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

Before this debate was interrupted earlier today by members' statements, I was speaking to the House about my frustration that the government, through their work on this bill, have created such anxiety in our community. Like many other members of the House, people within the LGBTI community have also been contacting me. They're very worried and incredibly anxious about the implications of this bill, and what effect it will have on them, their family and people in the LGBTI community.

I want to take a moment to acknowledge some of the concerns they have raised with me. In a debate like this, one that is so personal, when we are talking about the rights of individuals, it's important to remember and to reflect on the voices and on the issues that are raised with us. And I should say that many of the people who wrote to me haven't just written to me in the past 24 hours; they wrote me some time ago. The moment that the exposure bill was released, they were raising their concerns.

Graham from Eaglehawk was concerned that this bill would 'encourage hatred and hypocrisy', the kind that made his life hell as a young gay student. He was taunted, and he is haunted to this day by his experiences. He is now in his 60s. Penelope from Castlemaine raised with me that there is nothing obscene about being a transgender child. 'These kids are normal, and they should have the same opportunities as other kids.' Terri from Kyneton raised with me: 'My daughter is transgendered. I implore you to vote against any bill that would allow any discrimination of kids within the transgender community. Transgender kids deserve all the same rights afforded to other kids. They deserve acceptance, respect and support.' These are just some of the many comments I've received from people in our community. It's important to raise them, because if the government say they've fixed these issues in this bill—that they are going to protect kids, that kids will not be discriminated against as a result of this bill—then they have a lot of work to do to rebuild trust in our community. Our community is sceptical of this bill because the government have not gone about it in the right way. They have not brought people with them.

When we're talking about an issue, and we're talking about rights and we're talking about discrimination, it can be something that's a unifying moment for our country. It can be a moment that brings people together. It can be a moment that empowers people and allows others to say, 'I stand with you'. We've done this in the past. But unfortunately, in this bill, when we should be celebrating bringing together and talking about protections for people and ending discrimination against people of faith, the government have been able to wedge and divide our community because of the way they have handled the debate and consultation.

I was very concerned this bill was coming to the House without due proper process. And whilst the government had the exposure drafts out there, they haven't allowed the Australian people adequate time to voice their concerns about this bill. In recognising the importance of religious freedoms for so many Australians, Labor called for a joint parliamentary inquiry to be conducted, with significant time for all interested Australians to review these complex laws and make considered submissions to inform the process. That would allow people the time to debate, to discuss, to work through their differences. The government point-blank refused to allow such an inquiry, and instead two parliamentary committees did good work on reviews rushed through over the Christmas period. Over the Christmas period!

That simply isn't enough time, nor does it give people the respect of being involved in this process.

Even with the tight constraints that these committees had to operate within, both reviews identified multiple problems with these laws. To this date, when we stand here, with the government saying they have amendments, we are not convinced that those amendments actually go towards resolving a number of the complex problems in this bill. One of those that I am most concerned about, and that a number of Victorians have raised with me, particularly in my electorate, is the way that these laws propose to override state antidiscrimination laws. While people in Victoria have worked so hard to come together to set up a state system where all people have rights, regardless of religion, sexuality, gender or race, we are now in a situation where the federal government may override some of those.

I speak to this, thinking about what happened in Bendigo not that long ago. In preparing for this speech, I went back and read over the notes, the transcripts, the media and a lot of what happened in Bendigo in the debate around building a mosque in our electorate. If there is a group of Australians who has suffered religious vilification the most, the Bendigo Muslim community is up there on the list. They wanted to build a mosque in their region. They found the perfect site. They put in a planning application to the City of Greater Bendigo, which satisfied the city, and it passed.

Then Bendigo became the backdrop of a horrible fight about religion, where the far Right invaded our town and conducted some hideous acts of racial vilification. There were mock beheadings out the front of the City of Greater Bendigo. There were taunts and rants. We had someone fly down from Queensland and drive around in a truck shouting racist slogans and vilification towards people of the Muslim faith. It wasn't a local but someone who wanted to come down to try to influence our community. What happened on social media was that a post kept being pushed out to our social media networks that was just a lie. It was fake news. It was a photo of the fountain with a made-up headline that Muslim men had raped a local girl. It was a complete lie. It was created and pushed out to our Facebook pages to create fear, to vilify people of the Muslim faith and to stop the mosque from going ahead.

The mosque dispute went to VCAT, which upheld the council decision to allow the mosque to be built. It then went to the Supreme Court. It went all the way to the High Court, and what was frustrating for a lot of the people in the Bendigo Muslim community was that they were partly on the sidelines because it wasn't technically their faith that was on trial; it was a planning decision that was on trial. But the Victorian government introduced laws, and we did see some of the individuals involved in these despicable acts of religious vilification prosecuted. For the first time, a criminal charge under the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act was tested in court, and three men found to be involved in the video of the mock beheading were convicted and found guilty of serious contempt in ridiculing Muslims.

It was a moment for our town that we're still healing from, and it's a moment that many communities across Australia probably have firsthand experience of. But why it relates to this debate is that, when I reach out to people of faith to talk about this bill, what many of them have said to me is, 'I don't want our faith to be blamed for a teacher getting sacked or a kid getting expelled, because if that's what this bill allows then that goes against our teaching and our religion.' It speaks to the confusion that exists in our community, and it speaks to the fear both in the faith communities and in the LGBTI community. It is a wedge that this government has created because it has not brought the Australian people along with it. If we are truly serious that we want this law to be a shield that gives protections to people of religion and people of faith, then we need to go back to the beginning and start again and start bringing people with us, because right now the debate is: 'Your rights are more important than my rights.' It is dividing our community, and that is not fair.

The way in which this is being played out, because the government has handled this so badly, is creating so much hurt and fear in our community. I do really feel for the rainbow families tonight in my electorate who are really worried about the impact of this bill, and, whilst we say that there are amendments to this bill, that emotional damage is there and the government needs to be doing more. I do worry about the impact that this will have on our teachers and aged-care workers and people working in religious institutions, who are incredibly stressed already because of the pressures the pandemic is putting on them, and I hope that this isn't the final straw for some of them in choosing whether they go to work tomorrow or not. I also really worry about the impact that this is having on our faith based community, particularly our minority faiths, who feel that they haven't had enough time to consider what is before us.

The bill, in its original intent, would mean that those individuals who created the most horrible acts of racial vilification against the Bendigo Muslim community could have simply said: 'But it was my faith. Christianity is opposed to that,' and they could have got away with it. It is good to hear that those parts of the bill have been stripped out, but it's not good enough to push this through the parliament in the last weeks and months of this term of parliament. We need more time for this bill to be considered, not by us but by our broader community. If we could take a marriage equality debate to a plebiscite when it changed only a couple of words in the Marriage Act, then surely we can give the Australian people more time to consider this complex bill.

Kevin Andrews (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In December 1948, the international community gathered at the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Confronted by the horrors of the Second World War and egregious breaches of human rights in many places, world leaders sought to enshrine standards of conduct that respected the inherent dignity and liberty of each human being. Led by the redoubtable Eleanor Roosevelt, the human rights committee of the new organisation had worked for nearly two years to draft the declaration. Australia was a significant supporter of the creation of the United Nations and also the universal declaration.

Central to the declaration is the bold assertion that 'human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want', which 'should be protected by the rule of law'. Article 18 of the declaration states that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

As Harvard professor of law Mary Ann Glendon points out in her masterful account of the creation of the declaration, A World Made New, article 18 was a major achievement of the human rights committee. Along with Eleanor Roosevelt, it was the work of other remarkable contributors, including Rene Cassin and Charles Malik, and an Australian, William Hodgson, was a member of the drafting committee.

Two decades later, the international community concluded a long process to transform the declaration into an international legal instrument. Hence, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights was drafted and adopted, and amongst the supporters again was Australia. The covenant expands article 18 of the declaration with three additional provisions. Firstly:

No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.

Secondly:

Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

And, thirdly, the nations that are signatories to the covenant:

… undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.

Australia is a signatory to the covenant, but it's not been incorporated into our domestic law.

A number of observations can be made about the protection of religion and belief in Australia. First, there is an international definition and standard of freedom of religion and belief that Australia has long supported. Accordingly, there is an objective measure by which the adequacy or otherwise of protections in Australia can be measured. The standard in article 18 of the covenant has also been interpreted by the United Nations from time to time.

It is clear that there is very little legal protection for freedom of religion and belief in Australia. This is consistent with the evidence from experts to the parliamentary human rights inquiry that I chaired and which released two reports. As I wrote in the forward to the parliamentary report, Legal foundations of religious freedom in Australia:

… legal protection of religious freedom in Australia is limited. Australia is unusual among modern Western democracies in that it lacks a codified bill or charter of rights. While a culture of religious freedom has thrived, and the common law has respected religious freedom to a large extent, the legislative framework to ensure this continues is vulnerable.

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution is limited in its scope according to these same experts and does not provide the range of protections covered by the covenant. To quote again from the forward:

The Constitution does place 'fetters' on the Commonwealth government, preventing it from restricting religious practice to some extent. But this is a fairly narrow protection, and it does not provide a positive protection of the right, nor does it prevent the States and Territories from restricting religion.

A survey of history reveals that threats to religious freedom have arisen mostly from the dominance of one religion over others or from a state sanctioning an official religion. While this is still the case formally or informally in some parts of the world, the threats in Western nations like Australia are more subtle and often arise in the context of protecting other conflicting rights. An imbalance between competing rights and the lack of an appropriate way to resolve the ensuing conflicts is the greatest challenge to freedom of religion in Australia. To quote again from the forward to the parliamentary report:

This is most apparent with the advent of non-discrimination laws which do not allow for lawful differentiation of treatment by religious individuals and organisations. It is also manifested in a decreasing threshold for when religious freedom may be limited. For example, the Victorian Charter of Rights and Responsibilities allows 'reasonably necessary' limitations while the ACT Human Rights Act has the even lower threshold of 'reasonable' limitations, compared to the ICCPR's requirement that limitations be 'necessary'. While religious exemptions within non-discrimination laws provide some protection, these place religious freedom in a vulnerable position with respect to the right to nondiscrimination, and do not acknowledge the fundamental position that freedom of religion has in international human rights law.

