House debates

Tuesday, 8 February 2022

Bills

Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021, Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021; Second Reading

5:39 pm

Photo of Ian GoodenoughIan Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Consumers make an informed choice to select a service provider such as a school, an aged-care facility or a hospital identified as being associated with that religion because they have an expectation that the service will be provided according to the ethos of that religion. The legislation contains safeguards to ensure that statements of belief made in good faith are protected only to the extent that they are not malicious, vilifying or inciteful. Provided that a statement of belief is not intended to harass or intimidate, the individual making it must be protected from discrimination.

In our society, with free speech comes civic responsibilities. Free speech does not exist in a vacuum. Many religious texts are thousands of years old and contain idioms and metaphors, the meaning of which have changed over time. Their literal meanings must be interpreted with care and caution. Common sense and the reasonableness test must always apply in the interpretation of legislation. Making an honest statement of belief in a social environment during the course of one's daily activities must be protected. Individuals must not face sanctions such as the loss of employment, loss of licence or loss of professional registration for expressing their religious beliefs in good faith.

As a Christian, I seek your indulgence in making reference to a very important statement of belief to me, the Nicene Creed, which dates back to 381 AD. This forms the defining statement of belief of mainstream Christianity, which is almost universally adhered to by most Christian denominations. This legislation will protect in law Christians expressing their belief, as they have done for the past 2,000 years. Millions of Christians around the world recite the Creed in church services each week as their legitimate statement of belief. Permit me to read a version from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, Who was conceived by

the holy Ghost, Born of the virgin Mary, Suffered under Pontius

Pilate, Was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into Hell, The

third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into Heaven,

And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From

thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in

the holy Ghost, The holy Catholick Churche, The Communion of

Saints, The forgiveness of sins, The resurrection of the body, And

the life everlasting. Amen.

This creed forms the fundamental basis of the Christian faith. There is nothing extreme about it, and Christians ought to have the freedom to be able to express these beliefs free from discrimination in their homes, workplaces and community. This legislation enshrines this freedom in law. There is nothing objectionable in this statement of belief, made in good faith. Not everyone may agree with it, but this bill will defend the rights of Christians to express their beliefs free from discrimination, detriment or harassment from non-believers.

This legislation was drafted after extensive consultation with key stakeholders and faith leaders by the Attorney-General, who dedicated herself to working with all parties in a spirit of cooperation to maintain the integrity of the legislation. Our government ought to protect the right of Australians to worship freely according to their faith, beliefs, values and conscience. The exception is in the instances where hate, violence or illegal acts against others are incited. Simply disagreeing with the religious views of another person or group of persons should not be grounds for discrimination against them in the workplace or in broader society.

In summary, although we live in a tolerant society, there are many instances of religious discrimination in Australia, which this legislation aims to address. It is the intent of this bill to provide legal protections for people based on their religion in line with the existing legislation in place, which protects individuals based on other attributes such as their age, sex, race or disability. I commend the bill to the House.

5:44 pm

Photo of Andrew LeighAndrew Leigh (Fenner, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Treasury) Share this | | Hansard source

In 1964 a man called Michael delivered a sermon in Ivanhoe Methodist Church. He was a young, bookish bloke, a runner, who had just returned from Borneo. In the congregation was a woman who was training to be a teacher, Barbara. She had just returned from Papua New Guinea, and so they got chatting. He offered to drive her home. She lived almost within sight of the church and said, 'Yes, a lift home would be lovely.' And so my parents fell in love. I literally wouldn't be standing here today were it not for the Ivanhoe Methodist Church. One of my great role models is my grandfather Keith Leigh, a Methodist minister who tragically died in 1970, doing a fundraising run up Mount Wellington in Hobart to raise money for overseas aid.

And one of the things I've loved since becoming a federal member of parliament is engaging with the many faith communities here in the ACT. We've got the Australian Centre for Christianity and Culture—the other ACCC, you might say. There's the Sikh temple and Sikh groups who, through Turbans 4 Australia, distributed meals to people under lockdown. It was one of the great examples of the Sikh community's willingness to give back to the community. The HTCC, the Hindu Temple and Cultural Centre, in Florey, has a great following in the local community. Gungahlin Mosque has many parishioners and regularly serves food and welcomes people in. Through its open day, it welcomes Muslims and non-Muslims alike to the mosque. Kippax Uniting Church distribute a huge number of hampers every year, to the extent that I once quipped with them that they're really a large social service organisation with a small faith community attached to the side. The Baha'i community, the Buddhist community, the Canberra Quakers, the Anglicans, the Catholics, the Pentecostals and the evangelicals all help to form a rich tapestry of the Canberra community. They strengthen community through their volunteering and their donations.

As we know, those who attend religious services are more likely to donate money, including to non-religious causes, and more likely to volunteer, including to non-religious outfits. Those who attend religious services are more likely to give blood. And yet we've seen significant attacks on people of faith over recent years—the Christchurch mosque attack, Islamophobia and Hinduphobia. I spoke during the last parliamentary sittings about the rise in anti-Semitism and its links with the antivaccination movement.

The challenge with the Religious Discrimination Bill is to ensure that, in preventing discrimination based on religion, we don't thereby allow additional discrimination. I've appreciated those who've attended the roundtables that I've hosted and co-hosted with the member for Canberra, Alicia Payne, including members of the ACT Jewish Community, the Australian Baha'i Community, the Islamic Society of the ACT, Canberra City Care, the Catholic Archdiocese of Canberra and Goulburn, Crossroads Christian Church, a chaplain of the Australian Defence Force, Gungahlin Anglican Church, Holy Cross Anglican Church, Canberra Interfaith Forum, the Australian Partnership of Religious Organisations, Equality Australia, Diversity ACT Community Services, A Gender Agenda, and AIDS Action.

As the shadow Attorney-General has pointed out, it is already unlawful under the antidiscrimination laws in most states and territories for individuals to be discriminated against on the basis of their religious beliefs or practices. Labor's principles as we approach this bill are threefold. As the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes clear, religious organisations and people of faith should have the right to act in accordance with the doctrines, beliefs and teachings of their traditions and faith. We support the extension of the Commonwealth's antidiscrimination framework to ensure Australians aren't discriminated against because of their religious beliefs or activities, and we want to ensure that, consistent with the international covenant, any extension of the Commonwealth's antidiscrimination framework doesn't remove protections that already exist in the law to protect Australians from other forms of discrimination.

But this bill has come awfully late in the parliamentary term. The Prime Minister promised in December 2018 that a religious discrimination bill would be passed before the 2019 election. He broke that promise. He didn't even introduce it in 2020 or early 2021. He waited until the end of 2021, until the very end of the parliamentary sitting year, as we are heading now rapidly to an election, to introduce this bill. That has meant that, over the 71 days between the introduction of the bill and the bringing down of their committee reports, parliamentary committees have had to work furiously with stakeholders. That 71-day period included 12 religious holidays, and for most people was a period of school holidays. I acknowledge the hard work that the members for Moreton and Macnamara and Senators Ciccone, O'Neill and Pratt, who have worked through this period in order to scrutinise this bill.

The challenge that has been noted by many submitters is that, by overriding state and territory antidiscrimination law, there is a concern that people who are bringing antidiscrimination cases might not be able to do it or would face a more complicated or expensive process. Labor senators have noted that there isn't an antivilification provision in the Religious Discrimination Bill, despite the fact that, as I mentioned, religious discrimination is on the rise.

A number of concerns have been raised in relation to clause 12, including the concern that it elevates religious speech above other human rights while undermining existing protections that may override existing federal, state and territory antidiscrimination laws; concerns the provision may be unconstitutional; concerns that it provides the minister with the power to prescribe other laws to be overridden; and concerns that discrimination complaints relating, in whole or part, to a statement of belief under state antidiscrimination laws will face a much more complicated and expensive process as a result of this provision.

The Prime Minister, three years ago, promised that he would change the law to protect kids. There is widespread support for this in the parliament, and it is beyond me why the Prime Minister has not done that, has not made the change.

This is an issue which has been raised with me by a number of constituents. Mary Davis of Palmerston wrote to me: 'My daughter was incorrectly identified as being male at birth. She was educated at a wonderful co-educational Christian school in Canberra. After years of feeling that her assigned gender was at odds with her real gender, with the mental and psychological struggles that came with that, she eventually came out as female in year 12. Her school embraced her for who she was and celebrated with her who she would become. She readily tells people that her school kept her alive during the difficult years of her adolescence through their caring and acceptance.' But Ms Davis goes on to say, 'I know of many other transgender children who have not been as lucky as my daughter in their school lives.' She is concerned that those children may be subject to discrimination.

