Sean Edwards (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013. I take this opportunity while standing here in front of my Senate colleagues—because it is highly unlikely that I will be afforded the opportunity anytime later in the week, given that the government is hell-bent on ramming legislation through this chamber—to wish my Senate colleague Senator Humphries all the very best in his future endeavours. His valedictory will be on Wednesday and, as we have all become aware throughout Australia, this government is going to continue to curtail any debate, discussion or opportunity for Senator Humphries to hear from all of his colleagues when he departs this chamber for the last time on Friday when we rise.

Senator Humphries, in the two years that I have been in this place, you have been a most affable and caring colleague. You have always been available for advice, which you served judiciously with a great deal of knowledge and genuine intent whenever I came to you. I thank you very much for that. In the time that you have been in public life, you have served not only in the ACT government but here in the federal parliament. You have served the people of the Australian Capital Territory with great gusto, great skill and great intelligence, and I am going to sorely miss your contribution. I will sorely miss our walks down to this chamber during divisions, because you are a neighbour of mine. I thank you on behalf of the class of 2010 that came here and used your great spread of knowledge of what happens. I wish you and your family well. As I said, there are a great deal of things that a lot of people will say on Wednesday, but, cruelly, the opportunity will only be available for a select few. What is happening this week is indeed sad. To you and your family, go well—and thank you very much for your time here. Senator Humphries, it has been a great honour. With that, I will move on to the bill.

Sex discrimination occurs when a person is treated less favourably than a person of the opposite sex would be treated in the same or similar circumstances. It is also sex discrimination when there is a rule or policy that is the same for everyone but which has an unfair effect on people of a particular sex—this is called indirect discrimination. Everyone has a role to play in helping to build greater equality in Australia. However, once again we are seeing an example of Labor and its intention of imposing a nanny state on all Australians.

This bill represents another embarrassing act of the Gillard government. This bill will inhibit freedom of speech and opinion, a right that is so deeply entrenched and valued by Australian society. Australia deserves a government that does not drive a social-engineering agenda. Widespread community opinion opposes this bill but we continue to see this Labor government making laws that do not reflect the needs and wants of the Australian people. The coalition supports anti-discrimination law, but we believe the purpose of anti-discrimination law to be to protect those vulnerable to unfair discrimination on grounds such as ethnicity, gender, sexuality or disability.

The bill's principal effect is to adopt the recommendations of coalition senators in the minority report, which Senator Humphries referred to earlier, of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this bill that the Sex Discrimination Act should be amended so that it extends to discrimination on the basis of sexuality. It should be noted that this was the policy which the coalition took to the 2010 election. It remains coalition policy, which the government has now adopted. While the coalition supported the passage of this bill through the House, we are looking to move amendments in the Senate.

I turn to more general comments about the debate in the community of these kinds of issues. This is an issue which has engaged a wide range of very passionate people in the electorate. It is one thing to have a debate in the community about an issue—in this case sex discrimination—but it is another thing altogether when the debate turns vitriolic and personal. On the extremes of both sides—I am pleased to say that it is only a small minority—there are some truly horrible things being said about the other side. The deeply conservative in the community are making wild accusations about extending anti-discrimination protection to everybody in society. On the other side extreme supporters call those on the conservative side homophobes and bigots. It is just not nice. It is divisive and is not the Australian way. I particularly do not appreciate being spammed by people using abusive and personal rhetoric. As Guy Sebastian's hit song asks: why can't we just get along? We heard that last week from you, Madam Acting Deputy President Crossin, in your valedictory speech—why can't we just get along?

Before I came to this place I ran a number of businesses. I am fortunate enough still to have those businesses, but they are being run by other people. While I was at the helm I employed a diversity of people to work in those businesses. Never once did it occur to me that I should employ or not employ anyone on any basis other than merit and their ability to execute the functions of the job. That remains my ethic and my modus operandi today. Over the years, I have employed all of the gender groups that are discussed in this bill and none has ever failed me on the basis of their sexuality, gender or otherwise. Unfortunately, it seems that not everyone in our society is as in tune with 21st century Australia as I aspire to be. Hence our need to have anti-discrimination protection.

