Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on my private senator's bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Full Face Coverings in Public Places) Bill 2017. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to increase security in all public places covered under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth and to promote civil harmony and assimilation in a climate of increasing public safety issues. This private senator's bill will make it an offence to wear full-face coverings in a public place under Commonwealth jurisdiction as well as to force another person or a child to wear a full-face covering unless otherwise authorised or excused by the law.

Today an editorial in a local Tasmanian paper has criticised me for introducing this legislation, under the heading of 'Islam fears misguided'. The editorial continues:

Though it is hard to imagine that the burka is a common sight on the streets of her home town of Burnie, it is clear from a series of recent public pronouncements that Senator Jacqui Lambie takes issue with aspects of Islamic culture. From an unfortunately shouty appearance denouncing “sharia law” on the ABC’s Q&A on Monday night, to her private member’s bill calling for a burqa ban, it is a curious preoccupation for a Senator from the nation’s least multicultural state.

The article continues in a highbrow, academic, condescending tone, implying that I do not understand that Australia's greatness has come because successive waves of migrants have made Australia home and some have taken the time to adapt. According to the article:

… our nation is a beacon to the world of a successful and harmonious multicultural society based on the Australian principles of equality, mateship and a fair go. It is a model we should be proud of and we should work hard to defend and to spread. We have enough real problems here without dreaming up more.

I would like to reflect for a moment on that last point—'We have enough real problems here without dreaming up more.' It is obvious that the author of those words has not acknowledged the work that I have carried out in the areas of energy security, health, higher education, the Bass Strait freight cost, unemployment, protecting pensioner payments and pay for our Australian Federal Police and Defence personnel. They do not think that the threat to our national security from organised crime and/or terrorism is a real problem. It is clear the author of this editorial believes I am just dreaming up this almost unprecedented threat which exists to public safety in Australia in 2017.

This news article is a sly personal attack because it deliberately ignores the facts—namely that our defence forces are today fighting in the Middle East because war has been declared on Australia by a brutal group of Middle Eastern men who want to impose their culture on us and our allies. Today the official government warning, set at the third highest level out of five, is that those Middle Eastern men will try to bring their war to Australian soil by any means and will probably attempt to carry out a deadly attack somewhere in our country in the next 24 hours. The author of this editorial, who accuses me of dreaming up this threat to national security, obviously denies the existence of war in the Middle East and our official domestic terror threat level of 'probable'. I doubt they have travelled much out of the politically correct cultural bubble of Hobart. They certainly have not visited this parliament, where we spend nearly half our working lives.

When I first came to this place almost three years ago, there were no police officers with machine guns on guard outside. There were no big security fences scarring the beautiful lawns above us which crown this grand building. No longer will Australian children be able to play on and roll down the lawns above this chamber because of the threat to the physical safety of every person in this building from a group of men from the Middle East who want to forcibly replace our democratic Constitution and system of government with their own law, justice and government taken straight out of the seventh century.

I take the current threat to public safety seriously, which is more than I can say for some members of the media who think it is all a dream. Putting aside the lives lost already during terror related attacks on our soil, how can this threat to public safety be a dream when the head of ASIO admits that Australia's lead spy agency is right now watching 190 people on our soil who are carrying out activities which help terrorists? How can people not be alarmed when the spy agency chief during Senate estimates hearings refused to even disclose the cost of their covert surveillance?

How can people feel confident that our security agencies, under the direction of this government, are doing everything possible to keep the public safe when ASIO refuses to detail the number of terrorist supporters being watched in each state? Are these terrorists being paid welfare? Are they allowed to vote? Are they allowed access to vehicles or firearms? Why are they being only watched? Why have they not been electronically tagged? Why have they not been charged with treason and put in jail if found guilty?

When it comes to national security this government is not being truthful with the Australian people. Yes, Liberal members can point to an official alert system that says that a terrorist attack today is probable. Yet we still have the editor of a Tassie paper who thinks that I am dreaming up a national security problem that really does not exist.