Kathy, another constituent, who has asked me not to use her surname, has written to me about her then 12-year-old daughter who told her father and Kathy that she 'doesn't think she's a girl', and that she was questioning whether she was trans or gender nonbinary. Kathy writes: 'This didn't come entirely as a shock. We discussed her feelings as a family. My daughter told us that she was still happy for us to call her "she" and that she was comfortable in her skin, which we were very relieved about. She now wears boys clothing and she doesn't talk about her thinking. When we check in with her, she's still fine and still feeling the same way. She's one of the most caring, deep-thinking, intelligent and compassionate children I've met. It's a pleasure to be her parent and it's a joy to have her in our family.' Kathy says that her daughter attends a Catholic school and that she's confided her thoughts and feelings to her friends at school, and they're totally accepting of her. But, again, as with Mary Davis, Kathy is concerned that children in other schools may face discrimination and that children who are not as comfortable in their identities may be subject to a backlash. She is concerned that this bill might make discrimination worse.

A powerful article posted online by Rachel Cunneen goes on to talk about Nick, Rachel's transgender child, who faced significant challenges in transition and received support from the principal of the school. But, as Rachel Cunneen writes, 'I became aware of parents and teachers who could no longer meet my gaze.' It is concerns of that kind that make it important that we support transgender children who are making that journey and that we don't worsen discrimination in this process.

It is a strong Labor legacy to enact antidiscrimination laws. We look back proudly at the work of the Racial Discrimination Act under the Whitlam government and the Sex Discrimination Act under the Hawke government. There were those on the other side of the House who voted against the Sex Discrimination Act at the time. Labor were unified in our support for those reforms, and we are supportive of further measures to reduce discrimination. But it is our concern that this bill not worsen discrimination and that it not put vulnerable Australians in a position in which they might be subject to expulsion, to being vilified and to feeling that their mental health issues are being worsened.

We know that the prevalence of mental health problems is significantly higher among LGBT+ members of our community. We know that the journeys that a child faces coming out or struggling with a different gender identity are difficult journeys. They are difficult conversations. We want to make sure that those children receive the love and support that they deserve from their entire community.

In closing, I thank the many people of faith and the people not of faith who have taken the opportunity to speak to me about this bill. It is important that we as a parliament make a decision on this bill that we can look back on in years to come and feel that we expanded on the work of the Sex Discrimination Act and the Racial Discrimination Act. But there is a greater tension at play in this bill than there was with those bills. It is absolutely vital, particularly as the parliament looks at the clauses surrounding a statement of belief, that a compromise is crafted which reduces discrimination in Australia and does not increase it.

5:58 pm

Photo of Bridget ArcherBridget Archer (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

Over the past few years, I've consulted extensively with organisations, schools and individuals from a variety of backgrounds on the potential impact of this bill. I've truly sought to understand all sides and believe that I have a thorough grasp on what the outcome of this legislation might mean for the northern Tasmanian community that I represent. It's on that basis that I find that I cannot support this bill. While I acknowledge that there was a commitment to deliver a religious discrimination bill, this bill, in my view, goes far beyond that orthodox antidiscrimination bill.

It's important at the outset to realise and to stress that there absolutely should be freedom from discrimination for all people, including people of faith, and that there are many wonderful faith based schools in my region. I have met the warmest, most inclusive teachers and staff from these schools, who I know wouldn't dream of excluding, bullying or intimidating a member of their community based on their sexuality or disability. However, the simple fact is that this bill would allow for discrimination to happen. And while I support the desire to employ religious school leaders or teachers who share a school's religious ethos, I don't think that anybody would want to do so if it might cause harm to others.

One question I've constantly asked myself through this process is: what is the problem that we're trying to solve? If the answer to that is that we don't want to see discrimination against people of faith, which I think we all recognise we don't, then that's simple enough and we have to find a way to do so that isn't privileging those rights above others.

I'm deeply concerned about the potential far-reaching and unintended consequences of this bill. Through the incident that unfolded last week at Citipointe Christian College, I believe that we've already begun to see the potential impact of this legislation, which is a slippery slope to setting our society back decades. Nobody should be discriminated against because of their religion, but this bill goes further and beyond protecting somebody's faith.

I stand with the member for Clark, Andrew Wilkie, who doesn't want to see Tasmania's gold standard antidiscrimination laws eroded. This will have a bigger impact on our state than on any other. Anyone around my age who grew up in our state would remember a time when homosexuality was a crime and would remember that the laws that followed to protect Tasmanians were incredibly hard fought for. For 24 years Tasmania's Anti-Discrimination Act has prevented discrimination—and provided protections, including protecting employees in all sectors; and teachers, staff and students—on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, disability or race. Our laws are considered first-rate; and Queensland, the ACT and Victoria followed suit. However, ours still remain the strongest in Australia.

The Tasmanian community statement issued yesterday was signed by the Liberal Deputy Premier of Tasmania, Jeremy Rockliff; Tasmanian Labor Justice spokesperson, Ella Haddad; University of Tasmania vice-chancellor, Rufus Black; disability advocates; and more than 20 organisations. It highlights the significant challenges this legislation presents. As outlined in the statement, currently in our state, teachers in faith based schools are protected from being sacked for being gay or in a de facto relationship. Nurses who are unmarried can work in faith based hospitals. Our workplaces, schools and hospitals are safer and more inclusive. Our current antidiscrimination act sends the message that abuse and mistreatment are unacceptable, no matter who you are, who you love, where you work or what faith you have.

This bill takes away these discrimination protections, which have been in place for almost a quarter of a century, explicitly overriding our state's incredibly robust laws. I would not be doing my job as a representative for the people of Tasmania—and specifically the northern electorate of Bass—if I were to support this override. I'm not prepared to stand by and see our state laws eroded to privilege one group over another. It's not okay to be cruel, offensive or humiliating just because you can say it with conviction or point to a religious text to back it up. This is a view supported by many Tasmanian politicians, on all sides, as well as unions, business groups, community organisations, and countless Tasmanians.

I know and recognise that my actions will upset some in the religious communities which I represent, but I also take heart from the conversations I have had and the correspondence I have received from pastors, religious sisters and those who considered themselves to be of faith, who do not want to see this bill passed due to the hurt and pain it may cause to others. Over the weekend the Tasmanian chamber of commerce and Unions Tasmania joined forces to voice their opposition to this bill. As they said in their opening statement, 'When business and unions stand together you know it's time to take notice.' They pointed out many of the flaws of this bill, which will have devastating consequences if enacted. Scenarios they cited included a manager telling a female co-worker that her divorce was a sin and that women should submit to their husbands, or a worker with disability who could be urged by co-workers to seek faith healing because their disability is a result of sin.

As Mary Henley-Collopy, expert consultant on living with disability for the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, has said, 'I wish I was exaggerating when I tell you that for every one of my 60 years of life I've been regularly approached by people, mostly on their first meeting of me, who have made comments such as, "If you come to our church you could be healed." These offensive, hurtful and degrading statements imply I am not whole and that I need to be repaired to fit the norm. I work very hard not to absorb these comments and to remain content with who I am, but it's tiring to have to do so, and some days I feel quite hurt by such comments. I'm completely gobsmacked that the proposed Religious Discrimination Bill is even being considered. I find it incomprehensible that this proposed bill will override all antidiscrimination legislation in place. You may scoff and think that you wouldn't say such things or know anyone who would, but the reality of this legislation is that it gives permission for it to happen.'

Just weeks after anointing the wonderful Dylan Alcott as Australian of the Year, what message are we sending by giving licence to those who seek to degrade or belittle, whether intentional or not? While in Tasmania, currently, these situations can be resolved with mediation through the antidiscrimination commission, the Religious Discrimination Bill could cut this avenue off and protect the perpetrator, as noted by TCCI and the unions.