These reflections highlight the inadequacy of the current situation. First, Australian domestic law contains very little protection for freedom of religion. Secondly, this is compounded by the incorporation through a series of Commonwealth, state and territory statutes of one universally recognised freedom that is against discrimination into domestic law but the exclusion of others, including freedom of religion. Thirdly, where exemptions are provided, they create a tenuous and negative protection rather than a positive protection provided in the international covenant. Moreover, there is a failure to recognise that under international jurisprudence there is no hierarchy of rights that each and every right should be given full expression to the extent possible.

The notion that religious freedom does not require any further legal protection, because Australians are a tolerant, easygoing people, is overly sanguine. Hence a Bishop is dragged before a tribunal for simply expounding Christian beliefs; a company retreats after a Twitter storm because it was associated with a respectful debate between two members of this House about same-sex marriage; a business executive is hounded by activists to resign from the board of a Christian education foundation; a sports star is harangued for expressing a belief that marriage is between man and woman; and a university is pressured about an academic who supports a Christian foundation. The latter was argued in the name of diversity—a diversity that tolerates only one view.

The notion of toleration indeed has been turned on its head. A new liberal view was espoused by John Locke and others, with Locke's in his 1689 letter concerning toleration. In it, Locke sought to distinguish the business of civil government from that of religion. Written at a time when controversy surrounded the idea that Catholics should be able to practise their religion in Protestant England and that Jews and Muslims should be able to enjoy religious freedom in a Christian nation, Locke argued that the state and the church had separate functions. He sought to find a way that people of different religious beliefs could live together. As the late Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks has written, toleration:

… aims not so much at truth but at peace. It is a political necessity, not a religious imperative, and it arises when people have lived through the alternative: the war of all against all.

This bill is not perfect, but it is an attempt to find a balance of rights that supports that toleration which was espoused by Locke and many others. Freedom of religion includes the freedom 'to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion', to quote Thomas Jefferson's famous formulation. That means in the public square, not just in the synagogue, temple or church. Once freedom of speech is compromised, freedom of religion will not be far behind. When both are compromised, freedom itself has been lost.

Many contributors to this debate, I note, have spoken about matters that are not in this bill—about their desire for changes to be made, for example, to exemptions under the sex discrimination legislation. Those matters are matters beyond this bill. They're matters indeed which were introduced by way of exemption by a previous Labor government. In conclusion, I believe this bill is an attempt to restore balance. It is not perfect. There are matters which I personally would have included and others I might have excluded. But I believe it is a reasonably fair attempt to balance the competing rights in this area. As I said, there are various rights which need to be balanced in a modern rights supporting democracy like Australia. There is no hierarchy of those rights, but we should be trying to the best of our endeavours to ensure that each of those rights can be supported in legislation, in the culture in which we live and, indeed, in the laws made by the parliament.

Milton Dick (Oxley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Everyone deserves the right to live free from discrimination. It's that simple. In my consideration of the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, I have made a point of consulting with my local churches, faith leaders, community organisations, mums and dads, grandparents and children, who have told me firsthand the impact and their experience of two things: their dealings with religious leadership and also some of the discrimination they have faced.

The important work that faith communities do in my community cannot be underestimated. I want to make sure that they feel safe from discrimination and vilification as they carry out their work. People like Pastors Phil and Krista Kennedy of Shiloh Church in Goodna in my electorate of Oxley do incredible things for people that they serve. In their own words, they bring 'hope to those who are broken'. They have run programs that feed, counsel and support people who are in need. Organisations like CareForce, which is run from St Hugh's Anglican Parish in Inala, offer much needed supplies and services to vulnerable members of our community. The Springfield Christian Family, through their charity arm, Westside Community Care, reaches out to struggling families and individuals in the Greater Springfield region and surrounds in Queensland to offer vital programs and services. The Vietnamese Catholic community in Inala is also a fantastic example of religion's power to unite and uplift through a sense of shared culture and belief. Whether it be any of the Buddhist temples, the Darra mosque or Camira mosque, they reach out and help those in need. It's these people and organisations—along with the likes of Pastor Mark Edwards from Cityhope Church and Pastors Robyn and John Robertson from Riverlife Baptist Church—that remind me each and every day of the importance of religion in our local community. These local organisations and the many people who rely upon them for comfort, faith and support are why we must protect the right of every Australian to practise and express their beliefs.

I am a person of faith, a Christian, but my faith is no more important than anyone else's. I grew up in a household where my mother, a devout Christian, ran a prayer group and believed in the power of prayer. My father was not particularly religious. But both fundamentally believed in the creation of equality in our community, just as Labor has a number of fundamental principles for our consideration in this bill, including: first, as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes clear, religious organisations and people of faith have the right to act in accordance with the doctrines, beliefs and teachings of their traditions and faith; second, support for the extension of the federal antidiscrimination framework to ensure Australians are not discriminated against because of their religious beliefs or activities; and, third, consistent with the international covenant, to ensure that any extension of the federal antidiscrimination framework does not remove protections that already exist in the law to protect Australians from other forms of discrimination.

From engaging with my local religious leaders and people of faith, I know that there is overwhelming support for extending the federal antidiscrimination framework to protect religious people. And I want to thank everyone for the constructive way that they have engaged in this debate. It's funny that the constructive debate has happened outside of this place—sadly, not inside—because of the way the government has handled this debate. At the same time, I've heard from those in my community who have real concerns about the contentious elements of this bill.

What I find most disappointing is that the importance of a religious discrimination framework has been overshadowed by a mishandled and rushed process by this government. On 13 December 2018 we saw an announcement from the Prime Minister that his government would enact a religious discrimination act and appoint a religious freedom commissioner before the 2019 election. That promise was broken by Mr Morrison and it became one of the government's election commitments for this term.

The Australian public were promised that the government would work in a spirit of bipartisanship with the opposition, the crossbench and stakeholders to introduce a religious discrimination bill into the parliament that already enjoyed cross-party support. That is not what occurred. The government has broken a multitude of promises surrounding this legislation, particularly regarding the drafting and consultation process. And now, on the eve of an election, five minutes to midnight, we are seeing antidiscrimination laws that bear little resemblance to what was promised.

I know that religious freedom and antidiscrimination legislation is incredibly important to so many of the people that I represent, and this legislation is just too important to get wrong. That's why Labor called for the joint parliamentary inquiry to be conducted with sufficient time for all interested Australians to review these complex laws. Such an inquiry would have ensured that all members of this parliament could participate, asking questions and representing the views of their constituents. The government point-blank refused such an inquiry and instead demanded that two parliamentary committees conduct rushed reviews of the legislation over the Christmas holiday period, in the middle of the last outbreak of COVID.

Even so, both reviews identified multiple problems with these laws. Unfortunately, the government has completely ignored many of the problems identified in those inquiries, particularly those raised in relation to the most contentious aspects of these bills, including the proposed overrides of state antidiscrimination laws. As late as yesterday morning, on the day the Prime Minister demanded these laws be debated in this parliament, the government was still frantically drafting amendments to fix some of the problems that have been identified in this bill since it was tabled in November last year.

Given the importance of protecting people of faith from discrimination and promoting freedom of thought, conscience and belief, we need to get these bills right. That's why we've been urging the government for years to work with the Leader of the Opposition, the crossbench, members from both sides of parliament and stakeholders to produce a religious discrimination bill that is fit for purpose and that does not create needless community disunity and discord.

While most of the provisions of the religious discrimination bill are straightforward, and are drafted in a manner that is broadly consistent with other Commonwealth antidiscrimination statutes, other aspects of the bill are complex. For many provisions, their precise scope and their practical implications remain entirely unclear. This applies in particular to the provisions that interact with or override existing and possible future state and territory discrimination laws.

As we know, possibly the most contentious provision is clause 12 of the Religious Discrimination Bill, followed by clause 11 of the same bill. Both of these provisions involve overriding state or territory antidiscrimination laws, among other things. Both have been described by a number of legal experts as procedurally unworkable, potentially unconstitutional and, in relation to clause 12 in particular, diminishing existing protections against discrimination and vilification. These provisions are summarised, as we know, in today's debate.

Clauses 7 and 9 have been the subject of a lot of criticism from all corners. ACT equality groups, the Law Council of Australia and the Hindu Council of Australia have all pointed out concerns. Most alarmingly, the Law Council and the Hindu council, among others, have argued that those provisions would result in more religious discrimination rather than less, particularly against people of minority faiths. Labor have always sought to consider these issues carefully and reasonably. While many of these concerns are valid, we have not allowed the controversial rhetoric surrounding the bill to get in the way of what we know the community is crying out for: an extension of the federal antidiscrimination framework to protect people of faith against discrimination.

As I've said, while many of the changes proposed in the bill are sensible, I'm concerned that this bill does not, in large, do what the government is advertising it should do. This bill will not protect a person of Islamic faith who is abused in the street or a Hindu man who is vilified for his religious beliefs. Labor has raised this issue with the government, but as of right now the government has refused to include an antivilification provision. Since the first explanatory draft of this bill when it was released two years ago, a range of religious groups have argued the bill should include an antivilification provision. They've even put forward drafting suggestions. The government has wilfully ignored those submissions over the course of two years.

Religion is a beautiful thing, and religious people across Australia deserve the right to practise their beliefs without fear of vilification or discrimination. I'll always fight for the rights of my local churches, mosques and temples and my constituents who count themselves as people of faith. We must also uphold the values, shared by many religions, of generosity and compassion towards others, and we must ensure that a bill is designed to provide protection from discrimination and does not breed further hatred. In the opinion of the Uniting Church in Australia, this bill does not balance these values and the need for a religious discrimination framework. It stated on Monday:

… the Bill fails to strike the right balance between people's rights, protections & responsibilities, and may embolden discrimination in the broader community should it pass without substantial amendments.

Our fears remain for the safety and wellbeing of the LGBTIQ community, people with disabilities, women, and minority faith communities.

We have seen recently that religious institutions can and will use their power to discriminate against people of the LGBTQI+ community. The Citipointe enrolment contract in Queensland was a clear example of the ways in which religious belief can, in the wrong hands, be wielded as a sword against those in our community who are most marginalised. I am glad that the Citipointe contract was withdrawn, but the attitude that led to its creation remains. I am deeply concerned that this bill does not protect children from the damage that identity based discrimination can do at such a young age.

People of faith deserve to feel safe in our society, as do members of the LGBTQI+ plus community. I believe it's possible to balance these two things, but I don't think the bill as it stands hits the mark. That's why I'll be strongly supporting the amendments moved by Labor, including an amendment to delete clauses 12 and 15, which relate to statements of belief and override state and territory laws, from the bill; an amendment to introduce an antivilification provision; an amendment to make it clear that in-home care service providers in the aged-care sector cannot discriminate in the provision of services on the basis of religious belief or activity; and an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act to remove the exemption of section 38(3). I believe that with these changes this bill can strike the right balance and protect all vulnerable people.

I finish where I started. Everyone deserves the right to live free from discrimination—it's that simple. I'll work with anyone to see religious freedom protected in this country, but I implore the government to listen to the wider community and to work with Labor in a constructive way to improve this legislation to deliver protections for people of faith without the need to see an increase in discrimination for anyone else. I commend the bills to the House.

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

On Tuesday morning I attended Saint Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church of Canberra at Kingston for the service that takes place before every parliamentary year. As leader of the Labor Party I gave a reading from 1 Corinthians 13:4-8:

Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up;

does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil;

does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth;

bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Love never fails.

To me, the best of people of faith in this diverse multicultural nation of Australia is all about love: love of our humanity in all its diversity—straight people, gay people, people of diverse gender identity; men, women; people of different ethnicity; people of different faiths. What this debate should have been about is enhancing national unity, bringing people together, and a next step in an acknowledgement that this great nation's greatest strength is our diversity, is our common humanity. Unfortunately, the flawed Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 does not do that.

From my perspective, we come at religious discrimination as a complex issue with guiding principles that are clear. We support people's right to practise their faith free from discrimination, consistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But this should not remove protections that already exist to protect against other forms of discrimination. The idea that there has to be conflict between people such as children and people with disabilities, who potentially will be really hurt by the flaws in this bill, and members of minority faiths in particular, who will be protected by this bill, is a false dichotomy. We surely should be able to do both, to enhance protections against discrimination without enhancing discrimination against others. That was always the objective of all of the groups of faith I've met with, both formally and informally, over a process that's taken years.

Yet we have, after four years of a process that began in 2018, a circumstance whereby the opposition has been given 24 hours to consider the complexity of what is being advanced. That's what's happened to the opposition, let alone the fact that state and territory governments that will be impacted by this haven't been consulted at all and people of faith and people in the general community haven't been consulted properly either. This bill wants to pit those groups against each other. I want to defend all of them. We need shields from discrimination, not swords for discrimination. That's the fundamental principle that I bring to this debate, and it's a principle that I hold dear.

In my first speech, back in 1996, I emphasised that there was not equality of opportunity across gender, sexual preference and ethnicity. In my first term in parliament, I moved a private member's bill about superannuation entitlements for same-sex couples. That was part of a debate to then broaden out how we get equality for people regardless of their sexuality, something I fundamentally agree with. I went on to say that cultural diversity and respect can lead to a more peaceful, equitable and fulfilling life for all. They're values for which I've stood up. They're values for which I've argued. They're values for which I've fought. Dr Martin Luther King declared, 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice,' and that's true.

In 1996 it was a different world. The idea that this parliament could, with just a few exceptions, vote for marriage equality is something that wouldn't have been conceived of back at that time. But, as we mature as a nation, we have, as our core value, support and respect for each other. The idea of having legislation that removes discrimination on the basis of faith is an important one. Some people have said to me, 'Why do you need any of this debate?' The truth is that, as a Roman Catholic who went to St Joseph's Camperdown and then St Mary's Cathedral in Sydney, schools where a lot of the values that I have were entrenched as a part of who I am, I can say I haven't been discriminated against at any stage. But I'll tell you what: I know women who've been spat at in the street because they were wearing a hijab. I know Sikhs who've been denied employment. I know people who've had their house attacked because they had a shrine at the front of it.

Adding discrimination against people on the basis of their faith to the other forms of discrimination that we say are unacceptable is an important principle and one that I support. But I don't support doing it at the expense of increasing discrimination against others. This should have been a unifying moment. The Prime Minister wrote to me on 1 December—late at night, it must be said. The letter was dropped round to my office at around 7.30 on the Wednesday sitting night. He said that he sought to put the passage of the bill through the next day. He said:

To assist with this process and in keeping with my Second Reading Speech, where I stated there is no place in our education system for any form of discrimination against a student on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity, the Government will move an amendment to remove the provision of the Sex Discrimination Act which was included in 2013 which limited the protections provided under this act for these and other matters.

Well, this legislation doesn't do that. It just doesn't. He invited me to meet that night. I wrote back saying that we wanted the consideration of the committee processes. I said:

As you are aware, I believe that protection against religious discrimination should be a uniting, and not dividing, moment for the nation.

Faith leaders have expressed to you, and me, their strong desire for the Parliament to consider legislation that prevents religious discrimination in a non-partisan manner.

I remain willing, as always, to discuss this important matter in person.

Do you know how much discussion I've had with the Prime Minister since I put that in writing to him? Nothing. Not a phone call, not a meeting, nothing whatsoever. At the conclusion of my speech, I will seek leave to table that correspondence.

This legislation is flawed, but we want to fix it. We will be moving amendments in the House of Representatives. If that is not successful here, we won't stand in the way of the Senate considering the legislation. But we will move the amendments in the Senate. We hope they're carried here, but, if not, we expect they will be carried in the Senate, and we will insist on them. We will insist on them, because this legislation needs to be improved. We know that, if they're not carried, this legislation will simply not be good enough.

Our amendments will go to a number of issues. I might need an extension of time. On clause 12, statements of belief, Labor agrees that the mere expression of a non-malicious statement of belief should not contravene any Australian law, and we stand with people of faith on that front. We're ready to work with the government on a better way of achieving what the government claims this provision is intended to achieve, which is to provide reassurance to people of faith. 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. It's offensive, frankly, to people of faith. The Prime Minister says that he wants to bring this bill together. If that is what he wants, he will support Labor's amendment to clarify the statements-of-belief clause of this bill.

The second issue is that of antivilification. I can't see how any debate about religious discrimination in Australia can ignore the fact that during the term of this parliament an Australian man brutally murdered 51 Muslim worshippers in two Christchurch mosques. Nor should the debate ignore the troubling rise of Islamophobic, anti-Hindu, anti-Semitic and other religious and race based incidents of discrimination, threats and violence on our own shores.

This debate should also be providing greater legislative protection against vilification and incitement to hatred or violence based on a person's religion or religious belief. Labor will move an amendment to ensure that we enact an anti-vilification clause, and it should receive support for it, because, where the government's bill does not even prohibit vilification of people on the basis of religious belief, religious dress or religious activity, that is a flaw. This is despite the Prime Minister's claim in this chamber that the bill draws a clear line against harassment, vilification or intimidation of anyone. It does not do that. The bill, as it stands, will not protect a Muslim woman in my electorate from being abused in the street for being Muslim, or a Hindu man who is vilified for his religious beliefs. This amendment should also be uncontroversial. That is why this bill, without that, doesn't even measure up to the premise of its own title. That's why this anti-vilification amendment is essential.

We've heard a lot about changes to the Sex Discrimination Act throughout this debate. This is a further amendment that we will move. We've been left with an amendment by the government that barely amends the Sex Discrimination Act and leaves many young people exposed to discrimination, which is totally at odds with what was promised in writing by the Prime Minister. For young Australians grappling with their sexual identity, it can be an extraordinarily difficult time. This parliament shouldn't be making it harder for them; we should be protecting them. I would be pretty confident that, overwhelmingly, Australians of faith would agree with this too. That is why Labor will move a simple amendment to delete section 38(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act, in full, to remove discrimination against all children, whether they're gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender, recognising that all children should have a right to be who they are and that there are consequences for not having that.

The truth is that most religious schools don't expel or discriminate against their students because of who they are, and they never want to anyway. In my class at St Mary's Cathedral, there were three openly gay students, one of whom went on to be a very famous drag queen in Sydney. And my best teacher at St Mary's Cathedral, the person who inspired me to be an economist and to do an economics degree—and inspired many others, like Paul Cleary, who'd be known to many people in this chamber—was a gay teacher. He was fantastic, and he made a difference to my life and a difference to so many other lives at St Mary's Cathedral. The truth is that this amendment will strengthen the legislation as well. Labor supports removing discrimination against teachers, while recognising the right of religious schools to give preference to hiring school staff of their own faith—that's just common sense—but, because these two rights interact in a complex way, we believe this issue cannot be rammed through the parliament and will need to be carefully considered by the Australian Law Reform Commission. It is something that Labor will do in government.

Can I conclude and thank the House for the opportunity. Today this parliament has the opportunity to again bend the arc of change towards justice: justice for those who wish to pursue their religious convictions without harming others and justice for those who simply want to be themselves. These principles are worth fighting for. We heard it here last night. My great friend the member for Whitlam spoke of the tragic death of his 15-year-old nephew, a young person loved and supported by family but struggling against discrimination in the broader community. Stephen also spoke with love of his own son, who he worries will not have the opportunity to grow up in an Australia where he's simply allowed to be himself without being the subject of hatred or discrimination. That is not too much to ask for our kids.

I've also been moved by the recent comments by the member for Maribyrnong, who notes that many people with disability suffer discrimination from some people of faith who cruelly attribute their disability to the will of God. I'll stand up for the rights of people to practice their religion, but I won't support anyone who uses their religion as an excuse to be cruel and to deny the rights of others who just happen to be different. We have an opportunity here to make a real difference, an opportunity to bend the arc of progress, an opportunity to protect the right of Australians to practice their faith, and an opportunity to fix this flawed legislation so that it sets the right balance between rights and responsibilities, conviction and compassion, and love of divinity and love for each other.

As I said, our greatest strength certainly as Australians has always been our capacity to come together. We have this opportunity as a parliament. We haven't been difficult on this legislation. We are putting out a hand. It should be shaken by the other side. This is an opportunity to advance unity of this nation, not to pit people against each other. This bill as it stands right now, if it is not amended by either the House or the Senate, will only succeed in driving us apart. Ours is a wonderful country, but there is an even better Australia almost within our grasp. This bill in its present form will push it further out of reach. That is not our instinct as a people. It is not who we are. Let's put aside divisiveness and this pointless, petty partisanship. This is a moment for leadership; this is an opportunity for the Prime Minister to show some. It's an opportunity for unity of purpose. We must change this bill. All Australians deserve nothing less. I seek leave to table the correspondence between the Prime Minister and me.

Leave granted.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I note that that I didn't interrupt you to seek the formal extension of time, but that was taken. I appreciate the patience of the member for Leichhardt.

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say to that there is no way in good conscience that I can support legislation that strips away people's religious rights or, for that matter, any other rights. It's the right of all Australians not to be discriminated against, including those of faith. Our society rightfully does not accept people being discriminated against on account of their gender, race, age or disability. Nor should we accept or tolerate discrimination because of a person's faith or religion. However, while it's important to protect the rights of people and organisations of faith, I strongly believe that these protections should not come at the expense of others.

I understand that this is, of course, a very sensitive issue to many people in my community. However, my role as an elected official is to ensure that the legislation gets the balance right and we don't end up with legislation that has a negative impact on others living within our community. I have to say, too, as somebody who has long advocated for the rights of the LGBTIQ+ community in particular, I certainly have concerns about a number of elements within this legislation. So it has been a very difficult journey for me in trying to get some sort of balance here.

Quite frankly, I don't believe that the bill currently before the House is necessary. If anything, it has highlighted the fact that there has obviously been, from what I can see, a focus particularly on gay and gender diverse children and adults, and something that I've realised throughout the process is that a lot of these issues are not going to be able to be addressed through this bill but need to be addressed through the Sex Discrimination Act. Clearly, there need to be some significant reforms in that area to protect individuals, both children and adults, in our society who identify as gay and/or gender diverse.

My first reaction was to blatantly refuse to accept this bill. However, over time, and having started to negotiate through some of the more difficult and unacceptable elements of the bill, I believe that some progress has been made. I think it's important that we bank these successes, as we work on other issues that clearly are blatant discrimination towards one section of our community. For example, I've got to say I was pleased to see that we were able to negotiate the removal of the Folau clause; it was something that I found offensive, and I was so pleased to see its removal. Irrespective of a person's personal views, I think that, in the case of Folau, to allow him to make such disparaging comments—and not only about gender diverse people; I think it needs to be pointed out that he was also very critical of people of the Jewish faith and even heterosexuals—and to reward him by giving him a specific clause in the bill was totally inappropriate, and I welcome the fact that it has been removed.

Another aspect that I was pleased to see removed from the bill currently before the House was the conscientious objection clause; I believe it was absolutely essential to remove it. Again, I found it to be totally unnecessary, and it would have led to levels of discrimination. As I say, I am pleased to see that it has been removed from the bill.

However, there are some aspects of the legislation that certainly cause concern to me and to others. One of those aspects is the statement of belief. I'm hoping that, by having other areas addressed through the Sex Discrimination Act, we might be able to cover some of these concerns as well.

I also welcome the decision to remove from this bill the ability to discriminate against gay children. However, unfortunately, I do believe that the protection afforded is far too narrow, in so much as we're talking about expulsion of gay children specifically. My own personal experience over many, many years is that a lot of faith based schools would argue that they don't expel students—and that is absolutely true; there's no question about that. But I can tell you that I've seen quite a number of children and parents, over many years, where the children haven't been expelled, but, in these cases, the children were treated appallingly—they were taunted, bullied and made to feel uncomfortable in their school environment—so that, eventually, these children felt that they had no choice but to leave that school. These cases are examples where it does occur.

I have to say, in my own personal situation, all of my youngest son's schooling has been in Catholic education, both primary and secondary, and he has had a wonderful education there. From my own personal experience as a parent, I've certainly seen no examples of that behaviour in that particular school. I have a 15-year-old daughter who is at another Catholic school, and, again, her experience has been amazingly positive. I've seen no evidence of that behaviour. But the fact that it isn't happening in these cases doesn't mean to say that it doesn't occur. So I think we need to broaden our scope in this area so that we're talking not just about expulsion but also about the reasons that children feel it is necessary to leave.

At the end of the day, in providing that security for the children, it's not only the parents but the school itself that has to embrace those children. We see so many examples, which I would like to acknowledge, of schools that adopt best practice, where not only the parents but the school community itself embraces those children. For whatever reason, whether it be because they are gender diverse, they are embraced, they are loved and they actually do great. I'm talking about focusing on those areas where there are problems, and I would have much preferred to see those elements included in the bill.

I appreciate the discussions that I've had in recent times with the Attorney-General. The Attorney has agreed to send through a request to the Australian Law Reform Commission to broaden the scope of the review that is happening to focus on not only the expulsion of gay children but also the various discriminatory actions that would force these children to leave a school. I have also requested that the review includes other gender diverse children such as transgender children, who at this point, unfortunately, have been excluded from this very narrow remit, along with a referral to address the concerns I have in relation to gender diverse teachers and other adults working within faith based schools or school organisations generally.

My concern is that, if we just reject the bill now, we could lose the opportunity of capturing the positives we have already achieved. It may well be that a future government might be reluctant to step into this space and that these discriminations, given that they have existed for many years, could continue to remain unaddressed.

Another written commitment that I have received, and which I welcome, is that, in relation to the referrals to the Australian Law Reform Commission, the time frame for the review period has been shortened from 12 months to six months. I am certainly working very closely with the Attorney and the Australian Law Reform Commission to make sure that all the concerns that I've raised are fully addressed and considered within this review, and I also expect that any recommendation that addresses these concerns will be submitted and implemented without delay.

This bill has been a very difficult one for me to address, and I know that people will probably be critical of the fact that I am not blocking the bill. But I do believe that we need to back in the positive outcomes and lock them in now and make sure that we've got commitments for accelerated processes that will address the other areas of concern that have been identified as needing to be amended in legislation outside of this bill.

In my own personal journey—and I'm going to focus on transgender people here. I've been given permission to share this story with you. I was interviewed some years ago by a budding young journalist called Colin Doak. Colin came to my office, and we went through a whole process, just sharing my experience in the advocacy that I was involved in. During the course of that period, I could see that he was feeling a little uncomfortable. After a bit of time and a little bit of prompting, he shared with me—and I had the privilege of being the first person that he had actually shared this with—his desire and intention to transition.

It was a very difficult and very emotional time for him and for me. He was very fearful of the impact that was going to have in his community, and I have to say to you: these are the types of feelings that I know are out there for so many people that don't—with his family, with his community. I have to say to you that, at that time, when I embraced him and offered my support, I'd never felt somebody tremble so strongly.

Over time, I have shared Colin's journey. Colin is now Kate. She's quite a capable journalist in her own right, and it has been amazing to see how well she has developed; she has really progressed in her life. It was an amazing experience when, a couple of years ago, she came to my office very excited and she said to me, 'Warren, you're not going to believe this, but dad called me "Kate".' The emotion that was there and the fact that somebody who was from a very rural area with a very set mindset on this was able to accept his beautiful daughter for who she was—it was quite amazing in terms of the impact that it had on her.

I make reference to Kate's story because it just shows you that, with the right sort of nurturing environment, people can absolutely thrive. It worries me that there are elements within this that are going to be quite prohibitive and that people are going to feel quite marginalised. So, while I'm not going to vote against the bill, I'll certainly be very much focusing on changes. I'll be voting for the changes that we've already achieved and locked in, and I'll certainly be looking for very significant additional changes as well.

Peta Murphy (Dunkley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, member for Leichhardt, for sharing Kate's story. It's Kate's story—like it is the story of the nephew and the son of the member for Whitlam and like it is the story of friends and family of mine and people in my community—that makes this such an important debate. My community wants the elimination of discrimination based on religion, and so do I. My community wants the elimination of discrimination based on sexuality, and so do I. My community wants the elimination of discrimination based on gender and gender identity, and so do I. Let's be frank: what we want is the elimination of discrimination in all of its forms. But this bill doesn't do that. It doesn't deal with discrimination based on religion in an appropriate way, which it was intended to do; it doesn't deal with the elimination of discrimination based on sexuality; and it certainly doesn't deal with the elimination of discrimination based on gender and gender identity.

As the Leader of the Opposition said, when we come to these debates, what we should be looking for are shields, not swords. Like, I assume, every other member of this chamber, I have been flooded with emails, phone calls, and social media messages from, and have had conversations face to face with, people from my electorate about why they have a particular position on this piece of legislation. I have been privileged to hear many of their stories. And like many other members of this chamber, I have people in my life who I love, who I work with, who volunteer on my campaign, who I see at the local coffee shop or the sports club or when I go to a local production of a play or a musical, who are gay, who are lesbian, who are bisexual, who are transgender, who are non-binary, who are just trying to work out who they are and what their place is in the world. I have promised to represent, to the best of my ability, everyone in my electorate. Many people say 'whether or not you voted for me'—and that is right. But I have also promised to represent in this chamber everyone in my electorate even if their values are different to mine, even if their view on faith is different to mine, even if their sexuality, their gender, their race, their identity is different to mine because everyone deserves to be respected. Everyone deserves the opportunity to lead their best life, and to not feel that being fulfilled in who they are also means being hated or despised or discriminated against.

Sometimes coming into this chamber to try to represent everyone in your community is incredibly difficult, because sometimes the needs and the priorities of individuals and groups aren't the same as the needs and priorities of other individuals and groups in one's electorate. But, again, as the Leader of the Opposition said, it's not a matter of pitting the needs and priorities of one group against another, it's a matter of trying to balance them. It's a matter of looking at the rights and responsibilities that we say are fundamental and how they apply to one group, and looking at the rights and responsibilities that we say are fundamental and how they apply to another group.

One of the challenges we have in this parliament and in our federal politics is that we don't have a charter or a bill of rights and responsibilities to guide us when we do that balancing process. And so it is that we often come to debate things like the issues before us—the right to be free of religious discrimination and to practice one's faith, and the right to be free from discrimination based on sexuality and gender and to be one's true self—without a framework in which to do so. That's why we need to have a charter or a bill of rights in this country, because we can't keep dealing with these issues in an ad hoc way and we can't keep dealing with these issues in a political way. They shouldn't be political and they shouldn't be partisan. They should be part of a charter of rights, within which we do our utmost to balance the needs of all the people and all of the groups in our society. I know there are people on both sides of the chamber who believe that, and that's what we strive to do here. That is why it is so fundamentally disappointing for me, as an individual and as a representative of a community that has overwhelmingly told me they want LGBTIQ members of our community to be protected, to be standing here having this debate about such a deeply flawed bill.

It has been some four years since the Prime Minister said he wanted to introduce legislation to protect religious freedoms, and also that he would protect children while doing so. There have been four years to get this legislation to a position which, as the Leader of the Opposition said, would be one of unity, would be an uplifting moment for this parliament and for the country. Four years, and yet at the last minute, not at the eleventh hour, the legislation which has been flawed from the moment of the exposure draft is sought to be amended by the Prime Minister in a way which has led to transgender children and their parents in particular feeling like they're being used as a political weapon. That is wrong: it's a shame on the Prime Minister and a shame on those who see this as something to do before an election to try to gain votes.

I am proud and pleased that Labor is moving amendments in the four key areas that have been identified by speakers before me to try to address issues in this bill, firstly, to prohibit religious vilification. Most of us don't know what it's like to be vilified because of your religion. We need to put ourselves in other people's shoes and try to imagine what that must be like. The second is to prohibit discrimination against children on the grounds of sexuality and gender identity. The third is to make it clear that in-home aged-care service providers cannot discriminate on the basis of religion in the provision of services and, I add, disability services, as the Leader of the Opposition said. The fourth is to make it clear that the statement of belief provision does not remove or diminish any existing protections against discrimination.

The older you get, the more you realise that life is hard. We face challenges, all of us, that are personal, private and public. And there is no doubt that the move from childhood to adolescence to becoming an adult is hard for everyone, but it is so much harder if your fundamental self challenges the traditional gender and sexuality norms. We should be making it easier, not harder, for everyone to go through that journey. I do not support this bill in its unamended form. On behalf of my community and everyone who has given me the privilege of contacting me to ask me to be their voice, I want to make it very clear that, in my personal view, the amendments that Labor are putting forward are essential.

I support and believe in religious freedom and that no-one should be discriminated against because of what they believe in and no-one should be discriminated against because of who they are. Most of us haven't had to experience what gay, bisexual, transgender and non-binary people and people who just don't fit into a category have experienced. But we need to try to imagine what it's like for them and be part of an inclusive and supportive and, frankly, loving society. I want to end my contribution by saying that I ask everyone in this chamber—no matter which political party you're from or if you're an Independent—who believes in compassion, who believes in self-determination, who believes in the power of love, who believes in the right of every person to live their life fully, who believes in acceptance and inclusion, not to accept that we can support an unamended bill which allows for discrimination on the basis that it might be fixed in the future but to support Labor's amendments and stand up for what you believe in. You can support Labor's amendments and be true to yourself and your conscience.

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

[by video link] When my brother and his fairly new wife walked into a bank to conduct some bank business, their bank assets were frozen. They weren't allowed access to their bank accounts. My brother's wife wears a traditional Islamic hijab, or head covering. My brother had gone in with his forms of identification—a passport and a driver's licence. Their bank assets were frozen, and the police were called. The police proceeded to come to the bank and pull them aside for questioning. Utterly confused, they asked what the purpose of the police questioning was. The response was that the bank teller had looked at my brother's wife—my sister-in-law—had looked at my brother and had made an assumption based on their names and based on their religious dress. It took them 24 hours to have their bank accounts unfrozen, after going through an hour of rigorous questioning by the police.

It was almost 20 years ago that that happened to my brother and my sister-in-law. At the time, I advised them that they should probably make a complaint, knowing full well that that would not yield anything for them, because religious discrimination—the kind of discrimination that they had faced, walking into the bank that day—was not covered by federal law. So suffice it to say that I think this law has been a long time coming. The kinds of protections for people of faith that would have prevented the experience that my brother and my sister-in-law went through have been needed for some time. One might argue that that was at a particular time in Australian history, a time after the 9/11 attacks, where there was heightened sensitivity and heightened wariness of people of Islamic faith. But we know that this kind of discrimination still exists. We know that Muslim women who wear the hijab are subjected to vilification, discrimination and Islamophobia almost every day of their lives, in public, in the workplace, in the media.

So I come to this bill with an understanding, personally, through my own experiences of discrimination, my own experiences of vilification and the experiences of my family, and through the journey of over 25 years of trying to have the law changed to recognise religious discrimination. I come to this bill with that experience behind me and with the experience of speaking to many members of Muslim communities and other faith groups about their experiences of religious discrimination.

I also come to this bill as someone who has been a beneficiary of religious pluralism in this country. Religious pluralism is not written into our Constitution, but it certainly underpins section 116 of our Constitution. I started my schooling in a Catholic school and I finished my schooling in an Anglican school, all the while being Muslim. I sent my children to Muslim schools so they could have a sense of their faith and their identity. When the floods hit Brisbane in 1974, where my family was living, it was the local church groups that reached out and embraced us.

Since becoming the member for Cowan, I've had the absolute privilege of being embraced by many more religious groups. I have worshipped with members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in my electorate. I have attended Baha'i events. I have been to temples, to synagogues and to mandalas and have had the absolute privilege of observing firsthand the richness of religious pluralism in this nation. I can certainly say that I have been a beneficiary of that religious pluralism and of religious freedom.

In all of my interactions with people of faith, the one thing that shines through to me is that people of faith know that if you are spreading hate, if you are attacking minorities, if you are discriminating then you are not doing God's work, regardless of what your faith is. They know that the tenets of faith are essentially about love for each other. That has been something that has truly come through in all my experiences with all of the faith groups that I have interacted with and, indeed, as a child at a Catholic school and at a Christian school, where I would practise my faith, where I would fast during Ramadan, attend Friday prayers when I could, and celebrate Eid-ul-Adha and Eid-ul-Fitr every year.

I guess the principle here is one of equality and understanding that equality is not a finite resource. It can't be a finite resource. If we want equality for ourselves, we must be prepared to extend equality to all others, because equality doesn't work if it's just for you. It's like having two children but only loving one of them. You just can't do that. So it is important that this bill be underpinned by the fundamental principle that all people are worthy of equality, all people are worthy of protection, all people are worthy of freedom and all people are worthy of respect.

I certainly do not claim that that's an easy thing to do. After 30 years of trying to fight for religious vilification laws, I know that that's not an easy thing to do. In fact, I see the member for Goldstein sitting there. I'll remind the member for Goldstein that, after the debate on section 18C, when I raised the issue of religious discrimination, he promptly accused me of wanting blasphemy laws, which led to quite a flurry of death threats that I had to fight against and am still dealing with to this day. I find it quite ironic that the member for Goldstein and I are here in this chamber today debating the very issue that I raised five years ago and that was promptly knocked back.

As I was saying, it is a very delicate balance that we seek to achieve when we seek to ensure that all rights are worthy of pursuing and pursuing with vigour; that all people are treated equally; and that all people should be free from discrimination, and deserve to be free from discrimination, and deserve protection.

I see that the member for Leichhardt earlier mentioned that this bill is not perfect. He's right. This bill is not perfect. I would hazard a guess that it would be nigh impossible to come to a perfect bill. But I do believe that the amendments that Labor has put forward significantly address the shortcomings in the bill as it exists. They significantly address those shortcomings because they do, to a large extent, find that balance. In particular, Labor's amendment to install an antivilification clause in the bill will go a long way to giving people of faith the kinds of protections that they need against offensive, humiliating vilification from members of the public in all parts of their lives—in public life, in work, and in other areas. So I commend that particular amendment to the House.

I also commend the work that has been done by the committee members on both sides and by Labor in improving this bill so that it does those things, so that it does protect our most vulnerable, our LGBTIQ community and children, as well as extending that protection to people of faith, who are most likely to be vilified and discriminated against with the kinds of discrimination that actually do have lasting impacts on one's wellbeing.

In closing, as many members on both sides have said and iterated before me, we do support religious freedom. I support religious freedom. I certainly support it because, as I mentioned earlier, I come from a minority religious background, and I have had the privilege of being exposed to the kind of religious freedom in this country that I probably wouldn't have had in many other countries. I support religious freedom, but I want a bill that is actually going to offer protections for people of faith, while also ensuring that LGBTIQ children, adults and all people are protected.

We are mature enough as a society to come to that conclusion. We are mature enough as a society to be the kind of nation where all people have access to equality and protection and live free from discrimination. But that starts right here in this place. To my mind, the amendments that Labor has put forward are a really great outcome for such a complex issue of balancing rights and protections for all people. I commend Labor's amendments to the House, and I urge the House to consider that those amendments improve this bill. They don't undermine the bill. They don't undermine the intent of the bill. Indeed, they uphold the intent of the bill, and they extend the provisions of the bill so that it does have a real impact and a real effect on people of faith, whilst also protecting LGBTIQ people, young people, children and adults.

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

I have had serious concerns about the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 for a long time. I do not support this bill, certainly not in its current form. I represent a proudly diverse group of communities in my electorate of Wills—communities of different faiths, communities of diversity and ethnicity, communities that are diverse in their sexuality and gender—that really represent modern Australia. We represent all Australians in the diversity that makes us such a strong and vibrant country.

As someone who has experienced discrimination in my own life, both professionally and personally, I know how important the principle of equality before the law is. I know how important the principles of freedom of religion and freedom from religion are, especially in a secular democracy such as ours. That's critical. Our position on this bill is supportive of extending the federal antidiscrimination framework to ensure that Australians are not discriminated against because of their religious beliefs or activities. We support that extension of the framework. That's the non-controversial part of this bill, which I think most of us here support in good conscience. These are the state, territory and federal laws that currently prohibit discrimination on the basis of age, disability, race, sex, gender, identity, sex characteristics and sexual orientation.

In extending that antidiscrimination framework, we should not and cannot create laws that have the outcome of preferencing the rights of one particular group of Australians over another group of Australians. It cannot be one group pitted against another group, nor at the expense of other groups. This is what elements of this bill do. Surely, as lawmakers, it's within our ability to ensure that we provide a legal framework that protects people from discrimination regardless of their faith, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, or any other characteristic. As lawmakers, we could do that if we had the right intent behind this bill.

Almost three years ago, Prime Minister Scott Morrison promised to update the laws to protect all LGBTQIA+ schoolkids as soon as possible. Clearly, after three and half years, he has failed to protect kids in that way. He actually put up an amendment that was kind of like a political wedge within a wedge: 'Well, I'll protect gay kids, but I won't do it for trans kids.' As a matter of principle, equality before the law is equality before the law, regardless. No-one wants to be kicked out of school because of who they are. That's including the vast majority of religious schools. It is a no-brainer. In fact, it's a bill that's kind of looking for a problem. Where is the evidence of this? I saw a story today that a Catholic school, Xavier College, actually affirmed the right of a student to transition and change gender.

In contrast, federal Labor's approach to this bill is guided by a number of simple but fundamental principles, including that any extension of this federal antidiscrimination framework should not remove protections that already exist in the law to protect Australians from other forms of discrimination. We must have not only freedom of religion but freedom from religion. This means that Australians should be free to practice and adhere to their faith, just as Australians should be able to not follow a faith and be free from any repercussions or discrimination on that basis.

Federal Labor wants everyone to live free from discrimination, feel respected and get a fair go. Fundamentally, laws that prohibit discrimination should be about fairness, and the Labor Party is the architect of the antidiscrimination law framework in this country. We enacted the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act in 1984 and the Disability Discrimination Act in 1992. And we supported the Age Discrimination Act in 2004, which was enacted under a Liberal government. This is what drives us to do the right thing and put those laws in place and actually buttress those values that we always talk about.

There has been a lot of commentary about what some of these provisions in these bills would and wouldn't do, including the concerns that the bill introduced by the government would lead to more discrimination, particularly of LGBTQIA+ Australians. The Prime Minister and the Attorney-General have denied that. They've rejected those claims. But some of their own Liberal members of their party room, members of this parliament, have clearly expressed concerns about the bill and the aspects of the proposed legislation that we're discussing and debating. They know, as we know, that the Prime Minister has weaponised this bill, politicised this bill, and wielded it to divide the community, not to unite it.

I have a great deal of respect for the office of the Prime Minister, but I've got to judge and call out what is clearly going on. They're using this bill for base political purposes, to try and find or even create a problem that's not quite there. That is not the intention that we have, clearly, as I've described. So we will amend; we'll put amendments up here in the House. If we don't get these amendments up here, we'll do it in the other place. But let's not go to the other place. I call on my colleagues, fellow parliamentarians on the other side, many of whom have said almost exactly the same things that we on this side have said about the problems with this bill, to support the amendments that are put up. Join us in supporting them because they address the issues that you have raised on the public record.

These amendments, as we've heard, are around the Sex Discrimination Act in order to protect all students, gay and trans, which this bill fails to do. There are amendments around the statement of belief in clause 12 so that it does not remove or diminish any existing protections against discrimination or override state and territory antidiscrimination laws. There is also the antivilification amendment that we're proposing. It beggars belief that after 3½ years a bill called the Religious Discrimination Bill doesn't quite show an understanding that we need to have provisions around vilification of people based on their religious belief. This bill doesn't even cover that, so we want to amend the legislation to ensure that a person is prohibited from threatening, intimidating, harassing or vilifying another person exercising their religious belief in activity and in their faith. We will make it very clear that you don't have a licence to discriminate against someone. This bill doesn't even protect someone who is walking down the street wearing a yarmulke or going to synagogue on the Sabbath from abuse being hurled at them. It doesn't protect a woman in a hijab from having abuse hurled at her, or a Sikh having abuse hurled at him because of his headdress. It doesn't even cover those examples, and yet it's called the protection of religious discrimination bill. We're also going to be moving to protect people from discrimination in in-home care by any providers that might do so based on being a religious organisation, for example.

My parents escaped a region of the world that was engulfed by conflict and discrimination, partly on the basis of religion and faith, so I know just how important freedom of religion is. I know how important it is from the perspective of being a religious minority that was persecuted and has been persecuted for millennia. Being treated equally under the law, regardless of your faith, is critically important. But coming from that background I know the flip side of that is also important, the importance of having freedom from religion, not having other faiths imposed on you or other views imposed on you because you are a minority. We should not be preferencing the rights of one group of Australians over another, so many of us in this chamber want to see changes to this bill to try to get it right. I want to protect the individual members of the community in my electorate who have reached out to me, not just in the last day but over a period of time, to share their stories with me.

We on the side have been the architects of many antidiscrimination laws, as I have described, and we did this because we are serious about protecting Australians from discrimination. We believe in the egalitarian ethos because, regardless of your background, faith, ethnicity, race, sex, gender, sexuality, age, whatever it is, you should be treated equally under the law. That is the fairness that we as Australians talk about. It's not about the politics of this; it's not about trying to win over a part of the demographic or a part of the community that might get angry or be whipped up into some false, concocted anger. It's not about those political games for us. It's about genuinely seeing the importance of laws that protect Australians from discrimination and improve our nation as a body politic. Make real the fair go, not just in word but in deed, because we know that our religious diversity and our cultural diversity are part of what makes us who we are as Australians. Our diversity makes us successful. We talk about the successful multicultural country that we are. We're successful because of the acceptance and the embracing of the diversity that exists and the fair go inherent in that. This law should be a reflection and a statement of how much we value this diversity. Instead, it is being designed—dropped at the eleventh hour and after 3½ years—to pit one group against another group. It's the antithesis of what we should be doing. It should be a commitment to create a society where everybody feels safe and valued. But, as I said, under this government it's been weaponised for political purposes—in the eleventh hour, a few months out from the federal election.

I do not support the bill in this current form. I support the amendments that we're putting up to try and fix the elements of it that are problematic. I call on the government MPs who've spoken out bravely and publicly on these very same issues to join me and many of us here in supporting these amendments, because I think it's incumbent upon us, as lawmakers, to try and get this right.

Matt Keogh (Burt, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Industry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

[by video link] I'd like to start by explaining where I start with the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, and, more particularly, the concepts and principles that underlie a bill like this. As an Irish Catholic whose forebears suffered through sectarianism in Australia, as someone who studied political and legal history—much of which traverses the wars, battles and political disputes concerning religion and its relationship with political power—and as a law student whose law library was named after St Thomas More, I am very conscious, aware and supportive of ensuring the freedom of religion in Australia.

A fundamental belief of Labor is that everyone should be able to live free from discrimination, to feel respected and to get a fair go. Laws that prohibit discrimination are fundamentally laws about fairness, and the Labor Party is the architect of the antidiscrimination law framework in this country. We enacted the Racial Discrimination Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act, and, of course, we supported the Age Discrimination Act.

Freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief are fundamental human rights. There is a gap in our law in terms of not protecting the right to be of the religion of one's choice. This is protected under the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and it's important to think about what those two key documents actually say. They say:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

But they also say that freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject to such limitations necessary to protect 'the fundamental rights and freedoms of others'. Article 19 goes on to say:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds …

But it also says that this 'carries with it special duties and responsibilities' and that it may therefore be subject to certain restrictions for 'respect of the rights and reputations of others'. Of course, it also states in the covenant that the parties undertake to respect the liberty of parents in ensuring the 'religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions'.

Labor supports the extension of the federal antidiscrimination framework to ensure Australians are not discriminated against because of their religious beliefs or activities, just as Commonwealth law currently prohibits discrimination on the basis of age, disability, race, sex, gender identity, sex characteristics or sexual orientation. But why has this not been protected before? We do need to acknowledge that the Liberal Party of Australia, in the coalition, in various guises over a long period of time in Australia, has actively acted against the implementation of antidiscrimination legislation in this country, only to start to change its spots in the 21st century with the Age Discrimination Act. It was in that context that the Prime Minister announced in December 2018 that his government would enact the Religious Discrimination Act and appoint a religious freedom commissioner. That was before the 2019 election. That promise was not honoured, and it's become one of the government's election commitments for this term of government now, and we're dealing with it at the eleventh hour.

There is overwhelming support for extending the federal antidiscrimination framework to protect people of faith. This is an important point, and we must not allow it to be obscured by the significant controversy over a handful of contentious provisions in the government's Religious Discrimination Bill. At the same time, though, the fact that aspects of the government's Religious Discrimination Bill are highly contentious cannot be ignored, and those aspects should not be downplayed. This is largely a function of the way in which the government has approached the task of developing this legislation.

Labor governments across Australia have strong records when it comes to protecting people of faith against discrimination. It is important to protect religious freedom. It's important to recognise that here in Australia we have had a history of sectarianism all the way through to the 1980s, according to Bernard Salt, and arguably there are echoes of that now. And that's not to mention the feelings that are felt by those of other religions in Australia. Australia, though, is now a multicultural, multirace, multireligious community. We should be celebrating that diversity but protecting it too.

Protecting against discrimination is primarily about attributes. Attributes get absolute protection because we can't change them. Speech and actions can be a reflection of such attributes but also something further. Speech can be where a freedom can impinge on other freedoms. This is why freedoms regarding speech are constrained in human rights conventions, because it's about getting the balance right. Getting that balance is very important.

The core of this bill is non-contentious. It prohibits discrimination on the ground of religious belief and activity in different areas of public life, including in the context of employment, education, access to premises, the provision of goods and services and facilities. It would also establish, within the Human Rights Commission, the Religious Discrimination Commissioner, who would have a number of functions.

While most of the provisions are straightforward and drafted in a manner broadly consistent with the Commonwealth antidiscrimination statutes, other parts of the bill are more complex and the precise scope and practical implications of those provisions need to be taken into account. The bill doesn't provide an opportunity for balance. There are some glaring omissions. 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 vilification of people on the basis of religious belief, religious dress or religious activity. The bill will not protect a Muslim woman in Thornlie who was abused in the street or a Hindu man in Piara Waters who was vilified for his religious beliefs. Labor has raised these issues with government, but so far the government has refused to entertain the introduction of an antivilification provision. The government claims that this has been raised at the last minute and there isn't time to work through the drafting. This is a 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; they have even put forward suggested drafting. And of course now the government is trying to proceed with its own last-minute amendments, though they are welcome.

The bill, as it is, is also silent on the treatment of students, and that issue clearly needs to be addressed. Whilst we would like to be able to rely on a pastoral approach from religious schools, that cannot be guaranteed. I know that members of the government are troubled by this as well. Dealing with this issue will also be part of Labor's amendments. We need to get the balance of these competing rights right. I know that it's difficult, but it's also very important.

I also would just like to note that we should have seen a bill that was properly reviewed before we even got to this point of debating it. A two-month inquiry through a parliamentary committee was not enough, especially when that period was held over Christmas with limited time for hearings. We saw the pause on the Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry, which should have actually been the process for dealing with important legislation such as this. Legislation like this should have had extensive review and oversight to get this balance right. Instead, we saw the government actually put a pause on that process. What we have seen with Prime Minister Morrison's bill is a rushed process, without proper consultation and without the care and attention to detail that such important human rights protections deserve. The human rights committee found that the bill introduced had at least one serious drafting error, in fact.

Labor's approach to this bill is being guided by a number of simple fundamental guiding principles: first, that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes clear that religious organisations and people of faith have a right to act in accordance with the doctrines, beliefs and teachings of their traditions and faith, subject to the limitations necessary to protect public safety and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; second, Labor supports the extension of the federal antidiscrimination framework to ensure that Australians are not discriminated against because of religious belief and activity; and, third, consistent with the international covenant, any extension should not remove protections that already exist in the law to protect Australians from other forms of discrimination.

It's important that this bill protects people of faith from discrimination. But we need to understand the real fears in our community about how it is currently being done. That is why Labor proposes the amendments that we have put forward and supports this bill on the basis that it is amended as we propose—to protect children, to prevent vilification, to ensure that there is a better balance. The Australian Labor Party has a long history of fighting to prevent discrimination against people of faith. This legislation should unite our nation, not divide it.

As is said in 1 Corinthians 13:

If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails …

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

Legislation to protect against discrimination based on religious belief and adherence should exist. It should exist in balance and harmony with other recognised human rights protections. It should embody a love of God and a love of our fellow person. That's why this legislation can only proceed with the amendments Labor proposes.

Julie Collins (Franklin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As many speakers have said in discussing the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, I cannot support it in its current form. But what I do support is people not being discriminated against due to their religious or non-religious beliefs. Indeed, people should not, because of their religious belief, be offended, humiliated, intimidated, insulted or ridiculed by another person. In my home state of Tasmania, this has actually been the law now for 24 years.

In Tasmania, for the last 24 years, it has been illegal to discriminate against people on many grounds. Indeed, our current legislation says that you cannot discriminate against people on the basis of race, age, sexual orientation, lawful sexual activity, gender, gender identity, intersex variations of sex characteristics, marital status, relationship status, pregnancy, breastfeeding, parental status, family responsibilities, disability, industrial activity, political belief or affiliation, political activity, religious belief or affiliation, religious activity, irrelevant criminal record, irrelevant medical record. We have a number of attributes in my home state of Tasmania on which you cannot discriminate against people already, and it has been the case for 24 years, and it has been working, which shows you can achieve a balance. You can have people's rights not trump another's rights, and you can have people be kind and live in harmony together, as we have done now for 24 years. We have many people in my home state of Tasmania say that they do not support this bill in its current form. Indeed our Liberal Premier has written to the federal Liberal government, saying that the state government does not want this bill to override Tasmania's existing protections regarding discrimination.

So many Tasmanians and so many of my constituents have contacted me, and I have said to those constituents, 'I hear you.' I say to the people who are contacting me who have one of the attributes that may be trumped by another in the bill as it is currently drafted, 'I hear you.' I say to the children who could be impacted if this bill is passed in its current form and to whom harm may be done, 'I hear you.' That is why Labor is moving amendments to the bill as it currently stands.

The government is also moving some amendments, and they are welcome, but they simply do not go far enough. Labor will move additional amendments, particularly amendments in relation to proposed section 12. We are concerned that this would allow people's beliefs in some cases to trump the attributes of other individuals. It could cause some people who are already discriminated against, and who shouldn't be, to be further discriminated against, and I cannot support that. I simply cannot.

I am listening to my constituents—and I am finding it very difficult to be talking on this bill today. I want to protect the children in my electorate and children around Australia. I want to protect the families. I want to protect the people who are practising their faith right around the country, like we already do in my home state of Tasmania. That is why the amendments that Labor is moving are so important. We will move the amendments in this House and we will move the amendments in the other house, and, if we're successful in getting these amendments up, we will insist on them.

I say to those on the other side, particularly some of my Tasmanian colleagues who sit on the other side and who have been vocal: support Labor's amendments, if you're serious. If you are really, truly serious, you need to come into this place and support Labor's amendments, because our amendments will do what is necessary to protect vulnerable people.

My colleague the member for Whitlam gave a very eloquent and heartfelt speech yesterday, and many people have referred to it. It was a real privilege to be here to support him on that yesterday. He said that it should not be beyond the people in this place to be able to find the right balance, to ensure that we give protection to people of faith and their religious activities and also to people to whom this bill may do harm, and I agree with him. As I've said, in my home state of Tasmania that is currently the case, so I'm sure that, if the Tasmanian parliament managed it 24 years ago, this parliament could manage it today.

But, of course, we know that some on that side don't want to do the right thing in regard to this bill and that, in fact, this bill was designed to be a political wedge. It was a commitment that the current Prime Minister made in 2018. It was a commitment that was made to try and wedge people on this side. What we have seen from this government in the last few days has been disgraceful, trying to rush through this bill and amendments, which we have only had for 24 hours, in one day. This government has not had those amendments properly scrutinised. It has not consulted with people of faith. It has not consulted with interest groups on those amendments.

Of course, we know that the inquiries into these bills did not go long enough and did not have time to properly deliberate and consider alternative amendments, although they did say that these bills, as they are currently written, should not be passed. But they did, as I do, support the intent of the bill, which is to protect people who are practising their religion. All of us want to see that.

What we need to do in this place from time to time is make very difficult decisions, and for some on this side of the House—and I know for some on the other side—those decisions have weighed heavily in recent days, as they have on myself. But I am proud to be a member of the Australian Labor Party. I am proud to say that the amendments we are moving will protect people. I am proud to say that the amendments we are moving hold true to my values. And I hope that the people in my electorate understand how difficult these decisions have been. I stand up here today in good faith to explain to my constituents why decisions are being made as they are. The reality is that this Prime Minister wants a wedge. He wants Labor to oppose the fundamental right of people to practise their religion. That is not something that we oppose. We want people to be able to practise their religion, but we want protections for vulnerable people, and we need to do both.

This debate should have been about bringing everybody together. It should have been a time for unifying this place and the community. I think it shows the Prime Minister in a very bad light. He's talked a lot about character in recent days. I think the way that this has been done shows a lot about the Prime Minister's character, and I have to say I think I agree with some of his colleagues and their assessments of recent days and weeks. This is not about the Prime Minister, though. This is about people and it's about protecting people. Those on the other side are given the opportunity today to protect all people from discrimination—people who are practising their religion and undertaking religious activities but also vulnerable children and other people, people with disabilities, people who are already discriminated against who shouldn't be. I hope that everybody on that side weighs up Labor's amendments and considers them in the manner in which they are being brought to this place and that they do the right thing. This should be a moment when we all come together and do the right thing, and I hope the House is up to it.

Zali Steggall (Warringah, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's hard not to feel quite dejected today to have to stand here and debate this legislation after listening to the most amazing speeches at the National Press Club by Brittany Higgins and Grace Tame, where they raised attention and called for action on really serious issues—domestic violence, protecting women and children, protecting girls and boys from sexual abuse—issues that really need urgent attention and debate in this place. But instead we're here to debate a highly divisive bill. I'm very sad to say to the people of Warringah that the ultimate outcome will be a political outcome. This will not be an outcome that is in the best interests of Australia, of people of faith or, in particular, of vulnerable groups. This is legislation to score political points. Ultimately I think it will be a role by the opposition to safeguard political points. But it will not be, ultimately, an outcome that is in the best interests of Australians and vulnerable Australians, and it certainly won't be up to the lofty standards of so many words that have been said in this place. I should say upfront that I absolutely respect people of faith. I have members in my family for whom, I know, it is the cornerstone of their lives. But you simply can't have protections for faith overriding other protections. One person's right does not override another person's right to safety.

I rise to speak to the package of legislation that has collectively come to be known as the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021. For those who may not have been following closely, it includes the associated Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 and the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. At its core, it is not up for debate. The fact that we should have protection against discrimination on the basis of religious grounds is sound. There is no debate that this is sensible and is something that should exist.

This bill creates the office of the Religious Discrimination Commissioner within the Australian Human Rights Commission, and it would have been so good if this bill could have stopped there! But, unfortunately, it goes on to sanction discrimination on the basis of religions. It provides that religious institutions, and there is a very broad definition of 'religious institutions'—this is not limited to simply the church or a faith based institution; it's a very broad definition—can discriminate against others where others' views or identities do not align with the institutions' religious beliefs and practices. I have had many people come and talk to me about the right to the ethos of religious teachings and the right to convey that, but there is always a stumbling block of why, then, should that right give you a right to discriminate against others and put other people, including more vulnerable people, at risk?

There's no issue about protection from discrimination. All Australians should have protection against discrimination. Of course it would be wrong for a retailer to refuse to serve someone based on their religious beliefs or practices, or for a landlord to refuse to rent a property to a family due to their religion. But the problem is this bill is not about that. It goes so far beyond that. It permits institutions to discriminate against others, especially where there is a conflict with other antidiscrimination legislations. And we have to remember that to get those antidiscrimination legislations has been a battle. They are hard fought for and won, even the small gains, when it comes to the Sex Discrimination Act, the Racial Discrimination Act, the Disability Discrimination Act. What this bill will do is specifically override state and territory discrimination legislation, and that is wrong. We should be seeking to increase protections, not decrease protections.

I acknowledge this version of the bill has been watered down since it was first released for consultation in 2019. We would all know about the removal of the Folau clause, which prohibited someone from being fired for expressing a statement of belief. That has been removed from the current legislation, so employers are still able to set the standard of conduct expected of employees inside and outside their workplace. It also removes the provisions which allowed for health professionals to refuse treatment on the basis of religious belief. I thought it was just gobsmacking that it was in there in the first place, but that goes to show just how far the intent behind this legislation was prepared to go. This legislation still goes so far beyond being a shield in relation to the right to pursue and express your religious faith. It is weaponising religious faith. It is a sword. It is legalising the right to discriminate. Ultimately, it risks the persecution of so many who are more vulnerable.

When this bill comes into force—if it does—as the most recently passed discrimination law it will be deemed as taking precedence over other discrimination acts where they come into conflict. I have no doubt this override is deliberate and codified. And, in the view of many of my constituents, it elevates the right to discriminate based on religious belief or faith, which is ultimately a choice, above the inherent physical attributes protected by other discrimination legislation—such as disability, sex and race—which are not a choice.

I have a variety of concerns with the current draft of the bill, as have so many speakers and as do so many in our community. In the hearings of the two committees that considered it, so many witnesses said there are grave issues with this bill. A key part is part 2 of the bill, section 7, and the broad definition of a 'religious body'. I've had to explain this to many people who have come to talk to me about this, telling me why, because they were people of faith, this bill was so important. And then they're surprised when they hear just how far the reach is, because section 7 includes many services and needs based institutions such as schools, hospitals, aged-care facilities, disability-care facilities, homelessness services, food banks and many others.

Sections 9 to 11 provide for the ability to hire and fire people in accordance with a publicly stated policy grounded in religious belief. This means that a homelessness organisation or a food bank organisation supported by a faith would have the right to fire the gardener or the cleaners if they were of a different faith, if they were in a same-sex relationship or if they did anything that went against the ethos of the religious organisation.

Section 12, which is very controversial, affords the right to make a statement of belief which, as long as it is in accordance with your religious beliefs, can be offensive and demeaning to the person receiving or subject to the statement. Basically it's a free pass to be offensive, hurtful and demeaning to other people.

I have concerns with these sections because they impact on a variety of groups in society. We know that these are groups that already suffer from types of discrimination. This bill will legalise that right to persecute them and gives individuals and institutions a sword to continue and amplify that discrimination. Women and LGBTQI, disability and even some religious groups, such as the Hindu council, have spoken out about the impact that this bill will have on their lives.

In Warringah we have an increasingly diverse community. Each year I host a youth ambassadors dialogue with all the school captains of the schools in my area. They're invited to come and meet regularly and discuss with me and other school captains their concerns. Each year, especially last year, gender and sexual identity for young people is a top issue. This is something that weighs on their minds, and we know it interrelates with mental health issues. We know we are facing an epidemic of mental health issues. We should be very, very wary of doing anything that could possibly exacerbate what is already a very dire situation. But, instead of focusing on that, we are focusing on a way to make it more divisive and more difficult for some of those young people. Many of the students have expressed to me concerns around a lack of proper education and lack of acceptance around sexual identity and gender, especially in faith based schools and institutions.

Of the 13 schools that take part in the Warringah Youth Ambassadors Program, six are faith based. Across Australia, 30 per cent of schools are faith based or religiously affiliated, and 94 per cent of independent schools are faith based or religiously affiliated. Sex discrimination is already an issue in the school environment. We know LGBTQI students regularly hear or witness discriminatory practices. Ninety per cent of students report hearing homophobic comments at school. Thirty per cent of LGBTQI students say they have experienced or witnessed physical harassment. This bill doesn't improve that situation. In fact, it may well make it much worse, codifying a protection for people to make those comments under the guise of a statement of belief.

We've heard many moving stories and personal reflections in this place in the last two days. I would like to thank and acknowledge the member for Whitlam for his contribution and express my condolences. The member for Bass's very brave speech expressed so well everything that I think is wrong with this legislation. Some of my constituents have contacted me with similar fears for their children. One constituent told me the story of her child who went through three schools before they found one where they felt comfortable and supported. She wrote to me: 'Adolescent kids don't often tell their parents everything, or at least not right away. It took a few days for my non-binary child to reveal what their religious instructor shared in class. Whilst Christians are an accepting lot, God does not approve of homosexuality. This wasn't the first time they experienced homophobia. At 11 years old they lost their best friend when his Christian parents heard a rumour my child might be gay.' I thank that parent for sharing their story with me, to shine a light on the devastating ripple effects that we are discussing in this place. The issue of sexual identity and gender identity in Australia is one that needs to be more deeply understood, and education systems need to be enhanced to increase understanding. We should not be codifying the right for 30 per cent of schools to discriminate against a growing proportion of our children.

Like the LGBTQ community, disability groups are rightly concerned about the statement of belief in the bill. People with disability are often subjected to unwelcome and uninvited statements of religious belief that demean disability as being a result of sin, possession or karma. Those kinds of comments are disgusting. People have been told things like, 'Your disability is a punishment from God for your parents' sins,' and 'You can be healed by prayer,' or 'You deserve to suffer for your disability for what you have done in a previous life.' These are quotes that have been put to me. It's revolting to think that people express that. It's offensive. In the words of the 2022 Australian of the Year, people with disability fight every day to prove they can do whatever they want to do. They don't need your thoughts and prayers. They just need you to treat them with respect. It's something this bill does not do.

There has been much debate about the impact of this bill on women. Women who have children out of wedlock, have had an abortion, have had IVF or live in de facto relationships feel and are worried they will be discriminated against in employment opportunities. This is important because women overwhelmingly work in service based institutions that are very often religiously affiliated. Women have fought hard for equal rights for years now but really haven't yet achieved it in practice. For these rights to now even be legally superseded by religious belief is just not okay. It's a step backwards and it's unacceptable.

I've listened to many in this place talk about how much those rights mean. Yet I have little hope that, when the time comes to vote, more than a few members will actually stand up for their beliefs. Most will follow the politically convenient line and vote for this legislation. They will use the excuses of upcoming elections and possible wedges, and, on this side of the House, they will fail to ultimately stand up for the beliefs that they prosaically describe to their electorates. We have to—and should be able to—do so much better. I think there is a duty and a responsibility in this place to actually make for a better future, not one that is more destructive. So I oppose this legislation.

Debate adjourned.