During the Christmas break I was fortunate enough to travel to South-East Asia with my son for a family holiday. I would like to congratulate the Singaporean government on their public education campaign regarding the threat to their national security. They do not hide the truth from their people. The government runs ads on big TV screens in the middle of the city which show shops being blown up, with this blunt but very effective message. It is not a matter of if but when a terrorist attack will happen. The Singaporean government does not mince its words. It is not scared of the politically correct brigade, who bury their heads in the sand. In their ads the Singaporean government also instructs their people how to respond to that terrorist attack, which is going to happen, in order to lessen the loss of life and increase personal security.

We need that level of honesty here in Australia. In future, when the next attack occurs in Australia, we will pay with the unnecessary loss of innocent lives because of our government's, opposition's and, sad to say, mainstream media's current complacency in regard to the terrorist threat. It is no exaggeration or dream to say that in Australia the threat from organised crime and terrorism is real. Members of our military are overseas helping to fight a war that has been declared on Australia and our democratic allies by organised extremists because of who we are and our love for democracy. Gone are the easy days of the past, when we knew and trusted our neighbours and left our back doors unlocked. Those days are over. In this time of heightened security concerns, the safety and feelings of safety of members of the Australian public and a guarantee of open communication between citizens must be paramount.

There is a clear national security need to bring in a nationwide ban on all identity-concealing garments unless the wearer has a reasonable and lawful excuse to wear those garments. While some small groups of people may make an argument that their right to express their religious feelings or views by wearing identity-concealing garments is being limited, the security and safety of the community must always come first. Moreover, the community must feel safe. Full-face coverings such as helmets, masks, balaclavas and other facial coverings worn in public without good reason often cause unnecessary fear among the general public. Therefore security and safety will be enhanced with the introduction of this bill. I remind people who argue that this bill impacts on the religious freedoms of some groups of people living in Australia that linking restrictions on facial coverings to the national terrorism threat level is a reasonable and balanced approach to maintaining and enhancing public security, especially at a time when our security agencies are certain that further deadly public attacks by extremists and enemies of Australia will happen. Therefore, the general public's right to feel safe in public places in a secular, democratic society in a time of extreme threat from terrorism must always outweigh the right to expression of religious freedom.

Australians are not the only people who have expressed concerns and feel unsafe when citizens wear full-face coverings in public without good reason. As a secular state, France has already banned face coverings in public spaces, including masks, helmets, balaclavas, burqas and niqabs. In France the law defines public space to include streets, museums, shops, public transportation, parks, banks and even during the course of employment within the public sector.

According to Parliamentary Library research Belgium and Turkey have also successfully implemented similar laws. Even a number of Muslim countries have banned the burqa, as it were, recognising the security risk it poses. Egypt, Chad, Tunisia, Morocco, Cameroon and Niger have bans on burqas and Senegal is currently considering whether to impose one. I do not think that those countries are being called anti-Islamic.

My private senator's bill links the prohibition of full-face coverings to the national terrorism threat level, to be activated when the terrorism threat level reaches 'probable'. By doing this, the public can feel at ease knowing the government is doing everything it can to protect its citizens in the face of the growing threat of terrorism. Full-face coverings conceal the identity of the wearer, disrupting the authorities' ability to track down a perpetrator in the event of a crime. Prohibiting the use of full-face coverings also acts as a deterrent to those who contemplate committing a crime. This prohibition promotes public safety by making it easier to identify everyone.

This legislation will enable all Australians who want to go peacefully about their business to feel safe in public spaces. It does so by enacting commonsense security provisions. I emphasise that the primary purpose of this bill is public safety. When people have the intention of committing a crime, in many cases they attempt to conceal their identity so they have the best chance of evading the law. While this bill takes into account exceptions for full-face coverings in the genuine pursuit of entertainment, work and artistic purposes, the right of the Australian public to be safer and feel safer, when the official terrorism threat is at the third highest level or 'probable', must be the primary consideration of the government.