Then, of course, there is the override of Tasmania's Anti-Discrimination Act as it relates to employment in faith based schools and services. Currently in Tasmania, staff can't be sacked or denied a promotion based on a number of attributes, including sexual orientation, gender identity or marital status. In my many conversations about this bill, I've spoken with an incredible number of teachers and staff who are distressed about what may happen to them if it should be enacted. From unmarried heterosexual teachers who may have had a child to straight divorced teachers and those who identify as LGBTIQ, all hold grave concerns about their professional future and have constant anxiety about missing out on a well-earned promotion or, worse, losing the job that they love.

This was a genuine concern expressed by one teacher I spoke to, who shared their story anonymously in a local paper this weekend. I'd like to read an excerpt of their story:

No matter how good we are as teachers there will be a sword hanging over our heads.

It will be a return to the dark old days when we could be shown the door just because of who we love.

I am a teacher in a Tasmanian Catholic school, I'm gay, I'm married to my wonderful partner and the teachings of Christianity play an important part in my life.

I love teaching, I get along well with other staff and with students.

I am out at work, as are several of my colleagues.

Over the many years I have worked in the Catholic school system I have seen the positive impact Tasmania's top-notch laws against discrimination.

They mean staff like me no longer have to pretend we are something we are not, hide our relationships, find excuses not to bring partners to work events, or watch on in silence as another staff member slag off LGBTI people.

Our anti-discrimination laws also mean LGBTI students are able to disclose who they are, seek the support they need and confidently stand up for themselves when they are attacked.

Faith-based schools are far from perfect when it comes to inclusion and respect, but in Tasmania they have come a long way since the bad old days when prejudice ran amok in the staff room and school yard.

…   …   …

Jesus said "do unto others", not "treat others badly in my name", and the Anti-Discrimination Act embodies His command.

In contrast, the Religious Discrimination Bill seeks to take us back to the Old Testament stories of exclusion, division and enmity between people.

I am advanced in my teaching career. I could probably get a job elsewhere if I was pushed out.

My concern is for young LGBTI and unmarried teachers for whom it would be a terrible blow to be turned away or sacked.

I'm concerned for parents who will be left wondering if they want their child taught by schools that discriminate, and by staff selected because they're pious, not competent.

I'm particularly concerned about students in faith-based schools.

I have seen with my own eyes how they flourish when they are given support, and how they have to withdraw and hide when faced with unchecked prejudice.

When young people feel they do not belong, and are unable to live and flourish as their authentic selves, the results can be catastrophic, as the suicide rates among young LGBTI people show.

This teacher highlights another serious concern of mine, which is centred around the rights of all children. Whilst I'm very pleased to see that there would be an amendment to protect gay students, I'm horrified to see that it does not extend to children who identify as transgender. More than horrified, I'm utterly distressed by this exclusion, so I can't begin to think how the children themselves or their parents feel. What message are we sending? After so much progress over the past few years, how did we get back to a place where those of us who hold such privilege in this House can ignore the harm that we might place on children by telling them that they are other and less than in this country and do not deserve the rights and protections afforded to others? I can't wrap my head around this, and I fear that it may risk lives.

I implore everyone here to think about the long-term consequences that this will have. Can anyone really tell me that they're emotionally, mentally or physically distressed to the point of self-harm because there's a trans student in their class, in their church or in their workplace? I find it incredibly hard to believe that this would be the case. However, for a trans child the impact of this legislation that leaves them open to bullying, exclusion, sacking or expulsion could well lead to higher rates of self-harm and poor mental health. Why on earth would we want to inflict that upon anyone?

It's 2022, and I can't believe we're even having this conversation. As an elected representative, my job is to come here and vote on legislation that I believe will best serve my community. This bill is an overreach, and I cannot use the role that I have here to endorse a bill that erodes the rights of so many in my community—rights that they already enjoy, and the loss of which may cause them harm. If the government wants to come back with a bill that protects people from religious discrimination without these other consequences, then I would be supportive of that bill. But in its current form I cannot support this bill.

6:10 pm

Photo of Matt ThistlethwaiteMatt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for the Republic) Share this | | Hansard source

I support the core principles of the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, but I have deep reservations about a couple of sections of the bill that I will go to. I do support the core principle of the extension of the federal antidiscrimination framework to ensure that Australians are not discriminated against because of their religious beliefs and activities, just as the Commonwealth law currently prohibits discrimination on the basis of age, disability, race, sex, gender identity, sexual characterisations and sexual orientation. This approach is consistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which Australia is a signatory, which makes it clear that religious organisations and people of faith have the right to act in accordance with the doctrines, beliefs and teachings of their traditions and faith. However, also consistent with the international covenant is the principle that any reform in this area must ensure that an extension of the federal antidiscrimination framework does not remove protections that already exist in the law to protect Australians from other forms of discrimination, and that is where many Australians have very valid concerns regarding the operation of this bill. I believe that those concerns are valid and I share those concerns. I also believe that those concerns should be dealt with by the government if this bill is to pass this parliament.

The two particular concerns relate to clauses 11 and 12 of the bill. Clause 11 grants preference for religious organisations in some of their policies. But there's a particular issue in doing that with transgender children, and that's an issue that I believe needs to be fixed. There's also an issue with clause 12. Clause 12 of the bill relates to statements of belief. Under this clause, a statement of belief does not constitute discrimination if it is not malicious, it's not threatening or intimidatory, it doesn't harass or vilify and it's a statement made in accordance with someone's religious views and with the teachings and tenets of that religion. Many Australians have expressed their opposition to this clause and their concern regarding this clause, both to the committee and to my office through emails. I appreciate their concern and I thank those who have contacted me on both sides of the argument with respect to this issue. I share some of those concerns.

The first issue that I have with statements of belief is that I don't understand—and it's been very difficult for anyone to explain—what statements people wish to make that they cannot already make or wish to say at the moment. What are the statements that this bill will allow people to make that cannot be made at the moment? Many people have been unable to answer that question. Indeed, I believe that the government has been unable to answer that question. The human rights committee went to this issue in quite some detail and actually made a recommendation in their report that the government had to deal with this issue. The recommendation is at 6.135, recommendation 9 of the report, and it says:

The committee recommends that the government consider providing further explanation and examples with respect to clause 12 in the explanatory memorandum accompanying the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, to provide greater clarity about what sort of statements or actions may, or may not, be considered to not constitute discrimination.

That was the view of the committee. The committee is telling the government that they need to provide clarity about what statements of belief people will be able to make that they can't already make at the moment.

The Kingsford Legal Centre, a very well respected community legal centre in my electorate, has also expressed concern about the operation of this clause, and their director, Emma Golledge, wrote to me last year, outlining their views on what this section of the bill will allow some people to say. In their view, it will allow people to say things like this: to women in the workplace, that they should be at home caring for children; to an LGBTIQ staff member, that they are going to hell; or to a person with a disability or health condition, that they need religious intervention to cure them. Now, if that is the case then I believe that there is a problem with this bill. As someone who has a very close relative who is gay, I can't see why we should be amending the Australian laws to allow protection for people to make statements such as that, and, indeed, for that clause to be able to be used to encourage those types of statements.

The second issue I have with clause 12 is that the operation of it will grant special rights under Australian law to one group of Australians, ahead of other Australians who may not hold those religious views. So the operation of this particular clause offends a deeply important principle of Australian law, and that is that all Australians are equal before the Australian law—all Australians are equal. It's actually the antithesis of many religious doctrines—most notably, that of equity and equality before God, and, indeed, before the law. So that is an issue with respect to clause 12.

The third element is that clause 12 overrides existing antidiscrimination laws. It will override 12 federal, state and territory laws. It will be the only such law to do so. This was again an issue that was identified by many submitters to the human rights committee inquiry. At 6.20 of their report, they identified that the Law Council of Australia had noted:

Clause 12 is highly unusual in that it seeks to override existing antidiscrimination laws at the Commonwealth, State and Territory level. This does not appear in other Commonwealth anti-discrimination laws which are generally intended to operate concurrently with State and Territory laws. Clause 12 stands alone in this respect.

So there's an issue with the operation of this law and it overriding state and territory antidiscrimination laws.

The fourth element of concern with respect to this particular clause, clause 12, is that, in recent times, governments have passed antidiscrimination laws to create inclusive and respectful workplaces. It has been about changing the culture in workplaces to remove discrimination—particularly against women, LGBTIQ members of the community and people with disabilities. And employers, unions and workers have used those laws as a basis for creating codes of conduct and policies that create and maintain respectful and inclusive workplaces. And it has worked. It has worked to change the culture, for good, in workplaces throughout the country and to change the behaviour of individuals around discriminatory activity.

