Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Brown interjects. I refer him to the clause he wants to delete. Clause 485(3) says:

(3) FWA may endorse a conscientious objection certificate if FWA is satisfied—

so it must satisfy itself that the person who is to get this certificate—

… is a practising member of a religious society or order; and

(b) the doctrines or beliefs of that society … prevent membership of an organisation or body other than that society or order.

That is the test which has to be satisfied. For Senator Bob Brown to make the assertion that these people do not hold conscientious beliefs genuinely, that is for him to assert, but we have an independent body in this country which makes that determination. So Senator Bob Brown is saying that part of this great conspiracy will include Fair Work Australia in the future and that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, which has, for the past 50 or more years provided such certificates, was part of this conspiracy as well. Unfortunately, that is where Senator Bob Brown’s dislike of a particular organisation has clouded his consideration of a fundamental principle and has, in effect, besmirched the Industrial Relations Commission—by saying that they have granted these certificates in the past in circumstances where the beliefs could not possibly be considered to be conscientious. That is a terrible slight on those good men and women in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission who give thought and consideration to these applications and then make a determination that a conscientious objection certificate should be provided to the particular person.

These certificates can only be applied for by the person who wants them. So you cannot have somebody else fronting up saying, ‘Joe Bloggs would like this and these are the reasons why.’ Joe Bloggs or Josephine herself would need to attend in person to make out the case—a very limited, very strict regime—so that when you read it you would think who on earth would want to apply for this certificate, unless you genuinely and conscientiously believed that which is being protected.

For a liberal-democratic society these sorts of conscientious objection clauses are one of its hallmarks. I also note with some interest that for those who so often try to make their career on the basis of preaching tolerance at all times, when the rubber hits the road they are often the most intolerant of those who have beliefs different from their own. I repeat: this is a principle issue; it is not whether you like an organisation or not. I dare say none of us in this chamber are members of the Exclusive Brethren for one good reason—none of us would agree with their views and beliefs. But just because we do not believe with somebody’s views and beliefs does not mean that we do not offer them, within our societal structure, the opportunity for conscientious objection. This is a fundamental principle and, as legislators, we have to be able to step back from our personal prejudices in certain circumstances and ask: what is the overarching principle? There is a very good and appropriate analogy, can I suggest to Senator Brown, with freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a fundamental principle. People use it for good; people use it for bad. Nevertheless, it is a fundamental principle that we uphold very dearly, especially on this side of the chamber.

I repeat, we as a coalition, without wanting to enter into all the arguments for or against a particular organisation, are saying that we support a conscientious objection clause on principle. I remind senators that when the Fair Work Bill was considered by the Senate committee—on which there was Greens representation—this issue was not raised in the Greens minority report. The Australian Greens did not mention this as an issue. But they have snuck in an amendment, unfortunately with the support of the government. I simply say to them: it is not too late to abide by those fundamental principles that were held dear for many decades by Labor politicians in Queensland and New South Wales and Labour politicians in the federal parliament in New Zealand on the basis that there are some principles that are just worth adhering to, even if their consequences are such that some people that you may not necessarily be supportive of may benefit.