One Nation members have indicated they want to amend my legislation so that it is not linked to the national terrorism threat level. I think that would be a mistake. As the bill stands now, a reasonable Australian could not find any reason to oppose it. Liberal, National, Labor and even the Greens senators will find it very hard to vote against this legislation because it reflects the human rights balancing act that must always occur in a democracy between public security and personal freedoms. The One Nation amendment does not recognise that politics is the art of the possible and that, as it is written, it stands a good chance of passing this place if members are allowed to vote according to their conscience. The parliamentary record shows that I am one of the few independent crossbench senators to have their private member's bills passed in this Senate. And it is only because the previous Liberal government chose to deny the will of the Senate that our Australian Defence Force pays are not linked to politician pay rises or to CPI—whichever is higher.

So I ask for One Nation's support of my bill in the second reading should the government, the opposition or the Greens decide to put this legislation to a vote. This is a point that I would like to make for the average Australian who may not be au fait with Senate proceedings: the government ultimately has control over the timing of a Senate vote on this legislation. If government members choose, they can delay any vote on this legislation almost indefinitely. This would save themselves the potential embarrassment of many National Party and Liberal Party members voting for my legislation and against orders that they have received from the PM's office. I understand it is their right to put their amendments in the committee stages, but I genuinely believe they will not receive the broad cross-party support that is required to make this legislation law.

Returning to the issue of One Nation's proposed amendments, the bottom line is: chances of a successful passage of this bill is greater in this Senate without One Nation's amendment.

Following my appearance on ABC's Q&A many people have contacted me and shared their concerns about sharia law, full-face coverings and the level of threat to our national security. I had one particularly moving encounter with a person in this parliament who I will not identify. It will be up to them to go public or not about their fears and concerns. They described the plight of hundreds and perhaps thousands of Muslim women living in this country who are oppressed and fearful. In lives full of abuse and control by men, they are told what to wear and how to dress in public. They cannot speak out. They are voiceless. However, I have been told by this person who came to visit me—a person who I trust and respect very much—that these Muslim women have been emboldened and given hope by my public comments and the provisions within this bill.

Before I close, I will briefly return to the editorial which condescendingly suggested that I focus my energies on some of the real problems that my constituents face. Public safety and security is a real problem for the people of Tasmania. Residents of Burnie, Devonport and Launceston, et cetera, are smart enough to know that passing this legislation is not a cure in itself for the ills that face us. It is a small part of a larger solution. However, they know that the successful passage of this bill will send a powerful message to our enemies and other extreme radicals who thrive on public anarchy and fear. Remember, this legislation targets right-wing thugs. We all know that, apart from the Islamic radicals, there is a growing group of people who conceal their identities with handkerchiefs and dark glasses and who, during wild and violent public rallies, openly profess their hate for black and Jewish people. Those cowards will also face fines of $36,000. This legislation gives our police another valuable legislative tool to keep the law and order on our streets in Australia.

I seek the support of all members for the successful passage of this bill through the Australian Senate.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Senator Lambie's bill, the Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Full Face Coverings in Public Places) Bill 2017. Can I say, Senator Lambie, I may not agree with all of what you say but I absolutely respect your right, as a member of this parliament, to put forward the views that you are putting forward. I know that they are views that are shared by people in the Australian community.

As many of my colleagues know, I have spent many, many years involved in a whole range of different community activities and, most especially, across the diversity that is, today, contemporary and mainstream Australian society. Therefore, I have had the opportunity to speak with and to meet with, and to have opportunity to discuss this and other issues, many people in different communities, including many women in the Muslim communities. So I wanted to share some of those thoughts as part of this discussion and as part of the debate about this bill.

As a Liberal government we believe in the inalienable rights and freedoms of all people, free of interference by government in our daily lives. And, of course, this means that all Australians should be free to choose their religion. They should be free to practice their religion and beliefs without intimidation and without interference so long as—and I underline this—those practices are within the framework of Australian law. And that includes freedom of people to express their religion through their choice of clothing. It really, basically, comes down to not telling people what they should or should not wear.

However, Senator Lambie, I believe that there always is an appropriate balance between freedom and security. There will be situations and locations where safety and security dictate that individuals must be identifiable. For example, people should be identifiable in courtrooms, to police officers investigating crimes or incidents, and when entering buildings such as federal offices or other places that are designated by law as requiring people, for identification purposes, to reveal their face to have them identified.