Just today, the first item of business for this year in this parliament was for this parliament to accept the Jenkins report into workplace behaviour in this parliament, and for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of other parties to apologise for the appalling conduct that some employees and others have experienced in this workplace. We pledged to do more to make sure that this workplace is much more inclusive and respectful.

But many Australians who submitted to this inquiry believe and share the view that allowing statements of belief that are exempt from the provisions of federal, state and territory antidiscrimination laws will at the very least make it unclear whether certain statements, particularly relating to the role of women in society and LGBTIQ people, would amount to a breach of a workplace code, a policy or an EBA, and therefore undermine the ideal of creating safe and inclusive workspaces. And it may make it unlawful for a person to take an action under the Fair Work Act if they feel that they have been aggrieved under those workplace laws or under those workplace codes and EBAs because of the operation of this law which overrides those state and territory laws and displaces them. If you look at it in that respect, if this law is passed and that particular clause gets up we are going to head in the wrong direction about workplace culture and creating respectful and inclusive workplaces.

The fifth point around this clause is that it creates a convoluted system of antidiscrimination law. Discrimination complaints are overwhelmingly handled by state and territory tribunals. They are done on a no-cost basis to provide easy access to justice for Australians. Typically those tribunals use a process of conciliation at an initial stage to try and sort the issues out, and most of them do. But if this particular provision gets up, if a defendant raises a defence under clause 12 of the Religious Discrimination Act, making a statement of belief, which will provide and afford that protection, then that is a defence under federal law, and those state and territory tribunals cannot exercise federal jurisdiction or determine a question of federal law because they don't have chapter 3 status under Australia's Constitution. So the matter may have to be transferred to a Federal Court, with great delay and at great expense to the participants on both sides. That is not the way I believe that we should be encouraging our antidiscrimination laws to be operating in this country, and those seeking justice under them.

The final point I have on clause 12 is that it promotes divisive religion. A core part of this bill in sections 7 to 10 that I support is promoting respect, promoting equality and promoting compassion, as good religious tenets and teachings should do. The problem with clause12 is that it could allow people to use religion to create division and hatred. In my view, we should not be amending our discrimination laws to encourage that.

I'm a person of faith. I was raised Catholic. I went to a Catholic school. I go to church almost every weekend. I'm involved in my parish. My kids all go to Catholic schools. The foundation of my belief and my faith is in the core principles of the Bible, which are repeated in every chapter and every verse: love, respect, compassion and equality. They are the core principles of the Bible and religious teaching that I base my faith on. I cannot in good conscience understand why a clause included in this bill that could be used to undermine those principles of religion should be allowed. Doing so detracts from and undermines the core principle of the law that's outlined in clauses 1 to 10, and that is to protect people, to ensure that they are freely able to practice their religion and express their beliefs. This is an issue that was also identified again in the human rights committee report about the division that this could create. Dr Carolyn Tan, the chairperson of the Public Affairs Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia, said:

… if in fact clause 12 doesn't do anything useful it's better to take it out, because it only causes greater division.

Now that is a perfect summation of some of the problems with this bill, and this bill raises serious concerns because it has been rushed. The Prime Minister made the commitment in 2018, yet here we are, on the eve of an election, and this still has not been dealt with. The government only provided amendments to this bill to the parliament this morning. We still don't know what they are; they haven't been introduced.

In conclusion, although I support extending the antidiscrimination framework to protect against discrimination on the basis of religious belief, we must ensure that this is not at the expense of protections that already exist in the law to protect Australians from other forms of discrimination. The government should consider removing that clause—clause 12—and others, which, in my view, undermine that core principle that the bill won't protect people on the basis of their religious belief.

6:25 pm

Photo of George ChristensenGeorge Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | | Hansard source

It is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021. I want to address some of the remarks that we have just heard, because there was a lot of criticism around clause 12 of the bill. Make no mistake, my view is that this bill is weak. This bill is watered down. This bill will do only a little bit of good. I support it because it will do a little bit of good, but it won't do much in the grand scheme of things.

Clause 12 is actually where the rubber hits the road for this bill. People of faith wanted one thing from this parliament, they wanted one thing from this government, and that was a shield, not a sword. They want a shield to protect themselves from people who come after them because of what they believe—people who want to cancel them from society, who want to take their jobs, who want to strip them of titles. That's what we're talking about here.

Let me give the exact example of where harm is done. Previous speakers were asking questions out loud: 'Well, what can't you say? What is it the government is saying here that people should be allowed to say?' Let me tell you about this rabid right-wing extremist from Tasmania. Not really—it is the Archbishop of Hobart. His name is Julian Porteous. He's a Catholic archbishop. He committed the heinous crime of sending out a missive to students within the Catholic school system, and the missive was about the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage. He sent it out to students in the Catholic school system—presumably mostly Catholics—to go home to their mostly Catholic parents, which you'd think would be just completely and utterly innocuous. A Catholic prelate was talking to his flock about the Catholic Church's teaching on a particular issue. As controversial as it might be for some, it shouldn't be controversial to note what is the church's teaching, particularly to people who are part of the Catholic Church system.

For that heinous crime, he was dragged before an antidiscrimination tribunal for simply articulating to his flock what the Catholic Church's teaching on a particular subject was. Now, that should have rung alarm bells all those years ago. That actually shows you that in this country we are not free to say what we believe when it comes to articles of faith. If an archbishop of a church is not free to articulate his church's teachings to people who are within his church's system, then we have a very, very big problem indeed. That's why, and I have no qualms in actually saying this, I hounded the former Attorney-General, whose original view was that there should be no clause in this act that overrides state-based laws, to include this. I hounded him personally for this to be in the bill. Others did too. Thankfully, as a result, it's included in this bill. Clause 12 is the Porteous clause, which says that a statement of belief in itself should not be something that gets you hauled over the coals. There might be those that say, 'Yes, but Archbishop Porteous actually didn't get found guilty,' or whatever they do in these jumped-up kangaroo courts, which are called antidiscrimination tribunals, that the states run. He didn't, because the matter was dropped by the complainant because of political pressure.

I have a distinct memory of the then commissioner that was overseeing this tribunal—this jumped-up kangaroo court—saying that she wished the complainant had kept that complaint going, because there was a case to answer. There was a case to answer of discrimination, because a Catholic archbishop told his flock what his church's teaching was with respect to marriage. That's what we are talking about here. That's what we are trying to protect: a Christian—or any other person of faith; a Buddhist—articulating a statement of belief, a genuinely held belief, from being hauled over the coals for that belief. That is wrong, and it just seems that I've entered this bizarre twilight zone where people don't get this. They don't get this argument. It's actually less Twilight Zone and more Orwell. It's Animal Farm, where everyone's endowed with rights, but some rights are lesser than others. The rights of Christians are certainly lesser than others in this country.

I could point to Citipointe Christian College—another school, if you want to know what gets you cancelled in this country—and its principal, who sent out a statement of biblical beliefs that he asked parents and students to sign up to at this Christian school. No-one forces anyone to go to a Christian school. It's not like you're trapped into it and you don't have a choice to go to a grammar school, a state school, a Catholic school or any other school, for that matter. But they arced up because this Christian school sent out a statement of Christian beliefs that it wanted its students and parents to adhere to. Yes, there were statements in that about sexuality. There were statements in that about gender. For that, fire and brimstone rained down upon that college. The principal left his spot. Thanks very much to all the political and media elite that actually trampled upon the college and cost a person their job. You didn't think of that, did you? You didn't think about all of the abuse that the receptionists at that college copped. I phoned them up the next day, sadly after they'd made the decision to pull that statement of beliefs. I phoned them up and I apologised to them for the actions of people in this place on both sides, actions that led to all of that abuse and led to their principal standing down, actions like those we saw from the Queensland government that said that they would launch an investigation, presumably to take away some legal status or funding that the school had.

This is where we've gotten to in this country. This is why this law is needed, as flawed as it is—and, boy, oh boy, it is flawed. It's flawed because it's watered down, and yet we have the Left screaming at us that this is somehow going to erode other people's rights. It's not. It's just going to, in a very dulled-down, watered-down, dampened way, ensure that, if people say something, they aren't ipso facto hauled before some tribunal to answer for their thought crimes. Very Orwellian, indeed.

