Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Multicultural Engagement) Share this | Hansard source

I congratulate my colleague Senator O'Sullivan for his contribution in relation to this matter. Senator O'Sullivan is absolutely 100 per cent correct. It is unforgivable that the Albanese Labor government has prepared draft legislation in response to the Australian Law Reform Commission report on religious educational institutions and antidiscrimination laws, which is a very important matter of public policy, yet barely anyone in this place has seen it.

We, the representatives of our respective states, don't have an opportunity to see this legislation. Members of the public, those in the public gallery and those across the country, including those who are leaders of our faith based communities, religious institutions and educational institutions—who would be impacted directly by this legislation, or I assume they'd be impacted, though I haven't seen it like my friend Senator O'Sullivan—are not being given the opportunity to see this legislation.

I've got absolute confidence in my colleague Senator Cash, but this legislation should be able to be scrutinised by everyone in this place, not just the shadow minister. Everyone should have access to this legislation, which is so important. It is absolutely crucial. There are core freedoms in this country—freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom of conscience. This goes to one of those core freedoms, freedom of religion.

People come to this country from all over the world because of freedom of religion because they're denied freedom of religion in other countries. They come to Australia so they can practice their faith in peace. It is a core freedom in this country, and the draft legislation in response to this report should be in the public domain so that every Australian has the right and the opportunity to review that legislation and provide their feedback to us as their representatives. That's how the system is meant to work. We're meant to have openness and transparency so we can have a debate, so we can engage in freedom of speech and have our views heard. Then, hopefully, through that process, we can come up with the ultimate policy position that has the support of the majority of Australians. That's the way the system is meant to work.

The system is not meant to be conducted on the basis of draft legislation, hidden behind a closed door and behind a non-disclosure agreement. Someone can come in, have a look at it and sign a non-disclosure agreement. They're not allowed to tell anyone else what's in it. That's ridiculous and absurd. I don't know who's advising the Prime Minister in this regard.

The second element which concerns me about this, as Senator O'Sullivan touched upon, is that apparently if the legislation does come forward, there are those on the other side saying: 'There's no need to have another inquiry. We've had enough inquiries.'

Let me tell you, I sat on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into this area of legislation that was brought forth during the last parliament, and there is every reason why an inquiry is needed in relation to this legislation, if it ever comes into the light of day. The previous inquiry, which I was a part of, delivered a 165-page report in relation to that draft legislation. Why? Because it's complicated, the devil is in the detail and so many stakeholders are keenly interested in this legislation. The issue of unintended consequences is abound in relation to these areas.

There needs to be an inquiry, but the first step in any process is for the draft legislation to be made public so the Australians impacted by this draft legislation have an opportunity to read it themselves and provide feedback to their elected representatives. They can't do that if it's hidden behind a cloak of secrecy, behind closed doors and under non-disclosure agreements. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.