The need for identification is not an issue about religion; it is an agnostic issue. It could be someone wearing a motorcycle helmet, a woman wearing a face covering—a burqa or other face covering—or any other person. As you have said, Senator Lambie, it could be someone wearing a balaclava or some other face covering. It is a useful and important discussion to have, but it is also important to find the appropriate balance between freedom and security. This government's first priority is to keep the public safe. We are committed to ensuring that our agencies have the powers that they need, but it comes down to striking that appropriate balance.

Senator Lambie, your bill would apply in public places in the territories and in Commonwealth places when the threat level under the National Terrorism Threat Advisory System is higher than 'possible'. I remind the Senate that a higher threat level of 'probable' has been in place in Australia since September 2014. The bill also contains exemptions for full-face coverings where it is reasonable and necessary for the wearer's occupation; for participation in lawful entertainment, recreation or sport; for a genuine artistic purpose; or for safety equipment, and it allows for those exemptions to be prescribed by regulation. The definition of a full-face covering is an item that substantially covers the front of a person's head from the top of the forehead to the base of the chin in a way that conceals the identity of the person, whether or not a part of a person's face can still be seen.

As I said to Senator Lambie through you, Mr Acting Deputy President, I have had the opportunity to spend a lot of time in many different situations in different communities, and I have to say that in my 35 years of involvement I have rarely seen women wearing a burqa. I have spent time in places where one would normally see them worn. I have, on the odd occasion, seen women wearing a niqab, but more often than not I have seen them wear a hijab, where their face is fully seen; a chador, where, whilst the head is more covered, you can definitely still see the face; or a dupatta, which is mostly worn by women of South-East Asian background. I have taken the opportunity to speak with quite a number of women, and I have actually asked them the direct question of whether they feel under an obligation: does the Koran obligate women to have their face covered? The most common answer I get is, 'No, it doesn't.' Women who have told me that they do wear mostly the hijab have told me that they do so because it is their choice. It is what they feel that they would like to wear as a demonstration of their beliefs.

I grew up in a Catholic system. I was taught by nuns at school. Nuns wear habits, but they normally wear a habit where you can see their face. People wear different head coverings. For example, Sikhs wear turbans. Again, in instances of identification, those are not going to be an issue, because the face is not fully covered. I think that in this issue it is important that we look at it from that identification perspective and that we look at identification right across the spectrum—and Senator Lambie, as you correctly say, at people with balaclavas and other face coverings. But in the end it really does become a question of finding the appropriate balance.

We are one of the most culturally diverse yet socially cohesive nations on earth, and our Australia of today is founded on a whole set of principles. It is about freedom; it is about opportunity; it is about tolerance; it is about understanding, but it is also about respecting the law. Senator Lambie, I appreciate the sentiment of this bill, because—and I now speak from a personal perspective—this is confronting at times, and it has been confronting for many Australians. Many Australians have told me that they find it confronting when faced with somebody whose face is totally covered. But I think that in Australia—and certainly in my experience over a long period of time and in places where I have walked like Lakemba, Auburn and other places—I have very rarely seen women whose faces are fully covered. I have definitely seen them with hijabs and chadors, but I have not seen too many in the full burqa or the full niqab. Having said that, Senator Lambie, I think it is very important that we find the appropriate balance in this issue. When it does come to a question of identification, it should not be about religion; it should be an agnostic approach, and it should be one that applies to forms of covering that go to the very important point of identification.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In the restricted time we have this afternoon, there are a number of people who are willing to make some contributions, so it will only be a chance to taste the debate, Senator Lambie, as you expect. But I think it is important that we do have the discussion, and our rules do not very often allow us the chance to actually talk about issues that are important to people personally and how we move it forward.

In terms of the issues around security and in particular this area of face covering, this is not a new debate. In this place, we have for a while been trying to work through, as Senator Fierravanti-Wells has put on record, the important area of how we balance a genuine, agreed position around our whole country that we are in a time of security threat whilst not wishing to exaggerate the process and cause undue fear. I think what we have been trying to do for a period of time is engage with the community so that we all take ownership of exactly how we feel about our society, what our values are and what we want to do together to ensure that we do reach that point of balance, that we know that we have to have responsibilities as citizens, or as visitors in this country, to live by the laws that are in place and to understand that internationally there has been increased violence, increased threat and also a call for division. That is not what we want to see happen in this community. We want to ensure that, while we are working together to effectively contemplate what the issues of security are, we maintain at every point a clear desire and a process that engages rather than rejects or divides the community.