What we've dropped out of this bill, which should have been in it, are all sorts of other protections. The so-called Folau clause, which was in this but is now not in it, has basically given way because there's a view that permeates this place, I guess, that the almighty dollar and profits are more important than people's religious beliefs. We've sacrificed that protection for workers. I don't know; will there be people who, in future, are sacked from their jobs, sacked from their work or sacked from their position or their profession because they articulate some form of Christian or religious belief? Probably, because it's happened before. I could actually quote you many people other than just Israel Folau who've lost their jobs, lost their contracts, lost their professions. I can tell you about doctors who have lost their professions because they privately posted their religious beliefs on their private social media pages. They lost their professions. That's the state of the nation right now when it comes to religious freedom—to be quite honest, there's very little. For those jokers, which is the only thing I can call them, who say, 'You're free to read the Bible; you're free to go to church,' you have no idea what religious liberty truly is. You have no idea what real faith actually is.

People who believe these things believe them innately. It forms part of their core. Belief is fundamental to human beings. When you believe in a religious system, in your creator, who has presented certain truths to you and to humanity, you take that in as a whole, not in bit parts that you can pick and choose and say, 'I'll flick that one off.' These people don't have the luxury of just saying, 'I won't believe that; I won't say that,' but when they do believe that they get in trouble for it in Australia. It's wrong. It's very, very wrong.

I am very sad that this has been watered down this much—it really has been watered down so, so much—because it is the hill we should die on. Without religious liberty—and this is the problem: this bill is about religious discrimination. What we wanted was religious liberty, not religious discrimination. We wanted religious liberty. I could quote you the words of a book that a lot of people should read if they don't get it. The book is The Benedict Option by American columnist Rod Dreher. He bemoans the fact that in the public square there is no space now for Christians. They have been drowned out, essentially—pushed out. But he says there is one cause that should receive all the attention that Christians have left for national politics, and that is religious liberty. It is critically important, he says. Without a robust and successful defence of religious liberty, Christians will not be able to actually build communal institutions that are vital to maintaining their identity and values. They're pushed out of the public square, relegated to their own institutions. They won't even be able to live those values genuinely if they don't have true religious liberty. The fact is that, because we've watered this down—and I'm quoting Rod Dreher here—and we haven't acted decisively within the embattled zone of freedom we have now, we are wasting precious time, time that may run out faster than we think. I think the time ran out a while ago for true religious liberty in Australia.

Again I quote Rod Dreher, from when he came to Australia. He came here just as the Folau situation burst forth, and he said:

It is positively perverse, though, to watch victorious progressives frenetically bouncing the rubble—

of the culture war being lost for Christian conservatives or religious conservatives. He wrote:

From observing the heretic-hunting hysteria surrounding the Israel Folau case, you would think that theocratic tyranny was about to breach the city walls. You would be hard-pressed to find a demographic with less cultural and economic power than Pentecostals of Pacific Islander descent, yet the good and the great of Australia's elite have bravely―oh so bravely!―destroyed the career of just such a man because he hath blasphemed—

against the zeitgeist.

This is the problem with all of this. What we see here with the watering down of this bill, and the fervent opposition to this watered down bill, is the fact that we have moved from being a Liberal democracy in this country to a woke mob democracy. We really have. We've jumped the shark as a nation. If you have an belief—innately held, held for centuries—that is not in line with the zeitgeist of the times and you dare utter it, then you are not just cancelled; there is currently legal action that can be taken against you for expressing those beliefs. Let that sink in. I don't know how people can't see how wrong that is.

As much as I'm critical of this bill—and I am, make no mistake—this is a wet lettuce. It will do a little bit of good in pushing back against this tide of rampant secularism that threatens to ride roughshod over every person of faith in this nation. So I'll take that little bit of good and hope so much more can be done in the future, although I doubt it. I have grave fears for the future of religious liberty in this country, very grave fears indeed.

6:40 pm

Photo of Mike FreelanderMike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and its associated amendments. I'm proud to stand before the House today and represent my vibrant and diverse community of Macarthur. It's an electorate of many cultures and many faiths. A significant proportion of our population has ancestry other than Anglo-Saxon, ranging from Indigenous to Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish—like myself—and Islamic. We have all the different variations of those religions, and I respect and understand that faith is of great importance. However, I am opposed to this bill in its current form. I am opposed to the way it was introduced and I am deeply opposed to the way that this completely incompetent government is managing it.

I know that faith helps to connect communities. It connects people to their culture and their ancestry. It provides principles by which people strive to uphold their moral compass through their day-to-day lives and those of their families. As I've said, my community is home to many faiths, and I think that's a very good thing. I've worked with all our faith communities, and I enjoy working with all our faith communities. Our people are, of course, as diverse as their beliefs. We are consequently a very accepting and tolerant community. I have never had any complaints made to me by my constituents about any difficulty in practising their religion.

Before I came into this place, I worked for almost 40 years in my community as a paediatrician. As a paediatrician, you learn to ask many questions of the people you see. Questions are important. They're important in working out what's wrong with a child, they're important in working out the implications of their particular illness and, in particular, they're important in working out family history. The one question I never asked was about someone's religion, because it wasn't important to me. That's one of the beauties of Australia—we live in a country where there is religious freedom and always has been.

My ancestors came here as convicts. One of my convict ancestors, Abraham Rheuben, who, like myself, was Jewish, came here as a convict and rose to become a very prominent businessman in Tasmania. He was one of the founders of the Hobart Synagogue, which is the longest-standing synagogue in Australia. I'm very proud of that history. It makes me part of what I am. But in coming to Australia as a Jewish convict, he was still able to practice his religion. When he got his ticket of leave, he was able to get a land grant from the Hobart community on which to build the synagogue. I think that demonstrates that Australia has had a long history of religious freedom, and it's important that that continues. It's very important to me that we have religious freedom.

What I will say is that, in spite of our many faiths in our community, I don't hear a great deal of concern about religious discrimination. It is not happening in my community. I admit that it may happen in some other communities, but it certainly isn't in my community. I work with our faith leaders, be it through our independent schools—and I went to an independent Christian school, as did my children—our religious charities, our organisations, our churches, our mosques or our temples, and I know that my local residents feel free to practice their religion without any encumbrance.

I love how accepting and tolerant our society is and I am worried that this poorly drafted, multiple-amended legislation is, No. 1, so complex that it makes it very difficult to understand; No. 2, has still not been completely outlined by the government in terms of what it will contain; and, No. 3, has had so much opposition that even those who originally supported the legislation, like the previous speaker, feel that the legislation itself is—these are his words—'deeply flawed'.

I have no tolerance for discrimination in any sense of the word. As a paediatrician I treat all people equally. But I am concerned that the coalition appear to manufacture this issue whenever it is politically convenient to them, like the last speaker has been doing and as he has been doing during the pandemic with vaccines and appropriate public health measures.

As I say, I represent a very diverse community, and religious discrimination is just not raised in my community. I am Jewish. I recognise that anti-Semitism does occur, but the present laws are adequate for managing that. What needs to happen is more commitment, more education and more support to make sure that the community is aware that discrimination can occur. To put a law in place that has been poorly thought through, that interferes with state laws, that has not really been defined by the government and that's been rushed through in the last few sitting days of this parliament is totally inappropriate on every level.

Of course we should stand against discrimination and we should take a stand and action to prevent it at all costs, but the government is not trying to do this. We only have to have a look at their track record, with the 18C amendment, to see that it's not the endgame that they're worried about. It's a tool they use to attempt to create the illusion of division and perpetual fear. I do not like the way political games are being played with people's faith. I find it abhorrent and I accuse the government of doing just that. Many people in our society who fled persecution before calling Australia home are having their own fears played out by this government, and that is inappropriate.

I am a staunch defender of our basic human rights, including our right to practice our religion free of impost. Freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion are fundamental human rights, and they are fundamental to Australians. Labor have previously expressed our support for an extension of our antidiscrimination framework to ensure that all these freedoms are further entrenched in our society. But I do not feel that this legislation has been adequately explained, adequately explored or, indeed, even adequately defined by a government that is trying to rush it through for its own pathetic political ends.

