Simon Birmingham (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Murray Darling Basin) Share this | Hansard source

In rising to contribute to this debate on the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013, I do so with a degree of disappointment, because significant legislative reforms in this space, as this is, should be done in a unifying manner that takes all sides of the chamber and the Australian community with it on the journey of improving and enhancing our anti-discrimination laws. That is what appeared to be the case. After some issues surrounding the original Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill that the government introduced, it appeared that the government was going to go on a cooperative, bipartisan journey to enact reforms that enjoyed support across the chamber and made incremental improvements, but very important improvements for a segment of our community, to our anti-discrimination laws. It appeared to be the case, as recently as when this bill passed the House of Representatives, that a measured, considered and unifying approach was being taken to these laws. It is unfortunate to find that, upon the bill reaching the Senate, we have a slightly different approach from the government, where it has re-engaged in areas of greater controversy in how anti-discrimination laws are applied.

What we have tried to do with these laws over a period of time is seek a semblance of balance: a balance between the individual rights of those who do not deserve to be discriminated against and the rights of those who, rightly, seek to be able to adhere to their religious faiths and doctrines. These are difficult issues, because to give on one hand often means compromise on the other. Up to now, what laws in the anti-discrimination field have sought to do is ensure a level of coexistence in both of these areas so that the rights of people to be true to their faith and religious doctrines are balanced equally alongside the rights of people to not be discriminated against. And there is no perfect solution to reconciling those two competing interests, none at all, in that area. The best solution this parliament has applied to date is to say that the rights of each should be respected, noting that in doing so there may be some conflict. The rights of some groups to be protected from discrimination may conflict with the rights to certain religious freedoms. That can lead to a clash of beliefs, of faiths, and a clash of who people are, what people are and the lifestyles that people lead.

I do not come to this chamber with a magic solution to that—aside from a fundamental principle that, insofar as it is possible, the parliament enact laws that respect as many people as possible. That is what the parliament should seek to do. I, for one, am somebody who wants to see the bulk of this bill passed, but I do not want to see it passed in a context where we substantially undermine what has been the historical approach to anti-discrimination laws—that is, respecting rights across the spectrum of agendas, not just across one level of society. That is why it pains me, and I find it disappointing, that the bill we are debating puts into conflict different rights and forces the parliament to consider trading off people's right to accept and enjoy religious freedoms against the rights of others to enjoy, in any other spectrum or area of society, the right to non-discrimination. As I said before, it is not easy, but we have to acknowledge that. If we are to take all of society on the right journey to enhance anti-discrimination laws in providing a greater basis of rights in Australia, we need to respect some of those rights that have existed on a more historical footing.

This bill seeks to extend anti-discrimination protections in Commonwealth law to sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status. In many ways, as I said, that is an incremental improvement that is very significant to the people who are affected—but it is incremental in the sense that those same anti-discrimination principles already apply to numerous other cohorts of the Australian populace. In doing so, it would be reasonable to expect that the same principles would be applied to the new groups of people included as would have applied to those already included.

Debate interrupted.