On the issue of veiling, one of the other real problems we have is that there is a great lack of understanding and throwing around of terminology about people who cover their heads, their faces—their mode of dress. Whenever this discussion happens, it inevitably comes down to the issue of Muslim women. We have all read your bill, Senator Lambie, so we are not labelling; we are just saying that the bill does talk about all forms of face covering, but I guarantee that any media coverage and any commentary in the community will not mention balaclavas. They will not mention headgear of any kind. What they will talk about, hopefully correctly, is the kind of veiling that various Muslim women wear. The stats prove that in Australia not many women use the full cover, not many at all. In fact, it is still something that causes people to be concerned and look because it is so rare. Most Muslim women who choose to wear covering in this country tend to wear scarves to cover their hair, not their face. Your bill relates to things that stop facial recognition, and I think that is something that we need to understand and also put into the balance.

There are also limits in the bill around moments of severe security alarm, so it is not just all the time. So your bill does look at limiting the restriction. However, in terms of the current level of debate in Australia, the current level of understanding in Australia and indeed the current level of terror threat, I believe this bill does not build engagement or communication; it actually creates more division and fear. If I had more time I would go into my concerns about the way, already, there is a lack of understanding, moving beyond that lack of understanding into actual attack and vilification of a number of people that follow the Muslim religion, and particularly women. They are the most obvious in terms of being public supporters of Muslims, of Islam. The evidence is so clear that already there are attacks, personal insults and deep offence being caused to women who are veiled.

What we need to do is take the information that is available and engage in this community discussion. I believe moving forward with this type of legislation is premature. I do not agree with it, Senator Lambie—and we talk sometimes about these things. I do not agree with it, but I think the issues you raise need to be openly discussed, and having the discussion should not automatically cause yelling and upset and people being labelled. The best thing to do is to put it out clearly, to work through the issues and to see whether we can come to an agreement.

We have clear evidence in New South Wales and in my own state of Queensland that, where issues of identification have been brought into place, mechanisms have been put in place to ensure that that occurs. That is the positive side of how we can work together. I do not believe the bill actually gets there. I think it raises issues, and when we have a wider opportunity to talk about it more people can get involved and go into a process where we can really work through the intent, how we can do it and how we can do it without further division, because I do not want to divide society to try to pretend to make it more safe.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me start by describing what the Criminal Code Amendment (Prohibition of Full Face Coverings in Public Places) Bill 2017 does. It prohibits anything that substantially covers the front of a person's head from the top of the forehead to the base of the chin in a way that conceals the identity of the person, whether or not part of the person's face can still be seen.

Under this bill, Superman would be banned, Spiderman would be banned, Batman would be banned, the Phantom would be banned, Wonderwoman would be okay—actually, Superman might be okay, but Clark Kent could be in trouble because his glasses conceal his identity. The fact is that this ban would only apply when the threat of terrorism is probable, expected or certain. But is that not when we want our superheroes to be able to help us? Do we not want them to be ready and willing to help when the threat is probable, expected or certain? I think it is really important that we understand how this bill would impact on the ability of our costumed superheroes to respond to terror threats, because those costumed superheroes only exist in the realm of fantasy fiction—and that is where this bill belongs. That is before we even get to where the bill would operate.

Could Spiderman go into a Centrelink office to fix up his youth allowance? Could Batman go into a Medicare office to arrange a rebate? We do not know the answer to these questions, because the answer probably depends on whether the Centrelink office is owned by the Commonwealth or leased. Ultimately we do not know, because the question of what a Commonwealth Place is has never really been tested. On the other hand, the Phantom could go into places that are not Commonwealth places, like a housing office or a primary school or a magistrates court, providing he is not in the Northern Territory or the ACT, because of course they are Commonwealth places.