I find it very disappointing that this government looks at issues around discrimination with only a binary stance in a very complex world. They can never strike a balance and they can never see the implications of their rhetoric. The coalition consistently tries to pit people against one another in many ways. As an example, the previous speaker has been talking to and supporting the demonstrators who have been out the front of Parliament House this week, with their anti-public-health stance. He's stirring up fright and fear inappropriately, and he's doing the same with this legislation. We need to ensure that any extension of the federal antidiscrimination framework does not remove the protections that already exist in the law to protect Australians from other forms of discrimination. It shouldn't be such a difficult balance.

The coalition's track record on this is very poor. We shouldn't forget that the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, promised in December 2018 to appoint a religious discrimination commissioner before the 2019 election. Of course, it didn't happen, like most of the Prime Minister's promises. It's his propensity to play politics with this issue that is very disturbing. It's not a straightforward piece of legislation, by any means. Most of the provisions of the bill are clear and consistent with our existing antidiscrimination frameworks, but there are aspects of this legislation that are complex, have very unclear ramifications and are quite contentious. We have already seen this play out in Queensland. There are concerns expressed by some leaders in communities of faith that aspects of the government's legislation may even result in increased discrimination for minority faiths. It stands in direct conflict to the government's messaging on his legislation on this issue. The legislation is incredibly complex. And the government's speech is very, very confusing. It beggars the question of why the government are bringing forward this legislation at the eleventh hour before an election, without even sorting out their own responses.

I have spoken to many members of the coalition who are opposed to this legislation. They feel it's unclear and inappropriate at this time, and they don't feel they have been given enough time to review it. I myself would like to take the legislation to my faith leaders in my community and ask them what they think about it. We haven't been given time to do that. It is horrific that this parliament would consider introducing inappropriate, poorly thought out and perhaps even dangerous legislation without having it reviewed. I just don't see the need to bring it in at the eleventh hour. I think it's a political tool that's being used by the Prime Minister in particular, and some of his cohort, and I think the government's actions should be seen for what they are.

Again, I stress that I support people's freedom to practise their respective faiths, as I practise mine. But, to any who believe that the coalition is actually standing up for their fundamental rights, I urge you to closely look at the government's track record and its timing. The introduction of this legislation, promised to Australians before the 2019 election, comes on the eve of a federal election and almost three years after the Prime Minister promised that a religious discrimination bill would become law. There's no denying that. The Prime Minister consistently claims that he is above the Canberra bubble, that he doesn't engage in politics, despite being only a career politician, and his tactics with this legislation show just what a hypocrite he is and what a facade that is.

I stand against discrimination in all forms and wholeheartedly support people's rights to practise their religion and to live their lives as they see fit, as long as they don't harm others. I do not support pitting people against one another, as those opposite consistently attempt to do. As the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes clear, religious organisations and people of faith have the right to act in accordance with the doctrines, beliefs, and teachings of their traditions and faiths. Many people support our existing federal antidiscrimination framework to protect people of faith, and rightly so. It's an important point and we must not allow it to be obscured and subsumed by the controversy over a handful of contentious provisions in the government's poorly thought through Religious Discrimination Bill.

The government has designed this specifically to do this task, to bring on conflict. In spite of their failings, in spite of their track record and in spite of the Prime Minister's broken promises and empty platitudes, those opposite would have Australians believe that this legislation is taking their concerns seriously. The Prime Minister has broken so many promises on this issue throughout his career, such as promising to work with the opposition to introduce a religious discrimination bill—that has not happened; to establish a working group of attorneys-general from across the states and territories—that has not happened; to have an inquiry through the Australian Law Reform Commission—that has not happened. Each of these is a broken promise from this coalition that is absolutely desperate. And here we are, right before an election, with a complex bill, without adequate time to review and consult, and the government is seeking to score political points off it. Even the Prime Minister's own backbench can recognise what he's doing. A lot of them are talking big. I doubt they have the courage to act, but I really do think they need to think seriously about not supporting this bill. The Prime Minister is obsessed with political pointscoring. Even his Deputy Prime Minister says that. Australians deserve better from their leaders. They deserve better from us. They deserve to have us ensure that any laws that are put onto the statute books have been adequately reviewed and adequately defined. Those opposite do not want to debate this bill, and their last-minute amendments show that. I recognise that religious freedom is important to our society, and I thoroughly support it, but I think this bill is deeply flawed and should not be passed.

6:56 pm

Photo of Dave SharmaDave Sharma (Wentworth, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

As a matter of principle, people should be protected against discrimination because of their faith—that is, religion should be a protected attribute just as age, disability status, race and sex are. In principle, I support religious discrimination legislation which protects people against discrimination on the basis of their faith. It is right, for instance, that people of faith should not be discriminated against in employment decisions. They should not be discriminated against if they are of a minority faith and are seeking to get a job, or in the terms and conditions that are offered to them in employment because of their faith. They should not be discriminated against in questions of admission to professional bodies and associations. They should not be discriminated against with respect to clubs and registered organisations, access to premises, the provision of goods and services, accommodation, club membership, sports participation—all these sorts of things. Just as we would not tolerate, would not accept, people being discriminated against on account of their gender, race, age or disability for such things, nor should we allow or tolerate such practices because of someone's faith or religion.

I also accept the rationale for faith based communities and organisations, particularly that people should be able to organise themselves on this basis to establish schools, aged-care facilities, clubs and registered organisations and to pursue their spiritual and communal life in this way. Voluntary associations of people who share values and beliefs are what makes our communities diverse and strong. My own community, the Jewish community, have religiously based schools, aged-care facilities, hospitals, sporting clubs and other registered organisations. I accept and indeed would defend and protect their right to do this, just as I would for any other minority faith. So there are parts of this bill which I think are important and we should applaud.

Part 4 of the bill, which largely deals with protecting people of faith against discrimination in all these areas, is an important part of the bill. Section 7 of the bill, which allows for affirmative action decisions, if you like—positive discrimination among faith based communities, whereby they can preference hiring people of their own faith, preference members who share their own faith—is important and needs to be preserved. That's the sort of balance we need to strike in a fair and liberal society. But it's also important—to me and, I think, more broadly to the community—that human rights are equal and indivisible. That's what the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides, and that's what we as Australians have signed up to, being party to the treaty. That means that antidiscrimination like this should provide a shield, but it should not be enabled to be used as a sword.

It should protect people against discrimination , but it should not provide a licen c e for people to discriminate . I think that is where some of the difficulties arise with this bill.

Whi l st I broadly support legislation that protects people of faith against discrimination, I do share some of the concerns expressed in some of the committees and by some of my colleagues about elements within the bill —the statement - of - belief provisions, for instance . I think we ' ve made considerable progress from the earlier exposure drafts of this bill . The so-called Folau clause is no longer there . The so -called conscientious objection provision is no longer there. But there is a statement - of - belief provision within the bill — section 12 — which causes me to ask a number of questions. I ' m still reconciling myself to it, but I think it's important that I do canvass these doubts with the House.

Firstly, to my mind, all types of speech should deserve equal protection . It shouldn't matter whether a speech is religiously grounded or grounded in faith , in its nature , as a cause of the speech. Political speech should enjoy the same level of protection and freedom. Artistic speech should enjoy the same lev el of protection and freedom , as should i deological speech . It concerns me that we have a provision within this bill which seems, at least on the face of it, to privilege a certain kind of speech and give a certain kind of speech a special protection which other elements of speech lack.

As a federalist and someone who, generally speaking, supports the rights of states to regulate their own affairs in these matters, I ' m also a little uncomfortable with the overriding of state laws and, indeed, other federal antidiscrimination laws in this bill . I can understand the reason for doing this— and people have pointed to the Tasmanian antidiscrimination legislation in particular as a reason for doing this, but my answer would be, by and large, that that ' s for the Tasmanian s, the Tasmanian parliament and the Tasmanian government to fix.

I'm also concerned about whether this is workable from an employment and workplace perspective. During the two inquiries that were held we hear d from the Australian Industry Group, the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry about whether this provision would make it difficult for them to ensure harmonious workplaces and make sure that people were not given licen c e to say things in the workplace which would undermine the harmony and the cohesion of the workplace but to which the employer would have no redress.

There are some protections, though, in the statement - of - belief provisions, and I think it ' s important that we highlight those because a lot of the impact of th ese provision s will depend upon how the courts choos e to interpret the statement - of - belief provisions and how they choose to interpret some of the exceptions to the statement-of-belief provisions . In particular, p rotection does not a pply to a statement of belief that is malicious or that a reasonable person would consider would threaten, intimidate, harass or vilify a person or a group. I think that ' s an important protection . I know some take the view that this will, by and large, mea n that only innocuous or non -off ensive sorts of speech — the normal differences of opinion that should be and are, indeed, aired in public — would attract the protection of this provision and that other elements that cross a line into harassment , intimidation or vilification, either by the nature of what is said or by the persistence and the repetition of it , would not enjoy this protection . B ut this will be something for the courts to work out , and i t does give me some concern that the boundaries here are not particularly clear.

B eyond that , I'm also concerned about real - life issues of discrimination that are happening right now which are not the subject matter of this particular bill but which I think cannot be considered separate to this piece of legislation . These are the provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act which date from 2013. A t the time, these amendments broaden ed the protected attributes in that piece of legislation to include sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status and relationship status . B ut at the same time that they included those as protected attributes — that is , they en sured that people could not be discriminated against on those grounds or as a result of those attributes — there was also a carve - out for educational institutions established for religious purposes . This is what is now section 38 of the Sex Discrimination Act.

That carve-out is not new. It has been with us for nine years now. It is causing real-world examples of discrimination. We heard, through these two parliamentary inquiries, real-life examples of teachers who are being dismissed because they came out as openly gay. We've heard of transgender students feeling like they've been hounded out of their schools because of their gender identity or uncertainty about their gender identity. We saw, just last week, Citipointe Christian College in Brisbane send out what I don't think anyone could fail to see as a spiteful and harassing communication to the parents of that school, demanding that they sign up to certain values; demanding, though, also, that they control, if you like, their sexual orientation or gender identity—as if that were a question of lifestyle choice rather than a question of personal attribution. I think these things that are happening are wrong. I think that example, of Citipointe Christian College, is wrong. I think the example of Karen Pack—who I met earlier today, and who believes she was dismissed from her teaching role because she came out and announced that she was marrying her partner—is wrong as well. And this is discrimination that is happening right now, in our schools in particular, and that I think we do need to address.

Now, I've been on the public record as saying that I believe these parts of the Sex Discrimination Act do need to be removed; they do need to be amended. It is my view that, in Australia, once we took the decision that we all did, collectively, in the marriage equality plebiscite, and once we passed legislation to allow same-sex marriage, we took a decision, collectively, as a community, as a nation, as a body politic, to say that we would no longer allow inequality in these spheres. But what we're dealing with here, with the Sex Discrimination Act and section 38(3), is unfinished business from that national decision. It's a carve-out that still allows discrimination on these grounds: discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, discrimination on the grounds of gender identity, discrimination on the grounds of marital status—discrimination, indeed, even on the grounds of pregnancy. This is a relic that, I believe, the parliament needs to deal with. Removing section 38(3) of the Sex Discrimination Act entirely I think would be the easiest way to do that. It would provide some protections, at least, for students. I know teachers would probably need to be dealt with in separate provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act.

I do accept and I do appreciate that the government has asked the Australian Law Reform Commission to address these issues. But to my mind, this has taken too long. It has taken longer than it should have.

If we are considering this legislation, the religious discrimination legislation—which is strengthening the protections available to religious communities, and I don't disagree with that and have no problem with it—then we also need to make sure that we are looking after vulnerable communities whose disadvantage or susceptibility or vulnerability to discrimination we have not addressed. That's so particularly, I think, for children in schools—and, yes, for teachers as well, but particularly for children in schools—who are some of the most vulnerable people in our population, and particularly those who are struggling with issues like their sexual orientation or their gender identity. All the evidence is that mental health issues amongst our young people are particularly prevalent amongst this group of people, and we should not be making their lives harder by allowing them to be persecuted or vilified on account of attributes as to which they have no choice. These attributes are intrinsic to who people are, and to pretend otherwise, as Citipointe Christian College did, and as other institutions do from time to time, I think is not only incorrect from any number of biological or ethical perspectives but is antithetical to our own values.

There are important elements within this bill which I support. There are elements of it which I find concerning, and I will continue to have concerns about them. I notice, and I think it's important, that there is a review provision within the bill that provides for a new office of a Religious Discrimination Commissioner, which is an important office, to review and report back within two years. But what we must most importantly address now is the legacy ability to discriminate which already exists in our legal framework, which is already in our Sex Discrimination Act, which allows schools to discriminate against students and teachers on the basis of their sexual orientation or their gender identity. We have already committed to doing this. I know the government has already committed to doing this. It is time we cracked on and did it, because human rights are equal and indivisible, and, if we are addressing the rights of one particular community here, we also need to be addressing the rights of other vulnerable communities.

7:11 pm

Photo of Stephen JonesStephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | | Hansard source

It's normally my custom to come to this dispatch box and deliver a thundering, passionate address. There'll not be much thunder today, but there'll be no less passion. We're 10 sitting days from the end of this 46th Parliament. There's a crisis in our aged-care system. Hundreds of Australians are dying in understaffed, underfunded homes, and yet this government seems powerless or unwilling to do anything about it. Two years ago, the government promised a federal anticorruption commission, but the Attorney-General told us yesterday that no such promise will be delivered. There are skills shortages and supply shortages that are preventing businesses from opening and the economy from recovering. Interest rates will certainly rise, which will make the existing cost of living pressures on households even worse. These are the matters that we should be focusing on in the final weeks of this parliament. Instead, we will spend the best part of two days debating the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, a bill which pleases nobody.

I support freedom of religion and I understand that many in our community want to see the existing laws strengthened to protect their freedom of religious expression. Although we're a long way from the days where newspapers could lawfully carry an ad that said, 'Catholics'—my faith—'need not apply' for a job, I understand the desire for greater recognition and for rights for people of faith. But, regrettably, the sometimes toxic debate that has been unleashed by this bill has put a spotlight on the fact that no rights are unlimited. Where the exercise of one person's right comes crashing up against another person's freedom, we need to find a solution. It can be done, and it's the role of this parliament to do that. The contest of ideas and ways of life are usually dealt with by social norms, by civility and by human decency, and, regrettably, sometimes not. Unfortunately, when parliament steps in, the law has a very blunt way of dealing with them. If we are to do this then we must do it properly, thoughtfully and consultatively, and to date we have not.

If we are to believe the reports in today's paper, the government has failed to bring forward a law which protects children. For me, this is not an academic issue. Last week, my family said farewell to my nephew Wally. He was just 15 when he took his own life. No mother or father should have to endure this sight. No brother should have to clean up afterwards. He was a beautiful, creative, courageous young man. He was loved and accepted by his parents, by his family, by his friends and by his community. His mum and dad are in anguish. We all are. He was gay. He was uncertain about his gender, and he struggled with his mental health. But now he's gone, and we are no longer going to be able to love and support him on his journey through life. Clearly the love and acceptance of his family and friends were not enough.

My own son is a beautiful, creative, intelligent 14-year-old. He designs and makes his own clothes. He's a gifted make-up artist. He moves seamlessly between the wardrobes of men and women. He wears heels that give me vertigo and has more handbags than his sister. He has more courage than any other boy of his age that I've ever met. He swims against the tide. I love and support him unconditionally, and I brag about his talents to anybody who is willing to stop for two minutes and glance at his Instagram page. But I worry myself sick every time he leaves the house. I think to myself, 'You look beautiful, but do you have to go out looking like that?' Because I know that the love and protection that he enjoys from his mother, his friends and his family is very different to the reception that he may receive in the outside world. Could this be the day we receive the call that says something has happened, that he has been attacked for just being who he is?

Yes, this is about my kids. But it's not. It's about all of our kids. It's about the families of those kids. It's about every child who has had the courage to swim against the tide just to be who they are. Earlier today, the Prime Minister said we should exercise our power in this place with love. I know the cynic in all of us could easily giggle at that phrase and dismiss it as a political line, but I don't. I agree. I'm asking the Prime Minister to reflect on those words as we consider the bill. I'd ask the Prime Minister and every other member in this place to put themselves in the shoes of the parents, or the heels of their kids, as they step out in public. What message do we want this parliament to send to these kids? Are they as loved and cherished and respected as every other kid? Surely we aren't saying to them, 'It's okay if you are gay, just so long as we don't see it'? Surely we can do better than that.

At some stage, we have to do better than that, because the thing that every parent of every gay or trans kid knows is that the love and protection that we provide for them inside our family and inside our homes is not enough. At some stage, they have to step out into the world and deal with it as it is. We, as parliamentarians, have the power to shape that world by what we do, what we say and how we vote. What message do we want to send to our kids?

There's a simple ease with which the members of this place toss sausages on a charity barbecue, drink a beer, stick a hat on for a photo opportunity, smile for the camera and put on a footy jumper and cheer for their favourite team. I do it regularly. When we do that, we're signalling to Australia, or at least to Australia as we want to imagine it: 'We're just like you,'. But the fact is that Australia is a much more diverse place than that which we project from our pulpit in this place. Being an Aussie is about much more than punting on the Melbourne Cup or yelling, 'Go, Saints' or 'Go, Sharkies'. It's much more complex than that.

It's the high responsibility of all of us called to this place to reflect on and shape the sort of Australia that we want to have, and it's a bloody diverse place. It's black, it's white, it's brown, it prays in a church, it prays in a mosque, it prays in a shrine, in a synagogue, in a hall, or on a surfboard just behind the breaks. It's men, it's women, it's straight, it's gay, it's trans, it's intersex—it's the whole bloody lot. We are the Australia of Storm Boy, of Breaker Morant, of Puberty Blues, and, yes, of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. It's not easy crafting a national story that includes all of us, but that's our damn job—that's our job—and the national story must have a place for all of us and all of our kids: how we imagine them, but, more importantly, how they are. If a young kid has the courage to be themselves and own their identity, the very least that we can do—the very least—is to say: 'Welcome. We love you, and we respect you, and you're okay just the way you are.'

My family are grieving, like so many others. There have been too many funerals, too many grieving families. We have in our gift the power to do something. Let's not let the opportunity pass. I thank my friends who have come to provide support to me. I thank the Leader of the Opposition, my good friend, for sitting through what for me has been a difficult address. I know there will be many people listening or who will read the speech afterwards who want me to conclude with the words, 'Let's dump this bill.' But I'm not saying that. What I'm saying to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Prime Minister, if he'll listen, is: 'Let's take a step back. Let's imagine a national story that talks to all of us. Let's not do something in the name of freedom of religion that does damage or harm to those we love.' We've been to too many funerals. Let's get this done, but let's do it properly. Surely it is not beyond the wit and wisdom and decency of every member of this place to get this done properly. I thank you for your time.

7:22 pm

Photo of Julian LeeserJulian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak in support of the Religious Discrimination Bill. I bring a particular perspective to this debate as a Jewish Australian who has served on the boards of religious and lay bodies in my own community, and as a former employee of the largest mission of the Catholic Church in Australia who has served both educational and health missions of the church. I hope I can speak to the great strength that faith based institutions and religion more generally offer our country. Working in a faith environment is deeply satisfying. You see a demonstration of faith in action through the mission and identity of the institution and the way it manifests itself in the interactions people have with one another.

As a person of faith, I believe that the maintenance of religion and religious institutions is vital to the moral ecology of our nation. I believe religion has a particular role to play in the world in bringing meaning into people's lives. It calls people to serve others, providing a sense of identity and a purpose to life that is larger and more enduring than fulfilling the needs of the material self. Faith brings people together from a range of different backgrounds and builds a sense of community. The search for meaning in people's lives has never been stronger than it is today. The 2018 Study of the Economic Impact of Religion on Society attempted to measure some of the economic contributions that faith groups make to our country. Religious people who attend services contribute an extra 30½ million hours of volunteering time in Australia each year. Being religious makes people more likely to donate money, not just to religious causes but to social good projects as a whole.

Christians have pioneered many of our great social institutions in aged care and in health and social services. The Royal Flying Doctor Service, Lifeline, Barnardos and Mission Australia all began as the work of Christian men and women who were motivated by the gospel to love God and their neighbour as themselves. If we return to the early days of the RSPCA in Britain, it was evangelical Christians who established that organisation as well. In the early 1980s here in Australia, when the AIDS virus first appeared, there was great panic about people who'd contracted AIDS and many hospitals were turning away HIV and AIDS patients. But the Sisters of Charity at St Vincent's Hospital in Darlinghurst, called by the Christian command to treat the poor and the sick, made the decision to admit, treat and care for patients with AIDS when others refused. At a time when little was known about the virus, this was an act of grace and courage. Over half of all the people with AIDS in Australia were treated at St Vincent's.

Our entire concept of human rights comes from what Jonathan Sacks has described as that radical idea at the heart of the Judeo-Christian tradition: that all people are made in the image and likeness of God. Whether we're tall or short, young or old, or able to speak and walk or severely limited in our ability, our lives matter and are of equal worth. This is an idea defended by the people of faith among us. When a society loses its sense of human dignity, that society loses its soul. I'm certainly not suggesting that only people of faith care about others—that's manifestly not the case—but I am suggesting that we should be careful about pulling too far away from our roots.

The church continues to play an extremely important role in our culture, a role that many people respect and cherish. Many people who are not churchgoers send their children to Christian schools. We have a Prime Minister who's open about his faith. Church institutions continue to play an essential role in the delivery of many services such as aged care and family support. Sixty per cent of Australians ascribe to some form of faith. There are over 150 different faith communities in this country. From European settlement until 1981 Judaism was the major non-Christian denomination, but since that time the number of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs has overtaken the number of Jews in this country. One of the exciting things about Australia's future will be the growth of its religious diversity. While there has rightly been a lot of talk about the way in which this bill will affect Christians, I suspect it will be the minority faiths that will most take advantage of its protections.

Some people have asked why this bill is necessary. The government's response has been in part because it completes a patchwork of discrimination law in this country, but this is only a partial answer. Unfortunately, we have to be clear eyed about the difficulties and discriminations that people of faith face in Australia today too. Anti-Semitism is on the rise. As reported at the annual conference of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry last year, during the 12-month period to 30 September 2021 there was an increase of 35 per cent in the overall number of reported anti-Semitic incidents to Jewish community organisations compared to the previous year. Behind the statistics lie some horrific personal stories of persistent anti-Semitic bullying of Jewish students at schools, the brutal physical assault of a man on his way to synagogue, the spray-painting of 'Free Palestine', 'F Zionists', 'Free Palestine' on the signage at the front of a synagogue in Adelaide, the flying of a Nazi flag above a synagogue in Brisbane and the draping of two Palestinian flags and two shredded Israeli flags at the front entrance of a synagogue in Sydney. What is perhaps worse is the disgraceful discourse online, occasionally in the mainstream media as well, of those who for whatever reason seek to rationalise or minimise this egregious behaviour.

In 2017, when I served on the PJCHR's inquiry on free speech in Australia, I remember Muslim community leaders asking for the extension of the Racial Discrimination Act to cover their community. Their leaders produced a number of examples of discrimination against Muslims at that time. Today the Islamophobia Register contains several examples of discrimination against Muslims in Australia, and these will help illustrate the point. A Muslim female applicant went to a job interview without her hijab, knowing she had a lower chance of employment if she wore one. Having secured the job, she started wearing her hijab. The employer was not happy, saying he wouldn't have hired her if he'd known she wore a hijab. In another case, a patient seeing a Muslim doctor complained about how, 'A Muslim got on the premises,' and that, 'We don't want their sort here.' She refused to see the Muslim doctor. A doctor wearing a headscarf seeing a patient was told in a dehumanising manner: 'That's not touching me. That's not my doctor. Get me another doctor.'

It's not just Muslims and Jews. Buddhists in my electorate have told me about public libraries that refuse to stock their holy books. In October 2018 a Hindu temple in Regents Park was set on fire during one of its most sacred times of the year. Prayer carpets were burned and statues of Hindu gods were destroyed. It was really disgraceful behaviour.

Even today Sikh doctors and health workers are discriminated against in six Australian jurisdictions, being forced to choose between shaving their beards, contrary to their religion, so they can fit a surgical mask or practising medicine. In New South Wales and Western Australia the Clinical Excellence Commission has approved the wearing of surgical masks on top of an elastic band, obviating their need to say shave, but elsewhere Sikh doctors are being stood down at a time when we need them most.

While there are fewer physical threats against Christians, there is a cultural and existential threat to Christianity as people have tried to delegitimise the place of Christianity in the public square and force it off the national stage. The public position of Christians has been weakened through not just a decline in religious observance but also a decline in the level of religious literacy and empathy for religion among the general population.

Debate interrupted.