The Senate committee inquiry drew a range of diverse views on the bill. While we do not support this specific bill there are a number of ongoing issues that must be addressed in the GLBTI—gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex—community that this bill, even if passed, would not completely resolve. The AIDS Council of my home state of South Australia highlighted in the executive summary of their submission to the inquiry into this bill:

GLBTI populations experience lower levels of health and wellbeing (compared to opposite-sex attracted populations) that is directly attributable to the marginalisation, institutionalised homophobia, heteronormativity and the outright discrimination that still exists in Australia.

While the AIDS Council of South Australia supported the bill, there were a number of organisations—peak representative groups and others—which opposed the bill outright or had doubts about whether it was the best way to protect people against discrimination. As a side note, I make mention of the fact that there appear to be only three submissions from my home state of South Australia. It is disappointing that other peak bodies from South Australia did not contribute. I think that, given the significance of these issues, we need to arrive at a much greater consensus in the community before passing such important legislation. It is not an easy topic of conversation for many. That is not to say that one day it will be easy or that it should not be an easy conversation to have.

But we have to remember how far this debate has come just in our lifetimes. When I was young—younger!—even discussing homosexuality was considered a taboo, let alone the discussion for anyone who was openly gay. Now, all these years later, it is much easier for people to be who they are, openly. The younger people in my life, whether they be my children, my children's friends or staff members, just do not see what all the fuss is about when it comes to people from the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex community. This is in no way to say that further work is not needed, and that we as a society cannot continue to be more open and more inclusive.

This legislation, in our opinion, does not progress the debate in the best way. The coalition senators—you heard from Senator Humphries and our colleague Senator Boyce; and I congratulate them on their hard work—put forward a minority dissenting report. In the report the coalition senators indicated their broad support of the bill and acknowledged that discrimination on the grounds of sexuality or sexual orientation runs counter to the essential tolerance and inclusiveness which characterises Australian society today.

They also acknowledged that there are conspicuous gaps in the present array of federal human rights legislation in dealing with the sometimes complex issues of a person's sexual identity. However, coalition senators could not support a recommendation in the report which proposed that religious organisations not be entitled to an exemption in respect of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status in connection with the provision of the Commonwealth funded aged care services. In the opinion of coalition senators the removal of such an exemption could compromise the capacity of some of those religious organisations to operate aged care facilities in accordance with the principles which underpin and define their existence. Those people carry out a great function in our society. Obviously, in the way in which we normalise our Australian way of life we have to expect that religious groups hold certain views and offer certain services on the basis of those views, and that you can participate or not participate in taking up those services based on the value beliefs that they hold.

Importantly, the coalition did not believe that the committee majority adequately addressed the operational concerns of some religious bodies operating faith centred services. It is hard to understand why such operational considerations would be taken into account and exempted under legislation in respect of the operational, education or health facilities but not in relation to aged care facilities, where nearly identical concerns arise.

This legislation presented an opportunity for multi-partisan reform of the laws as they affect discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people. The inclusion of recommendation 1 in the majority report, however, fails to acknowledge the strong differences of views presented to the committee on the question of aged care services, and thus undermines the opportunity for a multipartisan approach.

In the minority report by coalition senators, the coalition senators' sole recommendation was as follows:

That the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity and Intersex Status) Bill 2013 stand as presented, i.e. that it continue to provide that religious exemptions in section 37 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 apply in respect of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status in connection with the provision of Commonwealth-funded aged care services.

I strongly support the extension of the protection of anti-discrimination law on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identify and intersex status. However, I, along with the coalition members, am not content that a bill which, in its original iteration, had our strong support, will be subject to an amendment which we cannot support in these circumstances.

I therefore urge the chamber to reject the Greens' amendments and the hastily rushed-in government amendments, and adopt the coalition amendments. I point out, in the one minute and 37 seconds to go, that there are some five speakers who are likely to be gagged from this debate. It is another example of the dysfunction that has beset this government. As I stand here it is not apparent who is going to lead the Labor Party as of the end of the week in this country, and who will be the Prime Minister. Therefore, on two occasions today I have been usurped and not allowed to be heard with regard to two pieces of legislation which I feel strongly about.

I have been gagged. We have 45 seconds to go but I know that Senator Back wanted to say something meaningful. It is very difficult to get something said in 30 seconds, so I register my protest. It is a raffle in here at the moment as to whether you get to speak. Is that democracy? No, it is not. I register my protest. I am most indignant about being cut off from all the debates which are being rushed through.

I will be indignant for a very long time. There is a very, very bad smell about this place this week, and I suggest that any perpetuation of this kind of chamber behaviour— (Time expired)