Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

In commencing my contribution to this debate, I recognise Senator Moore for her smooth, well-reasoned and, I think, very articulate contribution to this debate on the Sexuality and Gender Identity Discrimination Bill 2003 [2004]. There are some points that I disagree with Senator Moore on, but I would have enjoyed listening to her explore more fulsomely some other aspects of the legislation. Indeed, had she taken her full allotted time it would have been of great interest to me and, I am sure, the people of Australia.

Nonetheless, I would like to touch on Senator Moore’s closing comments. Senator Moore did mention that this was not just about the legislation; this was about a broader reaffirmation to the Australian community about the intentions of the parliament and the empathy that it has for situations of discrimination. I believe it is specifically about the legislation. We cannot just go into motherhood statements. We need to make sure that all legislation that passes through this place is well drafted and well crafted, that it honours the original intention of the drafting and that there are no unintended consequences of such debate.

But, in opening my contribution to this debate, I would like to quote former Senator Greig, who, in an online opinion piece on Tuesday, 17 January this year, said:

The Howard Government has done more to legally recognise same-sex relationships in the past 13 months, than previous Labor governments did in 13 years.

He went on:

Under Howard—

and I would prefer that to read ‘Prime Minister Howard’—

same-sex couples have limited rights to superannuation death benefits, are recognised in passport application processes and beneficial definitions in antiterror laws, while those in the military now have equal rights to relocation and accommodation expenses and access to defence force home loan grants.

I would suggest that former Senator Greig has recognised the immense contribution that this government has made. It is not just about motherhood statements. It is not simply about putting forward a general feeling or allowing people to pick up on the intentions of the Senate. This is about directly addressing discrimination in all its forms across the entire legislative framework on a case-by-case basis.

I would also like to remind the Senate that Senator Nettle, in her address, touched on the outrage and, I would say, the evil of hanging two young men in Iran for being homosexual. This of course is reprehensible. It is intolerable in a modern day and age to discriminate against people so vehemently as to put them to death for a sexual practice. But in saying so, and in agreeing with Senator Nettle, you could understand my concern when the Greens senators seem so keen to align themselves at various levels with the fundamentalist Islamic movement that is arising through parts of the Middle East. And rather than try to readdress this specific issue, I would like to read another quote from another senator in this place, Senator Mason. During an adjournment speech, Senator Mason said:

The fundamentalists of Hezbollah make no bones about their belief that sexual relations between consenting male adults should be punishable by death. In fact, only last year the Lebanese Shi’ite movement’s Iranian patrons hanged two young men for that crime. There were Hezbollah flags in abundance during recent Australian street protests against Israel’s military action in Lebanon, but Australian Greens Senator Kerry Nettle did not let the flamboyant presence of the jihadist lobby deter her from speaking at an anti-Zionist rally in Sydney.

We know, and it has been reconfirmed today, that Senator Nettle is an outspoken supporter of same-sex marriages and legal equality for gay couples, as many senators in this place are. And yet the senator from New South Wales was willing to make a common cause with exponents of a movement that would make homosexuality a capital offence. Senator Mason also said this is a sinister:

… ‘Red-Green’ alliance between the Left and Islamic fundamental radicalism … [It] is a particularly bizarre manifestation of the ‘politics makes for strange bedfellows’ principle.

Senator Mason announced that in an adjournment debate, and I salute him for identifying the ridiculous alliance that has arisen where you can support fundamentalist Islam and same-sex relationships. It is unbecoming of any political party.

I have mentioned that former Senator Greig has already recognised the government’s commitment to this cause and the achievements we have made. What I would like to suggest to the Senate tonight is that we really need to redefine this bill. This bill should not be confined to sexuality and issues of sexuality. I really do believe that this issue is about interdependent relationships. They can be sexual relationships, but they can also be relationships based simply on trust and need and requirements. I do not think we should confine our arguments in this regard.

The extent to which sexuality discrimination, particularly the treatment of same-sex relationships, exists in our society is a very complex one. It is a question that this government has looked at and continues to look at. It has reaffirmed its commitment, through the Prime Minister and through a number of our ministers, to ensure that it can answer an increasingly complex issue in the best and most positive possible way. This government does not believe that a single piece of legislation is the most effective way to address the inequity and discrimination that undoubtedly do exist at some levels in our society. My fear is that this bill is essentially a replica of existing federal antidiscrimination laws, like the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 or the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, but simply with terms like ‘sexuality’ replacing ‘sex’ or ‘disability’.

It is effectively a very blunt instrument. It is akin to trying to peel an orange with a sledgehammer; it is not particularly effective. The result is the casing will ultimately be removed, but not in a productive or effective manner. It is for this reason that the government believes that instances of inequitable treatment need to be considered on a case-by-case basis with regard to the underlying legal and policy frameworks in which they find themselves. There have been numerous examples given by other senators today, such as superannuation. This government has made major changes in that area. We have talked about Australian Defence Force employees. We have talked about changes in the immigration act and employment. We have recognised these things, and it is right that we recognise the strides that have been made in this area.

This government would be perfectly entitled to rest on its laurels in so many areas. It was announced today that unemployment is at record lows; job growth and participation are at record highs. Interest rates are not only about three full basis points lower than the average achieved under Labor, but a full 10 per cent lower than the mortgage rates that householders had to pay during the Keating, Hawke and Beazley dynasties, that were going on when they were in charge of the Treasury benches. So while this government is entitled to rest on its laurels, it is not going to because it is continuing to make reforms. It is continuing to provide changes to ensure better aged care for the citizens of Australia. It is continuing to provide low-inflation figures and ensuring that the inflation tiger does not take hold. It is continuing to challenge the current thinking with regard to education policy. And it is continuing to talk about issues such as removing discrimination from agendas. So while it is entitled to rest on its laurels, it is not going to.

We are going to propose a range of changes going forward. These changes are already in the pipeline; we have a vision for the next 10, 20, 30 and 100 years for this country. It is a prosperous vision; it is a vision where all Australians can live in harmony and peace and equality. It is a vision that only the coalition government has, I might add. Part of this vision for the future of Australia—a fairer, more equal and happier, more productive Australia—is related to removing discrimination at all levels.

There are further changes to be made with regard to superannuation. There are further changes to be made with regard to immigration. There are further changes that are going to be made with regard to defence. Some of those changes have already been outlined today, but one of the key elements of this change—

Debate interrupted.