Act 1992;

(d) the Racial Discrimination Act 1975;

(e) the Sex Discrimination Act 1984;

(f) a provision of a law of the Commonwealth prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

Note: This section does not protect a statement that has no relationship to religious belief (see the definition of statement of belief in subsection 5(1)).

(1A) The making of a statement of belief, in and of itself, is not unlawful, despite any provision of the following laws of a State or Territory that regulates or prohibits discrimination:

(a) the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW);

(b) the Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic.);

(c) the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld);

(d) the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA);

(e) the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA);

(f) the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas.);

(g) the Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT);

(h) the Anti-Discrimination Act 1992 (NT);

(i) a law of a State or Territory prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

(1B) The making of a statement of belief, in and of itself, is not unlawful, despite any of the following:

(a) subsection 17(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas.);

(b) a provision of a law of a State or Territory prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph.

(9) Clause 12, page 17 (line 11), omit "Subsection (1)", substitute "This section".

(11) Clause 18, page 22 (line 19), omit "section 12", substitute "subsection 12(1)".

(13) Clause 40, page 38 (lines 4 to 8), omit paragraphs (2)(d) and (e), substitute:

(d) the conduct is in accordance with a written policy that:

(i) outlines the first person's position in relation to particular religious beliefs or activities; and

(ii) explains how the position in subparagraph (i) is or will be enforced by the first person; and

(iii) is publicly available.

(14) Clause 40, page 38 (lines 9 and 10), omit subclause (3).

(15) Clause 40, page 38 (lines 27 to 31), omit paragraphs (5)(c) and (d), substitute:

(c) the conduct is in accordance with a written policy that:

(i) outlines the first person's position in relation to particular religious beliefs or activities; and

(ii) explains how the position in subparagraph (i) is or will be enforced by the first person; and

(iii) is publicly available.

(16) Clause 40, page 38 (lines 32 and 33), omit subclause (6).

(22) Clause 68, page 56 (line 5), after "section", insert "11 or".

The rationale for these amendments is to amend the Religious Discrimination Bill in response to the recommendations of the two parliamentary committees which examined this bill. Both committees recommended that the legislative package be considered for passage through parliament. Based upon the government's careful consideration of the committees' recommendations, the outcome of the government's amendments will be to reframe clauses 11 and 12, which have the effect of overriding certain state and territory laws; to clarify that it is not discrimination for an employer to take reasonable management action under any Australian law in relation to their employees; to insert a provision dealing with the burden of proof, for the test of indirect discrimination in clause 14, consistent with the approach in other Commonwealth antidiscrimination legislation; to provide greater transparency in the granting, variation or revocation of temporary exemptions under part 4, division 4 of the bill; and to provide further clarity regarding what is required to be included in the publicly available policy, to allow certain entities to rely on certain exemptions under the bill. That is a summary of the effect of these amendments.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the opposition amendment to government amendment (8):

(1) Clause 4, page 3 (lines 25 and 26), omit "for the purposes of specified legislation, including this Act".

(2) Clause 4, page 3, after line 30, insert:

Religious vilification is unlawful, with certain exceptions (see Part 4A).

(3) Clause 5, page 5 (lines 7 and 8), omit "for the purposes of specified legislation, including this Act".

(4) Clause 7, page 10 (line 8), omit "this Act", substitute "Part 4".

(5) Clause 7, page 10 (line 18), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".

(6) Heading to clause 8, page 11 (line 30), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".

(7) Clause 8, page 12 (lines 1 and 2), omit paragraph (a), substitute:

(a) establishing, directing, controlling or administering a hospital; or

(aa) if the religious body solely or primarily provides aged care services—the provision of the services; or

(8) Heading to clause 9, page 12 (line 17), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".

(9) Clause 9, page 12 (line 22), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".

(10) Clause 9, page 12 (line 24), omit "this Act", substitute "Part 4".

(11) Clause 9, page 12 (line 28), omit "facility", substitute "service provider".

(12) Clause 9, page 13 (lines 4 to 7), omit paragraph (2)(b), substitute:

(b) a body (a religious aged care service provider) that solely or primarily provides aged care services in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion;

(13) Heading to subclause 9(3), page 13 (line 15), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".

(14) Clause 9, page 13 (line 18), omit "facility", substitute "service provider".

(15) Clause 9, page 14 (line 8), omit "facility", substitute "service provider".

(16) Clause 12, page 16 (line 22) to page 17 (line 10), omit subclause (1), substitute:

(1) To avoid doubt, making a statement of belief does not, in and of itself, constitute discrimination for the purposes of this Act.

(17) Clause 12, page 17 (line 15), omit ".", substitute "; or".

(18) Clause 12, page 17 (after line 15), after paragraph (2)(c), insert:

(d) that is unlawful under Part 4A (religious vilification).

(19) Clause 16, page 20 (line 12), omit "this Act", substitute "Part 4".

(20) Clause 18, page 22 (line 18), omit "for the purposes of specified legislation, including this Act".

(21) Page 41 (after line 7), after Part 4, insert:

Part 4A — Religious vilification

48A Religious vilification unlawful

(1) It is unlawful for a person to engage in conduct, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or group of persons, that:

(a) is not in private; and

(b) a reasonable person would consider would threaten, intimidate, harass or vilify the other person or group.

Note: Complaints can be made to the Australian Human Rights Commission about conduct that is unlawful under this Part (see the definition of unlawful discrimination in subsection 3(1) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, and section 46P of that Act).

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

(b) is done in a public place; or

(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

(3) Public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.

48B Exceptions

(1) A person does not contravene section 48A if the person establishes that the person engaged in the conduct reasonably and in good faith:

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in:

(i) for any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose; or

(ii) for any purpose that is in the public interest; or

(iii) in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest.

(2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(i), a religious purpose includes, but is not limited to, conveying or teaching a religion or proselytising.

(22) Clause 49, page 42 (line 6), after "Part 4", insert "or 4A".

(23) Clause 50, page 43 (line 10), after "Part 4", insert "or 4A".

(24) Clause 51, page 44 (line 11), after "Part 4", insert "or 4A".