The truth is that Senator Lambie must have been watching too many Hollywood movies, because with this bill she is responding to the 'Phantom Menace'. This bill is aimed squarely at Muslim women who wear the burqa or the niqab. As Senator Lambie pointed out, France did legislate to ban facial coverings in 2010. They did it for the reasons that Senator Lambie nominates. But, in the first year the ban came into effect, who were the only people charged? They were Muslim women wearing a burqa or niqab—20 of them in that year. Is France safer because of it? I do not think so.

It is very difficult to see the correlation here between the intent of the legislation and its impact. We know that there is no credible security advice to the effect that there are large groups of Muslim women out there in the suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne hiding bombs in their burqas just waiting to cause carnage. There is nothing that would indicate that there is a serious security threat. Of course, that might seem trivial now that we live in this Trump-fuelled post-truth world of alternative facts and fake news, but I do scratch my head about it. Even if there were women who were wearing burqas and who presented a security threat, how is it that banning the burqa would keep us safe?

I just do not get it. The whole thing is just so silly.

I do understand that Senator Lambie talks about the impression that Australians feel unsafe when they see people wearing full face coverings in public. Yes, for many people, it is confronting. But I will tell you who does not feel safe right now. You do not feel safe right now if you are a Muslim living in this country, catching public transport, walking down the street and minding your own business if you are being yelled at, vilified and targeted now by some of the most hateful and divisive rhetoric that this country has seen in many decades.

Obviously, it comes on the back of the election of President Trump, who has shown himself to be somebody who is prepared to use hate to divide people. We have the likes of One Nation in this place. We have those whackos Reclaim Australia and the United Patriots Front. All of them enabled and encouraged by a media—and let's name it here: the Murdoch media—who today, for example, launched an extraordinary attack on Yassmin Abdel-Magied. She is a young Muslim woman who is 25 years old and who engaged in a trip, funded through DFAT, to try and encourage people in ostensibly Muslim countries to come and visit Australia and to engage in trade and tourism with our country. And yet, we saw this attack on this young Muslim woman, really based on the fact that she is a Muslim. Of course, you have the whole sewer that the online world has become where this hatred and vilification spreads.

If you speak to Muslim people right now in Australia, you actually get a sense of how they are feeling. In this place, I told the story of Sara, a woman who was caught up in Donald Trump's immigration ban. I told the story of another young woman who was a health professional, who, when she revealed to her patient that she was a Muslim, was basically told, in front of her son, that she would not be welcome in his home if she was wearing the hijab. I have spoken to women who say they do not want to put down their religion on the census or, indeed, their name on the census because they fear what might happen to them. I have spoken to families who say, 'We don't want to buy a house and put down roots in this country because we are worried about where things are going.' That is how people are feeling right now, and it is this sort of legislation that contributes to that. It contributes to that feeling of not being welcome in this country.

Let me say, for me, this is personal. This is very personal. When I see an attack on people of the Islamic faith, I see the same sort of attacks that were launched on my family when the Italians first came: 'They smell. They dress in black. They treat their women terribly. Their food is weird. They speak a strange language. They have these big families. They bludge off the state. They are all criminals and part of the mafia.' We are seeing the same sorts of things repeated now, but all we are seeing is a different group being targeted.

I just say to Senator Lambie and I say to other voices in this place: these are people; open up your heart and your mind; accept an invitation to visit a mosque.

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What if we can't identify people on the street?

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Don't bury your head in the sand. Don't choose ignorance and fear. That is the obvious path. Choose one that promotes peace; one that promotes inclusion and diversity. Get to know a Muslim person. Speak to them. They will welcome you into their home. You will see that, like you, they share a common humanity and have the same dreams and hopes for their families: to put a roof over their head, to feed their children, to give them an education and to contribute to this country.

Don't base legislation in this place on tired stereotypes that are based on fear and prejudice. I get that, right now, Muslims are an easy target. People in this place are falling over themselves to see who can be the most vicious and the most hateful towards our fellow Australians. But that is the low road. Take the high road. This bill is not about protecting people or keeping people safe. This is about targeting people. This bill targets women.