(25) Clause 70, page 57 (line 27), after "Part 4", insert "or 4A".

(26) Clause 70, page 58 (line 6), after "Part 4", insert "or 4A".

(27) Clause 73, page 59 (line 32), after "Part 4", insert "or 4A".

As I said earlier, there has been a lot of disagreement about what clause 12—the statements of belief clause in this bill—would allow and what it would not allow. The government says that the clause simply clarifies that there is no law against a person making a statement of belief. But disability groups, human rights groups, women's groups, aged-care organisations, the Australian Medical Association, LGBTIQ groups and the Law Council of Australia have raised alarm. Lawyers can argue about the precise legal impact of this provision, but it is impossible to escape the fact that the provision is drafted in a way that suggests people of faith should be able to discriminate against other Australians on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, age and disability, particularly in Tasmania, which is singled out in this provision. This is what the provision says. It literally says that a statement of belief will not constitute discrimination under any of Australia's existing antidiscrimination laws. All of Australia's antidiscrimination laws in each of the states and territories are actually listed in this clause, and so too is a specific provision of Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act.

Labor does not believe that people of faith in Australia are seeking a special right to discriminate against people on the basis of disability or gender or race or sexual orientation or any other protected attribute. We agree that the mere expression of a non-malicious statement of belief should not contravene any Australian law, and we want to reassure people of faith on that front. We stand ready to work with the government on a better way of providing that reassurance, if it can be done in a way that does not remove protections against discrimination. But a law that says, on its face, that one group of Australians should be allowed to discriminate against other Australians is not the way to do it. Quite apart from the precise legal impact of the provision, it sends the wrong signal—a very divisive signal.

Over three years ago, the Prime Minister made a number of election commitments, one of which was to ask the Australian Law Reform Commission to consider the very issue this provision is directed to addressing. The commission was supposed to report in March 2020, but the Prime Minister extended the reporting date over and over again, and now the commission has been directed by this government only to report on this important question 12 months after the bill becomes law. The Prime Minister likes to remind people, including his own party room, that the enactment of a religious discrimination act was an election commitment—that's true; it was—but this provision was not part of that election commitment. In fact, it was quite explicitly not part of the Prime Minister's election commitment. So, to those opposite, especially those of you who are concerned about this provision, I implore you to act consistently with what the Prime Minister actually promised at the last election and vote in favour of Labor's amendment. The amendment would ensure that no existing protection against discrimination will be impacted in any way by clause 12; instead, the amendment to clause 12 would provide clarity that a statement of belief, in and of itself, will not constitute discrimination under the Religious Discrimination Bill.

The Prime Minister says that he wants this bill to bring Australians together. If that is truly what he wants, he will support Labor's amendment to clause 12 of this bill.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support Labor's amendment to amendment (8) within the government's set of amendments. The drafting that the government has proposed is quite specific in making reference to a range of Commonwealth, state and territory acts, and the Labor amendment would remove that specific drafting. The effect of that would be to water down the impact and operation of clause 12. As recognised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights report, clause 12 'strongly promotes not only the right to freedom of religion, but also the related right to freedom of expression'. An ongoing challenge in antidiscrimination law is ensuring that the right to equality and non-discrimination is appropriately balanced against other sometimes conflicting rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Clause 12 has been developed to balance the rights of freedom of religion and freedom of expression with other rights and is subject to the limitations set out in the bill.

The bill includes explicit protections to ensure that the statement of a moderately expressed religious belief in good faith is not discrimination under any Australian antidiscrimination law, nor does it contravene subsection 17(1) of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 on that basis. The effect of the amendment that Labor is putting here would be to undermine that element of the drafting of the bill, and therefore the government will not be accepting it.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would ask the government to reconsider its position on this. I listened to the Prime Minister in this chamber, in his summing-up address, say that his objective here was to achieve bipartisanship. Unfortunately, after the Prime Minister wrote to me last year, there have been no meetings, which is what was suggested, no discussion and no working through of this.

One of the problems with rushing through legislation like this is that you can make unintended errors, which have real consequences. That is what Labor is attempting to fix here, not in any rancorous way but simply to say that we think it is reasonable that you have a statement of belief but that you need to clarify it by ensuring that you are not adding to the discrimination of others by recognising the need to remove discrimination on the basis of religious belief.

It should be very possible for this parliament, with people with goodwill, to be able to have provisions which ensure protections for people of faith without removing protections for others. That is what this amendment is aiming to do. That is why it isn't just one group; it is disability groups, human rights groups, women's groups, aged-care organisations, the Australian Medical Association, LGBTIQ groups and the Law Council who have all expressed concern. I say to the Prime Minister: if you are at all fair dinkum about trying to get a bipartisan agreement, then you should support the amendment which is being advanced here.

Discrimination is bad in all its forms, but it should not be the case that, in order to protect the rights of any one group, you are taking away the rights of others. That is what this provision, that the shadow Attorney-General has moved, is attempting to do. It's attempting to fix a problem here. If it is not fixed here, we of course will continue to pursue it. We'll continue to pursue it here in the House of Representatives and we'll continue to pursue it in the Senate, but we will also commit to fixing the problems that are being created, if amendments aren't dealt with appropriately, to fix the flaws in this legislation.

Everyone in this chamber may well have a range of views, and I accept that that's the case. But there is no-one in this chamber who can say that this is a process that is causing greater national unity. That should be the objective here: not to look for division but to look for how we bring people on this journey in the same direction. These concerns that have been raised are legitimate, and that is why we should support this amendment. Because this amendment which we're moving here will fix a consequence—it may well be an unintended one, but the consequence is there, and it's been laid out for us very clearly by all of those groups.

You want people, as well as the whole country, to be in a position to say, 'Isn't it a good thing that people of faith are more protected after this legislation than they were before,' without saying 'but' after that and without having to say, 'But it's unfortunate that other groups, including some of the most vulnerable groups in our community, are losing their rights that are existing rights.' We are taking away provisions unless we support this amendment.

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

The question is that the opposition amendment to government amendment (8) be disagreed to.

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

Very long and established principles are set out in the House of Representatives Practice on page 186. This quotes the principles set out in May that have guided the exercise of the casting vote. House precedents are also set out on pages 187 to 190 of the Practice. On this occasion, in accordance with the long-established principles, I will vote with the ayes, on the basis that, where further discussion is not possible, decisions should not be taken except by a majority.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a point of order, Mr Speaker. It goes to your ruling, which certainly there is precedent for. I'm not questioning the basis of that. But it is possible to deliver other outcomes given that the stated objective of the mover of this legislation was to have a consensus. If there is a definition of division, 62 each is it. I believe that there is a possibility of further scope and discussion in order to get greater agreement. I don't think that this is a positive way for this to move forward. This isn't really aimed at you, Mr Speaker, because you are in accordance with the procedures and precedents. I accept that that's the case. But normally in this place the context would be an adversarial contest, which is what we often have. What we have here is legislation which we're told is about building a consensus. Clearly that's not the case. It's certainly within the scope of the government, and I would ask it to consider the opportunity that it has now to actually get some genuine discussion and some agreement to resolve these issues in a more satisfactory way.

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

On the basis of my ruling and the reasons given for my ruling, I don't intend to change how I have ruled. The question now is that government amendments (1) to (9), (11), (13) to (16) and (22) be agreed to.

Question agreed to, Mr Bandt and Mr Wilkie dissenting.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (2), (4), (10), (17) to (19) and (21) to (27) to the Religious Discrimination Bill together:

(2) Clause 4, page 3, after line 30, insert:

Religious vilification is unlawful, with certain exceptions (see Part 4A).

(4) Clause 7, page 10 (line 8), omit "this Act", substitute "Part 4".

(10) Clause 9, page 12 (line 24), omit "this Act", substitute "Part 4".

(17) Clause 12, page 17 (line 15), omit ".", substitute "; or".

(18) Clause 12, page 17 (after line 15), after paragraph (2)(c), insert:

(d) that is unlawful under Part 4A (religious vilification).

(19) Clause 16, page 20 (line 12), omit "this Act", substitute "Part 4".

(21) Page 41 (after line 7), after Part 4, insert:

Part 4A — Religious vilification

48A Religious vilification unlawful

(1) It is unlawful for a person to engage in conduct, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or group of persons, that:

(a) is not in private; and

(b) a reasonable person would consider would threaten, intimidate, harass or vilify the other person or group.

Note: Complaints can be made to the Australian Human Rights Commission about conduct that is unlawful under this Part (see the definition of unlawful discrimination in subsection 3(1) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, and section 46P of that Act).

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

(b) is done in a public place; or

(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

(3) Public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.

48B Exceptions

(1) A person does not contravene section 48A if the person establishes that the person engaged in the conduct reasonably and in good faith:

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in:

(i) for any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose; or

(ii) for any purpose that is in the public interest; or

(iii) in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest.

(2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(i), a religious purpose includes, but is not limited to, conveying or teaching a religion or proselytising.

(22) Clause 49, page 42 (line 6), after "Part 4", insert "or 4A".

(23) Clause 50, page 43 (line 10), after "Part 4", insert "or 4A".

(24) Clause 51, page 44 (line 11), after "Part 4", insert "or 4A".

(25) Clause 70, page 57 (line 27), after "Part 4", insert "or 4A".

(26) Clause 70, page 58 (line 6), after "Part 4", insert "or 4A".

(27) Clause 73, page 59 (line 32), after "Part 4", insert "or 4A".

The amendments that Labor is moving now would introduce into this bill a provision to protect people from vilification on the grounds of their religious belief or practice. This is a very important provision that the government has deliberately left out of this bill, despite requests from a range of faith communities for such a provision to be included. Indeed, it's difficult to understand how the Prime Minister can insist on what he imagines is the desire of people of faith to be able to make discriminatory statements about other Australians in what would otherwise amount to a breach of state antidiscrimination laws while ignoring their clearly stated desire to be protected from vilification on the grounds of their faith.

In his second reading speech, the Prime Minister said:

People should not be cancelled or persecuted or vilified because their beliefs are different from someone else's in a free liberal democratic society such as Australia.

Yet the bill introduced by the Prime Minister would not prohibit the vilification of people on the basis of religious belief, religious dress or religious activity. Currently, if a Muslim Arab or an Indian Hindu or an Egyptian Copt is vilified on the basis of race, they have legal protection under Commonwealth law. But if they are vilified because of their religion, there is no protection under Commonwealth law. This bill does nothing to address this. This bill does nothing to protect a Muslim woman in Western Sydney who is abused in the street because of her hijab, or a Hindu man who is vilified for his religious beliefs.

The Race Discrimination Commissioner, Mr Chin Tan, completed a report last year called Sharing the Stories of Australian Muslims. That report provides confronting analysis and evidence of just how often Australians of the Islamic faith are being vilified because of their religion. Commissioner Tan wrote in his introduction:

The stories shared by Australian Muslim community members for this project have brought home to me that the undercurrents of religious discrimination, vilification and hate that manifested so horribly in the Christchurch attack, are not an aberration. They are consistent with the experiences of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate that is routinely experienced in Australia.

These amendments respond to the very real problem of religious vilification—a problem described by the Race Discrimination Commissioner of the Australian Human Rights Commission as a problem 'routinely experienced' by Australian Muslims and those from many other faith communities—by prohibiting a person from threatening, intimidating, harassing or vilifying a person or a group of persons on the basis of their religious belief. This should not be a controversial suggestion. I hope that no-one in this parliament believes that in our country people should continue to be allowed to threaten, intimidate, harass or vilify a Muslim man or woman because they're Muslim, or a Hindu man or woman because they're Hindu, or a Christian because they're Christian.

I will briefly outline the specifics of the antivilification provision these amendments will introduce. It provides that a person must not on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or group of persons engage in conduct that is not private and that a reasonable person would consider would threaten, intimidate, harass or vilify the other person or group. It's important to emphasise this last point: the religious antivilification provision these amendments would establish only prohibits conduct that 'threatens, intimidates, harasses or vilifies'. This is a higher threshold than the threshold in the longstanding protections against racial and other hate speech in section 18(c) of the Racial Discrimination Act, which is 'insult, offend, humiliate or intimidate'.

The higher threshold we are proposing for the protection against religious vilification will help to ensure that this provision cannot be used as a de facto prohibition on blasphemy. It's Labor's view that, while Australians should be respectful of each other, a statement that may be insulting or offensive to a member of a religious faith without more should not attract legal sanction. The proposed threshold is also consistent with the proposal put forward by the Australian National Imams Council and other submitters in response to the racial discrimination bill. In addition to ensuring an appropriately high threshold for religious vilification, these amendments also include a comprehensive defence to any action if the person engaged in the conduct complained of reasonably and in good faith did it:

(a) in the performance, exhibition or distribution of an artistic work; or

(b) in the course of any statement, publication, discussion or debate made or held, or any other conduct engaged in:

  (i) for any genuine academic, artistic, religious or scientific purpose; or

  (ii) for any purpose that is in the public interest; or

  (iii) in making or publishing a fair and accurate report of any event or matter of public interest.

Of course we invited the government to work with us on an antivilification provision to protect people of faith, but the government said no. This was just another example of how the Prime Minister's claim that he wanted to work in a bipartisan manner on this bill to unite rather than to divide Australians on these important issues of protecting people of faith was merely a pretence. The government has said that this issue was raised only at the last minute and there isn't time to work through the drafting. That is clearly nonsense. Since the first exposure draft of this bill was released over two years ago a range of religious groups have argued that the bill should include an antivilification provision. The Australian National Imams Council has even put forward drafting suggestions. This government was still drafting amendments to this bill as late as mid-morning yesterday.

These are sensible amendments. Labor has consulted with legal experts as well as with faith communities. We think these provisions get the balance right. Of course, if the government or others have suggestions as to how these provisions can be further improved, we are willing to consider those suggestions. These are sensible amendments. Labor has consulted with experts. Labor has consulted with minority faith communities. We do think that these provisions get the balance right.

What the government should not do—and should not be allowed to get away with—is pretend that this is all too hard. It is not. This parliament has an opportunity to provide people of faith, particularly minority faiths, with a meaningful and important protection against vilification. We should take that opportunity.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government does not support this set of amendments and the proposal to include within the bill a prohibition on religious vilification. I want to make it absolutely clear that the government does not condone vilification or hate speech and recognises the harmful effects that hate speech directed at people of faith can have on those individuals and their communities, but the fact is that any vilification provisions, such as these, are complex and require careful consideration in order to appropriately balance competing rights.

These proposed provisions would create further inconsistency across Commonwealth, state and territory laws. Their drafting is inconsistent with all existing civil prohibitions on vilification in state and territory laws. The proposed amendments cover a much lower standard of conduct than existing state and territory laws. They set a lower bar. Existing state and territory laws prohibit incitement to hatred and serious contempt for or severe ridicule of people on the basis of their religion. In addition, under the existing laws conduct that incites violence or threatens a person because of that person's religious belief or activity is a criminal standard, and it is not appropriate to be contained within a civil provision. The prohibition will also create internal inconsistencies and confusion within the bill.

In addition, the introduction of this prohibition would have the consequence of providing greater protection under Commonwealth law for religion than for other attributes such as sex, sexual orientation, age or disability. Prohibiting certain speech relating to religion presents unique and difficult problems for reconciling competing rights in a free society where beliefs and ideas of any kind should be able to be debated and criticised. It is important to ensure that any antivilification provision does not unnecessarily fetter legitimate forms of expression and does not operate in effect as a prohibition upon blasphemy. So, for those reasons, the government will not be supporting this set of amendments.

Hon. Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

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

Just before I give the Manager of Opposition Business the call, standing order 94(a) doesn't just apply to question time, and you would remember that you are—everybody in this chamber is—still under a general warning.

Opposition members interjecting—

Was that the member for Barton? I know we're all tired, but let's just get on with it.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I really want to implore the government: consider your position on this. I start with the words that were given by the Prime Minister when this bill was introduced, where he implied to the House that the antivilification protection was already in the bill. If it was important enough to be put in the speech, it's important enough to be put in the bill. The Prime Minister said this: 'the bill draws a clear line against harassment, vilification or intimidation of anyone.' No, it doesn't! And it should. Those words the Prime Minister said are right, because, let's face it: while a lot of the lobbying that happens in terms of religious discrimination happens in terms of the religious organisations, the lived experience of prejudice happens when people are abused on the street; the lived experience of prejudice happens when people are threatened, intimidated, harassed and vilified.

When I was here in my first term, which was before the Prime Minister arrived here, there was a riot in his electorate, largely about people who live in my electorate, and some of it was race based and a lot of it was faith based, and all of it was wrong—all of it was wrong. Yet, if a woman in Lakemba or Punchbowl is walking down the stairs at the station and is threatened, intimidated, harassed or vilified, because they say, 'You're Lebanese,' she has legal protection, but if it's because they say, 'You're a Muslim,' and they're having a go at her for wearing a hijab or a niqab, she has no legal protection.

There have been some passionate speeches about how wrong it is to discriminate against somebody simply because of their faith. The Prime Minister and others have spoken about the fact that, for people of faith, it is another issue of identity, and people, on a range of issues not about religion, have talked about horrific ways that people are vilified. We've all established the principle in the debate about this bill, but we haven't put the words into the bill. This amendment does it. The words have been deliberately chosen in a way that can achieve consensus for those opposite, not for everybody. But we've been through the 18C debates, and we know that, if we were to use the language of 18C, that would create a problem, within some of you, for your party room, and we are trying to find language that will work. But if we walk out of here at the end of the debate we've had and we walk away with no legal protection against people being harassed, intimidated, threatened or vilified because of their faith, then what on earth has this debate been about?

This can be fixed. We have not played games with the wording of this amendment. The Prime Minister in his speech made clear how important this is and implied it was already in the bill. It can be put in the bill tonight. As to the claim from the government in the minister's speech where he said: 'It's not appropriate for this sort of legislation'—then why did we all make the speeches we made?

I'm a person of faith. I will never be threatened or vilified for mine, because it's the majority faith in the country. But that's not true of my neighbours. It's not true of someone wearing a hijab, a niqab, a turban or a yarmulke, and it's not true of people who, because of their faith, want to display icons or wear a cross all the time. If you don't think they get abused and belittled, then you're not walking in their shoes. Prejudice and bigotry are wrong in every form. We are asking the government to do no more than to agree to the words of their own speeches. There is a way to support this amendment, and, if tonight we don't find it, it is a complete failure of this process.

Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Communications and Cyber Security) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I listened to the Manager of Opposition Business try to convince those opposite to take action on the important issue of religious vilification by quoting the words of the Prime Minister in his second reading speech back to him. It was not effective, so let me take a different tack. Let me quote the words of Twitter to those opposite. These are the depths that those opposite have stooped to—that they are being lectured by social media platforms about decency and integrity. This is evidence from the Select Committee on Social Media and Online Safety, established by this Prime Minister, as he says, to consider his so-called antitrolling bill. All of the social media platforms that appeared before this committee highlighted the problem of religious vilification as part of the radicalisation of violent extremists online. They called out the absence of a legal standard in Australia with respect to hate speech targeting people of religious faith.

Let me quote Twitter. It may shame those opposite. This is the standard they have fallen to. Twitter told the inquiry:

… Australia continues to utilise a very limited definition of hate speech under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) that is limited to race-based speech or behaviour, and does not include a number of the aforementioned categories, including sexual orientation, disability-based, religious-based or gender-based speech.

These are the depths that they have stooped to. The Prime Minister set up a social media inquiry to put the big tech giants under the microscope, and, really, it's shining a mirror on the government—a mirror of the standards that they apply to themselves. This has consequences. This kind of radicalisation through religious vilification has real-world consequences. We saw it when an Australian murdered 51 people of faith in New Zealand nearly three years ago. The Christchurch terrorist was radicalised by online extremist speech. That was the finding of the task force to combat violent extremism online, established by this government. They highlighted the role of this hate machine online. Those opposite have an opportunity to deal with it today in this amendment. Vote for it. You can stop this. It's the same radicalisation that drove the Utoya terrorist. It's the same radicalisation that drove the Christchurch terrorist.

Let me quote to you one of the witnesses in this inquiry, a person of faith representing a religious organisation. This is an organisation that was charged with trying to stamp out Islamophobia and violent extremism and radicalisation online in the wake of the Christchurch attacks—the Australian Muslim Advocacy Network. Ms Rita Jabri-Markwell committed herself and her organisation, on a voluntary basis, to identifying online Islamophobia targeting Australian Muslims. She identified hundreds of examples, including, shamefully, the vile posting of former Senator Fraser Anning, who was condemned in this chamber by both sides of parliament. There were great speeches from those on both sides of parliament. Those identified instances of Islamophobia and hate speech by former Senator Anning were sent to the social media platforms. Their response was that there was not an adequate legal basis to kick his page off the site. I asked Ms Rita Jabri-Markwell, the director of the Australian Muslim Advocacy Network, in these hearings how it made her feel to do all of this voluntary work, only to see that we had not advanced the legal framework dealing with hate speech and vilification of religious groups in this country since an Australian murdered 51 people of faith. There had been no change. This is what she told this inquiry. I asked her how that felt, and she said:

It's made us feel really lonely. I don't know how else to describe it. It's kind of like you don't matter.

This is what people of religious faith are telling your government, Prime Minister.

But we just have to keep going. If another scenario like that happens—

That is, an Australian murdering 51 people of faith—

I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I knew that I hadn't tried everything.

This amendment is something we can try to stop this radicalisation. It's been called for for two years since the debates about 18C of the racial vilification act, called for by the Australian Muslim community and called for by the Australian Jewish community. We should act now. (Time expired)

Andrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The shadow Attorney-General referred to the Race Discrimination Commissioner's report Sharing the stories of Australian Muslims. I wanted to take the House to some of the remarks made in the consultations around that report. One participant said:

My aunt wears a hijab, she has been spat on and had her hijab pulled off … she was born in Australia. When my aunt responded, the attacker was surprised that she could speak and defend herself.

Another Muslim woman said:

I don't feel safe while I’m walking down the street. I'm thinking of being spat at or someone might pull my hijab off my head.

The report noted that Muslim women face a 'triple penalty' as women, as members of a racial minority and as members of a religious minority. It highlighted the way in which mosques have been targeted with things such as graffiti, property being destroyed, pig carcasses being left on the grounds and direct attacks on members of the mosque.

We have seen a rise in Islamophobia. The September 11 events led to a shift in attitudes toward Australian Muslims and flow-on attacks on the wider Australian Arab community. The work that both sides of the House did to try to quell some of those horrific racially and religiously inspired attacks couldn't have the backing of an antivilification provision, because none existed. What we're trying to do here is to put into legislation what the Prime Minister said he wanted to achieve. The Race Discrimination Commissioner has talked about the impact of the Christchurch mosque attack and pointed out that, following that, the Holland Park Mosque in the southern suburbs of Brisbane was vandalised and the swastika was spray-painted on the front gates of the mosque.

We've seen a rise in the rate of religious vilification, noted by the Scanlon Foundation and the Australian National University surveys. We've seen a rise in the number of racial vilification inquiries to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission, noting that there have been significant impacts over recent years. The 2019 anti-Semitism report reported 368 incidents of anti-Semitism, including physical assault, abuse, harassment, vandalism, graffiti, hate communications via email, postal mail, telephone, leaflets, posters and stickers. The Islamophobia Register, launched in 2014, documents a rise in Islamophobia and reports almost 400 verified instances of reported Islamophobia. Some of those are interpersonal; some of those are directed at the Islamic community as a whole. They include hate graffiti, stickers, hate speech, vandalism and physical attacks. As the member for Gellibrand has pointed out, the rise of online hate speech sees another channel through which religious vilification can occur.

Labor has worked with experts on this. We've sought to ensure that there are appropriate carve-outs for issues such as satire, recognising that there is important scope for public debate and freedom of speech. But, if we really are committed to stamping out religious vilification, then this amendment should be supported. This is an amendment that goes fundamentally to who we are as a nation and whether we as a nation believe it is acceptable for racial vilification to take place. Those of us on this side of the House stand with communities of faith in wishing to rid Australia of religious vilification. We stand with those in the Jewish community, those in the Islamic community and those in the Christian community, many of whom have worked for years to strike the right balance on an antivilification provision, and that is what is before the House tonight. (Time expired)

Peter Khalil (Wills, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Colleagues, it's late—it's actually early. I'm going to implore you directly as parliamentary colleagues. We're debating the Religious Discrimination Bill—it's all in the name—and this amendment goes directly to protecting people of faith from discrimination. It's manifest in the name of this bill, and this amendment goes directly to it. There are a lot of good people on the other side here. We have different views, we might not agree on everything, but there are a lot of people of good conscience, and we've got an opportunity now to do the right thing by making this law better.

Most of us here probably already have our eyes closed, so keep them closed and imagine you're a member of a Jewish family, walking to a synagogue on the Sabbath, and a car full of yobbos drives past and starts spewing an anti-Semitic tirade against you and your children. Imagine you're a Sikh stacking shelves at a supermarket, and someone comes down the aisle and starts screaming at you that you're a terrorist. Imagine you're a young Muslim woman on a bus, wearing a hijab, and a group of people get on the bus and start shouting at you, in your face, and surrounding you. Imagine you're an Orthodox Christian priest, wearing a long black gown, at the shops, being screamed at by people and told to go back to where you came from. All of those examples are real experiences of ordinary Australians, and this amendment goes to the heart of protecting them from what they experience because of their faith. That's what we're debating here. It's not too hard for us to imagine their experiences, because some of us have experienced them as well. In voting for this amendment, we will give truth to the title of this bill, the Religious Discrimination Bill, and I implore you, colleagues, to vote for this amendment.

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

At the moment, early on Thursday morning, we are debating something which is called the Religious Discrimination Bill. But, without this amendment, it doesn't actually protect Australians against discrimination on the basis of their faith. We have heard lots of speeches from people on both sides of the House and from the crossbench too, and a very common theme has been recourse to the imagery that what we should be looking for is a shield and not a sword. But here we see a government insisting, for reasons I genuinely don't understand, on providing a sword but not a shield.

People in my community have spoken to me about their concerns, and I share their concerns, that we have a big gap in our architecture of Commonwealth antidiscrimination laws. We have a big gap that presently allows people to be discriminated against on the basis of their faith. This should be something that we should be able to attend to. This amendment would do that. This amendment deals with what multicultural and multifaith communities have been asking for.

We've heard quite a bit from government members about that, seeking to wrap themselves around community groups in support of their proposal, but this is utterly disingenuous. My colleagues the member for Wills, just a moment ago, and the member for Fenner set out some really important context that all members should have regard to. The fact is that, while we do see an increase in racism in Australia—and that is something that we should and could be doing more about—there is a Commonwealth legal framework that exists that can attend to that.

We're also seeing a very disturbing increase in hate online and in the community, in real life, based on people's faith, in particular, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism. It beggars belief that we are here three years after the concept of a religious discrimination bill was advanced dealing with a bill with this title, yet we have a government that is unwilling to grasp the simple fact that people are being discriminated against in our streets and towns on the basis of their faith and how they manifest it—people who are being singled out because they are obviously a Muslim woman or a Sikh man; people who deserve to be able to freely participate in our society. I wonder if members opposite might just spend one moment pondering how any of these Australians might see this debate—a debate taken out by members opposite cynically in their name but without regard to their interests or our interests in constructing a society in which each of us is free to be who we are—absent the ugly stain of discrimination.

When it comes to these manifestations of discrimination based on faith, as the member for Gellibrand set out, we are seeing some of the most challenging and awful manifestations of hate. People feel fear. Muslim Australians look at what happened in Christchurch. While there have been fine words spoken in this place, those words need to be matched by action. And the action that we're putting forward is pretty simple. It's simply to do what all of these groups have been asking for; it's simply to do what any reasonable person would believe is required of a bill styled the Religious Discrimination Bill.

There are other aspects of Labor's amendments that I understand some members on the government side may have an ideological basis for their disagreement. I understand that; I disagree with it. But I simply do not understand how Australia's parliament, right now, in 2022, can fail to recognise the discrimination that is happening in every town and in every suburb, and, more than that, can put forward a bill that, on the face of it, addresses that but thumbs its nose at the people it should be protecting, the people whose interests need to be brought to the centre of the debate, the people whose interests would, should, could and must be protected through this amendment.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm urging the Prime Minister to consider Labor's antivilification amendment so that the second reading speech has a piece of legislation that mirrors each other, so that the Prime Minister's words are true. Certainly in the conversations that the Prime Minister has had about the need for this religious discrimination legislation, he has made it very clear that this is particularly about looking after our multifaith communities. Like the Leader of Opposition Business, people won't discriminate against me because of my faith, because the majority of Australians are in the Catholic faith. But my electorate, like so many others here, has communities that are discriminated against and are vilified. It's interesting that in the lead-up to today's debate I've had many people, particularly on Twitter and Facebook and in emails to my office—some are constituents, some not—saying, 'You should just say no to this legislation because there is no problem.' It's really reassuring when middle-class, middle-aged, white, Anglo-Saxon men tell me that there is no problem with religious discrimination. We hear a different story; I hear a different story.

The electorate that I represent has a mosque in Kuraby that has been vandalised, terrorised and burnt. The wonderful Holland Park Mosque, which I've been to with the member for Chifley, is outside my electorate, just on the border between Griffith and Bonner, but many of my community would attend that mosque. It's the oldest mosque, certainly in Queensland. It's a beautiful mosque that has been attacked, targeted and had swastikas put out the front. People and communities have been attacked because of their religion. Any person of faith would say, 'We should do something about this.' I've been to the Bosnian mosque in Eight Mile Plains with the member for Chifley as well. It's not targeted so much, but many of its congregation came to Australia because they were targeted because of their faith and murdered because of their faith. Their country was torn apart because of religious differences, where people didn't step up and protect people of faith. The Mount Gravatt Jewish burial facility, which I've been to with the member for Griffith, services the Jewish community.

So many groups have been attacked because of their faith, so here is a simple amendment that will match the Prime Minister's words and his deeds together. Rather than there being any suggestion that he was misleading the Australian public in talking about this legislation, we would be able to match them together and help people who are attacked for wearing the clothes of their faith. It's easy to wear your faith under your shirt and tie, but if you're wearing a niqab or a hijab or a burqa, or any of those other items of religious clothing that attract vilification—where people are harassed, people are intimidated and people are scared—that's why we're doing this legislation.

Queensland has had religious discrimination legislation since Wayne Goss brought it in in 1991. Only about one per cent of the complaints that go to what was previously called the Anti-Discrimination Commission, now the Human Rights Commission, are to do with people being discriminated against because of their religion. But we do know that the people who are targeted are those from multifaith communities and minority religions.

That is why I am imploring the Prime Minister, who has so much power in his party room, to say, 'We can do this.' Cometh the hour, cometh the man. This is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to actually protect Australians who are targeted because of their faith. It's a simple thing to do. As the member for Wills stated—and he speaks with much authority on communities that are targeted because of their faith—'This goes to the heart of protecting the people who need it most.'

So I would urge those opposite—it's early in the morning, so you could just wander over here accidentally and pretend you're a bit tired—that when it comes to this antivilification legislation this will be a chance for you to leave a great mark in parliament.

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Industry and Innovation) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would imagine that one of the freedoms we would like to enjoy is the freedom to not be vilified. A lot of people would appreciate that. The other thing they would appreciate is that, when we're debating this bill right now and when we've got a chance to make a change, it's not just powerful people that can get this protection but also minorities. I just want to make this clear to three people in the government. To the Deputy Prime Minister, I never want anyone close to him to be abused the way that they were through social media. He got to go overseas and talk to people in the tech sector to try and address that on behalf of the people who were hurt. All we want him to do is to move a few metres to change this bill and to provide us with the protection from vilification. Deputy Prime Minister, I don't want your people hurt and I certainly don't want people of minority religions to be hurt. The member for Mallee who was affected by online abuse, who's not here, should not cop it, but neither should people in minority groups. They should not be vilified. Minister for Communications, is the only person who can get the benefit of your support Erin Molan? I don't want her or anybody close to her abused, but I want to know: are you going to step up to ensure that people aren't vilified?

These are the choices you can make but, in this case, you won't make. It then begs the question: why are you doing this if you are not putting in fair dinkum protections? I've got to tell you, Liberal Party: this isn't just a matter of doing the right thing; you need to atone, and you know exactly why. It's because in three consecutive elections faith was used as a political weapon: in 2004, we know about that one—and, by the way, in 2004 I was going for a job and I experienced a bit of religious discrimination, I can tell you! In 2007 there was the circulation of those pamphlets in the electorate of Lindsay. And in 2010 you pre-selected a candidate that you knew had anti-Islamic sentiment, and, through the pre-selection process, you in effect said, 'You're not going to say anything, are you?' and they said, 'No, we won't,' and then they did. Three elections in a row!

I know your party has come a long way, but the journey has not ended. The test is now. Will you make sure, for minority groups, that they will not be vilified? That is the test, and that is what we think is missing. You started the job in the speech by the Prime Minister, but you didn't finish the job in the bill that was referred to by the Prime Minister that we're debating now and seeking to fix. You have got to fix it. You cannot have a standard that provides protection for the powerful and well-connected and not for the people who don't have access to that support.

Ged Kearney (Cooper, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all the other speakers that have talked about this incredibly important issue. There are so many people in this community who are going to ask: what is the point of this legislation if it doesn't protect people from one of the most commonly used forms of abuse, one of the most commonly experienced instances of discrimination that is vilification? It happens every day on the street, all around us. We witness it. Maybe those opposite aren't quite sure what we're talking about. Let me give you some examples: speaking about a person's race or religion in a way that could make other people hate or ridicule them—we see that often enough; publishing claims that a racial or religious group is involved in serious crimes, without any proof—we see that plenty of times; repeated and serious spoken or physical abuse about the religion of another person; encouraging violence against people who belong to a particular religion, or damaging their property; encouraging people to hate a religious group using flyers, stickers, posters, speech, a publication, a T-shirt—we see plenty of that right around this building as we sit here; well, maybe not now, but during the day. Which one of those do you think is okay? Which one of those do you think does not warrant legislating against?

I have a very large mosque in my electorate. A Muslim man was talking to me the other day when I was visiting it. He'd bought a large car—he has a large family; it's a bit of a people mover. He said he parks it in his driveway. He also uses it as a taxi, an Uber—it is his income. Nearly every morning he has to get up before work and wash awful slogans off it. He wouldn't tell me what they said, but he said, 'Ged, they're awful. I can't tell you.'

Another woman came into my office the other day in tears because she had observed a young woman getting on a bus. She was abused so awfully, so vilely, by someone because she had a hijab on. She was in tears and couldn't get on the bus. Someone ushered her away from the bus to comfort her, and the woman said to me, 'Ged, I didn't do anything. I walked past that. I saw it. I didn't know what I could do, where I could turn.' Perhaps if that person knew there was a law against it, something could've been done.

We've heard stories. We heard the member for Dunkley talk about someone in her electorate: a man who was too frightened to let his wife drive their children to sport on the weekend. There might be some people that listen to the Prime Minister, listen to the hubris around this bill, and think: I'm sure there are protections there. I can tell you: we're going to tell those people loudly and clearly that protections against vilification are not there. This bill is not what they think. We will have to tell them that you simply do not care that this happens to them day in, day out. Why don't you care about this? Why don't you? We don't get it. You could make a stand today. The Prime Minister could live up to his hubris and fix this now and support this amendment.

Don't turn your back again, Prime Minister. We've seen you do that before. This is an opportunity to do something decent. This is an opportunity to outlaw vilification—something that people experience everyday, something that will actually make a big difference to people of religion in this country: people in your electorates, people in our electorates and children in schools everywhere, every day. I ask you: support this amendment; do the right thing.

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

The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Isaacs be disagreed to.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (5) to (9) and (11) to (15) together:

(5) Clause 7, page 10 (line 18), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".

(6) Heading to clause 8, page 11 (line 30), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".

(7) Clause 8, page 12 (lines 1 and 2), omit paragraph (a), substitute:

(a) establishing, directing, controlling or administering a hospital; or

(aa) if the religious body solely or primarily provides aged care services—the provision of the services; or

(8) Heading to clause 9, page 12 (line 17), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".

(9) Clause 9, page 12 (line 22), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".

(11) Clause 9, page 12 (line 28), omit "facility", substitute "service provider".

(12) Clause 9, page 13 (lines 4 to 7), omit paragraph (2)(b), substitute:

(b) a body (a religious aged care service provider) that solely or primarily provides aged care services in accordance with the doctrines, tenets, beliefs or teachings of a particular religion;

(13) Heading to subclause 9(3), page 13 (line 15), omit "facilities", substitute "service providers".

(14) Clause 9, page 13 (line 18), omit "facility", substitute "service provider".

(15) Clause 9, page 14 (line 8), omit "facility", substitute "service provider".

As I'd indicated, this is an amendment which deals with in-home aged care. More than a million older Australians receive in-home service and those Australians deserve to be treated with dignity. Any suggestion that it is acceptable to discriminate against them, these older Australians, for any reason should be rejected by this parliament, and yet that is what this bill does suggest in a tricky and underhanded way. The bill in its current form would allow a religious in-home aged-care provider to discriminate on the basis of religion in the provision of services. The government did not announce this, it has not explained this and the provision in this bill but that would allow this is deliberately obscure.

We have COTA, a key advocate for older Australians, to thank for identifying this issue. When it was drawn to our attention we assumed it was a drafting error and so when we raised it with the government we thought we would be able to agree on sensible amendments to address COTA's concern. But the government refused our request for an amendment, because apparently it is not a drafting error at all; it is the Morrison government's intention that religious in-home aged-care providers should be permitted to discriminate in the provision of services under this bill.

We support the right of a religious aged-care service provider to give preference to persons of the same religion in making hiring decisions, in selection of staff. There is no federal law that stops a religious aged-care service provider from doing that now and this bill wouldn't change that. But, since Labor amended the religious exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act nine years ago, no federal law has permitted discrimination by aged-care service providers in the provision of services, and this bill would change that. Under the bill, religious in-home aged-care service providers are treated differently to residential care providers, because in-home care providers will be permitted to discriminate in the provision of services on the basis of religion.

If there's a good reason for this, the government has not explained it. In fact, those opposite haven't been upfront about the fact of this new basis for discrimination at all, let alone their justification for creating it. Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at the government's embarrassment about this provision. After all, this is a government with an appalling track record when it comes to meeting the needs of older Australians. COTA has said that the treatment of in-home aged-care service providers, under the bill, will send a chilling message to older people who are vulnerable that their aged-care provider may no longer treat them with the dignity and respect that the current law ensures they receive.

Labor's amendment would ensure that all religious aged-care service providers are treated the same under the bill so that no provider will be permitted to discriminate against older, vulnerable Australians on the basis of religion. This should be an uncontroversial amendment. It should really go without saying, and the government should be ashamed of itself for trying to sneak this into the bill and then persisting with it, when COTA, a key advocate for older people across Australia, has drawn the problem to their attention. I would urge the House to support Labor's amendment.

Clare O'Neil (Hotham, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to reiterate and support the words of the member for Isaacs here in relation to the provision of aged care. It's probably not widely understood among people who don't work in government that, actually, the vast majority of aged-care recipients in Australia are not living in an aged-care home but are receiving services within their own home. In the order of 800,000 Australians are today receiving some type of services at home.

It is going to be truly extraordinary to the Australian public when they understand that the bill that's being proposed by the government today would facilitate religion-based discrimination against people who receive in-home care. There is not a single policy ground for making such a change to Australian law, and Labor is absolutely doing the right thing in trying to defend people who receive these services.

The member for Isaacs has talked about the fact that the issue that's being debated here emerged through the Council on the Ageing raising the issue with us. Of course, we believe this to be some sort of drafting error. Why on earth would the government put forward an antidiscrimination bill that in fact facilitates discrimination against 800,000 Australians? It makes absolutely no sense at all. And yet nothing has been resolved about this critical problem that the law contains.

The member for Isaacs referred to the government's consistent track record in how it deals with the elderly, with senior Australians, in this country. Unfortunately, this is just one of a litany of failures that the government has committed against elderly Australians. We've had the Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, which has shown that most people who are using aged-care services today are experiencing some form of neglect. There is the political neglect of a government which continues to ignore the needs of elderly people in this country. Two-thirds of aged-care residents today are malnourished—literally starving—under the care of this government, and yet nothing is done about it.

Unfortunately, this complete disrespect towards older Australians who are receiving in-home care is perfectly consistent with the government's record. It also reflects what we understand to be a general set of issues with the Religious Discrimination Bill, which we are debating today. It's sloppy, ill-thought-through and rushed—somehow rushed, when the government has had three years to draft this and get it right. When we've got nine sitting days left, why are we here debating this legislation in such a rushed manner?

We could have worked together across the parliament to develop a law that actually enriched our lives as Australians. Instead, here we are trying to plug holes—basic holes—in the bill in consideration in detail. It didn't have to be like this. It shouldn't be like this. And that's why the government should accept Labor's amendments.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications, Urban Infrastructure, Cities and the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The set of amendments that the shadow Attorney-General has moved would have the effect of extending existing provisions relating to religious aged-care facilities to include aged-care service providers. The government does not support these proposed amendments. Discrimination in the administration of religious aged-care facilities is explicitly carved out of the religious exceptions in the bill. As such, the bill does not allow religious bodies to discriminate in service delivery to residents in their aged-care facilities.

The government notes concerns raised by some stakeholders that this carve-out does not apply to in-home aged-care providers. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights explicitly considered this issue and did not recommend that any amendments be made to these provisions.

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

The question is that the amendments moved by the member for Isaacs be disagreed to.

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

The question now is that this bill, as amended, be agreed to.

Question agreed to.