Let me finish with the words of a really inspiring young Muslim woman, Tasneem Chopra. She is the chair of the Australian Muslim Women's Centre for Human Rights. It is an outstanding organisation that works with, and advocates for, Muslim women on a range of casework, research, outreach and referral services. In response to this bill, she said that in their experience, the issue 'of forced faced coverings has not emerged as an issue' within the community. But she says: 'What has emerged are the countless cases of discrimination, vilification and violence experienced by women from the wider public. Further, the ongoing policing of women's choice of dress, equating personal expressions of faith with loyalty to Australia, as if being Muslim and being Australian were inalienable, remains a gross abuse of human rights, experienced as state-sanctioned violence. Any proposed curtailment of freedom of movement premised on faith-based dress codes is antithetical to the democratic freedoms this nation champions.'

Australia's greatest quality is the openness of our society. We are a free, open society; an inclusive society. We are a nation founded by immigrants. We are a nation that comes together to celebrate the many diverse cultures that make Australia home. This country is better because of the contribution of people from right around the world. It is what makes us the most successful multicultural nation on earth; indeed, the most successful nation on earth. So I just say again to all those people in this place who seek to use fear and division—perhaps not intentionally, but because of their own prejudices, insecurities and anxieties—open your heart and your mind, talk to somebody who might be different from you but shares the same dreams, goals and aspirations, and what you will find is that we all share a common humanity. And that is something to be celebrated.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Libertarians have mixed feelings about the burqa. We believe people should be allowed to make their own choices, including wearing what they want, so long as they are not harming anyone else. Occasionally, I see women wearing niqabs and burqas at the shopping centre in my home suburb of Drummoyne in Sydney, and they are not harming anybody. But unfortunately, the sight of a burqa is confronting. It is the closest thing we have to a uniform for fundamentalist Islam, an authoritarian ideology that does harm people. Apart from the obvious excesses of terrorism, there is no room in this country for a belief system that would subjugate women, oppress gays and lesbians, and punish people for saying the wrong thing. I fully understand why some people want one of the most identifiable symbols of this creed banned. But I will not be voting to ban the burqa.

The government already dictates far too many things: what we can do, who we can marry, and what we can say. We should be wary of all kinds of authoritarians: whether they are Islamists, the government, or even the Greens. But I have practical objections as well as ideological ones. The idea behind this bill is that a ban will improve security. I disagree. If someone wandering around the ACT, Northern Territory or an airport, which is where this bill would apply, wants to identify themselves by wearing a burqa, we should not discourage them. As politically incorrect as this no doubt sounds, I can scarcely think of anything you could do to put security on higher alert than wearing a burqa, other than carrying a neon sign with an arrow pointing at you that says 'potential terrorist'.

We should also not discourage or disparage anybody working at an airport security checkpoint, or a police officer who has reason to suspect criminality, for carefully screening someone wearing a burqa. It is their job to use their common-sense to keep us safe. This idea will no doubt offend the delicate sensibilities of the progressives, but it is worse than absurd to pretend Islamists are not a statistically higher security risk; it is dangerous. Anyone who is committed enough to consider terrorism, will not be inconvenienced if there is a law against burps. It's just as easy to hide a bomb under a loose gown as under a burqa. And if you are planning to blow yourself up, you will not be worried if a surveillance camera captures an image of your face before it gets blown to bits.

Rather than engaging fashion police across the ACT and Northern Territory, a much better long-term solution to safeguard Australia would be to make sure immigrants are compatible with our values in the first place. One vote one value, the right to a fair trial, freedom of association, freedom of speech and the separation of church and state are great and hard won doctrines of our culture. It is not racism, bigotry or even jingoism to defend them. It is about protecting the rights of individuals. It is our job.

I recently suggested a written citizenship test to the news.com.au website based on my belief that we should put a higher value on Australian citizenship. Some of the questions include: Should there be a law banning female circumcision—better known to the civilised amongst us as female genital mutilation? Should there be a law banning adults from homosexual acts and relationships? Should there be a law banning a wife from leaving the home against the wishes of the husband? And should there be a law banning blasphemy? Immigrants who fail a test like this are not going to fit in, and are probably better off finding a home somewhere else anyway.

Ultimately, it is the values immigrants bring to this country that matter more than their clothes or their customs.

Mr Acting Deputy President Back, I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned