Andrew Wallace (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Before the debate is resumed on this bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this bill, the Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 and the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and related bills. I am just going to give my bona fides upfront for this piece of legislation, introduced by the Prime Minister late last year. My children have gone to Catholic schools and I do go to church—not as often as I should, perhaps. In another life, as a teacher, I taught religion in a Catholic school, and when I worked for the Independent Education Union, the union that covers teachers in non-government schools, I did actually take a case to the Anti-Discrimination Commission, where religion was the characteristic that was being discriminated against.

I say that by way of introduction, because this morning we saw the Prime Minister out in front of a church, talking about his legislation and saying that he wants this legislation to bring Australia together. But when he did so, he referred to the Citipointe Christian College, a college in Carindale, in Brisbane—a college where I actually did enterprise bargaining about 20 years ago—and he said:

You're referring to an existing law that was introduced by the Labor Shadow Attorney-General Mark Dreyfus. That is the Dreyfus law that you're referring to. He put that in place.

I just want to unpack that statement before I turn to the religious discrimination bills. What the Prime Minister was actually referring to was the Sex Discrimination Act. The Prime Minister said he had to bring in the religious discrimination legislation because it was an election commitment. He also made an election commitment, saying—well, he said he going to bring in an integrity commission, yet we don't have legislation in front of us about that. He also said he would bring in legislation that would prohibit LGBTQIA students from being discriminated against in non-government schools. That's not the legislation in front of us. That legislation would be about an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act.

Back when Susan Ryan brought in the Sex Discrimination Act, the only characteristics it referred to were sex, marital status and pregnancy. When the Liberals came to vote on that legislation, I think they actually had a conscience vote, back in 1984 or 1985 or whenever that was. But, in 2013, when the current Prime Minister was a member of the Abbott-led opposition, the Abbott opposition actually let that legislation go through on the voices. Before 2013, the Sex Discrimination Act did not include any protections against discrimination on the basis of a person's sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status, so the Labor Party brought in changes supported by those opposite—supported by the current Prime Minister when he was in opposition. Before the change was introduced, there was no prohibition on discrimination against any Australian on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status.

Basically, before the changes, there was nothing to stop a religious school from discriminating against students on that basis for any reason whatsoever. Because of the changes introduced by the then Attorney-General, Labor's Mark Dreyfus, there is now a prohibition on discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status at the Commonwealth level, subject to a number of exemptions. It's basically more difficult for religious schools to discriminate against students on those grounds, unless they can show that it's done in good faith and in order to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion. I just wanted to be clear about that because the Prime Minister was being quite deceptive when making that statement out front of the church this morning.

Labor has no problems with legislation that gets rid of discrimination. We know that. I've talked about the Sex Discrimination Act. We know the Racial Discrimination Act was passed by a Labor government. I do commend the Howard government for bringing in the Age Discrimination Act. Labor has a long history of striking treaties and then bringing in state and federal legislation to protect people from discrimination. In fact, early in his time in office, after the long dark years of the National Party and the coalition, Queensland Premier Wayne Goss decided to make it unlawful for Queenslanders to be discriminated against because of their religion. So it was a Labor premier that made those legislative changes way back in 1991. And, just for the sake of those opposite, when I spoke to the human rights commissioner in Queensland, he said that less than one per cent of the cases that come to him are to do with religious discrimination. I'm one of the few people who has actually taken a case to the commission on behalf of someone who was discriminated against because of their religion. So it's not that common. Even though there is a suggestion out there that people are being prevented from practising their faith, that is not the case.

Premier Goss was following in the footsteps of a Western Australian Labor government that had done the same thing back in 1984. Thereafter, a Labor government did the same here in the Australian Capital Territory in 1991. And I do commend the Country Liberal government that followed suit in the Northern Territory in 1992. It was Jim Bacon's Labor government that amended Tasmania's discrimination laws in 1999. It was a Labor government, under the leadership of Premier Steve Bracks, that made law the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 in Victoria. And it was the Rann Labor government that amended South Australia's Equal Opportunity Act in 2009 to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of somebody's religious appearance or dress.

All of that legislation was brought in by Labor governments. The aforementioned actions show clearly that the Australian Labor Party knows that the right to freedom of religion is recognised in international law because of treaties that we've signed and should be legislated domestically. Labor always supports fairness and equality. I particularly say that to my Muslim community, to my Hindu community, to my Buddhist community, to my Jewish community, to my Sikh community—people who particularly wear their faith publicly in the clothes that they wear, their hair or whatever it is where they show their faith. The freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief is absolute and cannot be limited or confined to protect other interests.

As the review by the former Attorney-General, the Ruddock review, noted, 'they cannot be departed from even in times of national emergency' and that in contrast the freedom to manifest religion or belief may be limited in specific circumstances.

But there is consensus from stakeholders, the Attorney-General's Department and both parliamentary committees that looked at this legislation, even though it was rushed over Christmas when many Christian organisations are a little bit busy—and I note that even Prime Minister Morrison noted the same of the bills that were personally introduced by him late last year—that the bills are flawed and seriously need amendment.

The two most contentious provisions are clauses 11 and 12. Why is clause 11 contentious? It is because it's explicitly designed to override state and territory antidiscrimination laws, specifically recent changes to the law made in the state of Victoria and also in Tasmania. As the Law Council of Australia said in their submission:

It departs from orthodox Commonwealth anti-discrimination law, which is generally designed not to exclude or limit the operation of State or Territory law that is capable of operating concurrently with it.

Given its interference in state and territory law, it is extraordinary that the Attorney-General's Department told the Human Rights Committee—and I note that the chair is here. We heard the same evidence. I'm the deputy chair of that committee. This is what the Attorney-General's own department said:

The department did not have meetings with any state or territory government to discuss any part of the Religious Discrimination legislative package between the conclusion of the second exposure draft consultation process and the introduction of the Religious Discrimination legislative package.

The Morrison government made an election commitment in 2019 'to work with the opposition, crossbench and stakeholders in a spirit of bipartisanship' and 'to introduce legislation into the parliament that enjoys broad cross-party support.' They're the government's own words. Yet they failed to consult with the Liberal and Labor state and territory governments. They've fundamentally failed to achieve that modest goal, and it will create confusion and heartache.

Astoundingly, the Attorney-General's Department admitted during the Human Rights Committee process—and during the other hearing—that the bill that was introduced last year by the Prime Minister has at least one serious drafting error and that that error is yet to be corrected.

Clause 12, another contentious clause, which provides that statements of belief are not discrimination, received the most criticism during the committee process. The criticism was broad. The Council on the Ageing told the committee in reference to people contemplating going into aged care:

What there's going to be is a chilling effect on how people fear that going through, because the messages will come down saying, 'Well, actually, they can say what they want to you,' whereas currently they can't.

The Council on the Ageing are speaking up for some of their most vulnerable people.

Some religious organisations were also concerned about the potential adverse impact of clause 12. The Uniting Church in Australia told the committee:

Our reading of clause 12, statements of belief, indicates that people can make a statement in good faith, believing that it is genuinely held within the doctrine, tenet or belief of a religion, and that it doesn't matter whether the religion itself would reject that view. The person can claim that it's a statement of belief and therefore it is held to be protected under this bill. We think that that is quite dangerous.

That's from the Uniting Church.

The Public Affairs Commission of the Anglican Church of Australia told the committee why they're concerned about clause 12 doing harm:

… there is no reason why you need to give that immunity or the ability to override under discrimination legislation. People are still free to make statements of belief, providing they don't do it in a way that discriminates. If you look at where the harm lies, obviously greater harm lies with the person who is being discriminated against, whereas the person who wants to make a statement can do it in a way that is not discriminatory.

Good legislation comes from listening. Good legislation comes from patiently working through the issues, not from making a promise four years ago and then rushing it in at five minutes to midnight. Good legislation does not divide the community.

There are other concerns with the legislation that has been introduced, including whether or not it's constitutionally valid. That's always a good one to get right. This bill is supposed to protect people of faith from religious discrimination, but it will do nothing to protect against the vilification of people who are targeted because of their religious beliefs or activities. I particularly speak to the Jewish community, the Muslim community, the Hindu community, the Sikh community—those who wear their faith and are targeted. This protection has been called for over many years. The calls have become more urgent since that shocking Christchurch attack when an Australian terrorist killed 50 people. We know that there has been a rise in Islamophobia and Hinduphobia. Anti-Semitic incidents are on the rise in Australia and the United States—around the world, in fact.

These laws are not being debated today. But the discrimination bills, which are largely uncontroversial, present the parliament with an opportunity to provide people of faith, particularly those of minority faiths, with protection against vilification. The government should work with the Australian Labor Party; the government should work with the state and territory governments, Labor and Liberal; and the government should work with religious stakeholders to address this shortfall in protections for people of faith.

In my remaining time I turn to the idea that we would let schools like Citipointe target people because of who they are, because of God's plan for that child. I'm fundamentally committed to protecting children in Australia. As a teacher, as a lawyer, as a politician, I have devoted my life to making sure that children's lives are safer and better. There is this idea that a contract targeting children and based on some misguided interpretation of the Bible could be foisted on parents to say, 'You must make a decision.' I've spoken to the people running Brisbane Christian College in my electorate, and they made it very clear that they love and protect all of their students. Children should not be targeted—trans children, intersex children, any children—when we know that God made them all. I find it utterly repugnant that a person would use a contract to beat up a child, saying, 'I know God's plan and I will enforce harm upon that child and that family.'

I know that the leaders of the Australian Christian Lobby and others have been strangely silent when it comes to this, and there has been some crab-walking away from Citipointe Christian College. I would ask them to make sure that they always protect the children that walk through their gates.

Anne Webster (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have the privilege of chairing the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights, which considered this important package of bills: the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021, the Religious Discrimination (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 and the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Bill 2021. The committee heard from a variety of experts and lobby groups who all expressed their thoughts on the bills, and I thank each and every one of them for engaging with the committee and making their views and voices heard.

This legislative package seeks to fill a void in Australia's human rights framework. This parliament rightly passed the Racial Discrimination Act in 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act in 1984, the Disability Discrimination Act in 1992 and the Age Discrimination Act in 2004. What is missing from this list is a religion discrimination act. This is despite the longstanding recognition of freedom of religion in the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The UN special rapporteur has emphasised the mutually reinforcing nature of the rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression, stating:

Freedom of expression is necessary for the meaningful enjoyment of the freedoms of thought, conscience, and religion or belief … One cannot be fully enjoyed without the other or in the absence of the right to privacy, freedom of association and peaceful assembly. This suggests that the two rights are not only interdependent, but also exist in a legal continuum with myriad other rights.

The European Court of Human Rights has also observed that protection of religious groups is necessary for the realisation of the individual right to freedom of religion. The Commonwealth must step in to rectify the situation. Federal protection is lacking and the current patchwork of state laws does not protect every Australian, with New South Wales and South Australia lacking any framework and other states missing the mark with theirs. The need for such a framework has been well documented, beginning with the religious freedom review, chaired by Philip Ruddock.

People of faith and particularly those of minority religions are being discriminated against because of their faith, with no recourse under Commonwealth law. The primary purpose of these bills is to protect ordinary people of faith from discrimination as they go about their daily lives. The bills also protect those who experience discrimination because they do not adhere to any faith or religious belief. The bills will protect against direct and indirect religious discrimination. This is not a blanket protection as the realities and requirements of day-to-day life as well as potential conflict with other protected rights can occur. Indirect discrimination on the ground of religious belief or activity is permissible when reasonable. It is permissible to discriminate against someone on the basis of their religious belief if, in expressing their belief, they are encouraging or promoting conduct of an offence involving harm. It is permissible to discriminate against someone on the basis of their religious belief to comply with other legislation, law enforcement and national security needs. It is permissible to discriminate against someone on the basis of their religious belief if they cannot carry out the inherent requirements of their employment.

The bill also introduces the new offences of victimisation to deter people from trying to prevent others to engage with the Human Rights Commission and advertising an intention to engage in unlawful discrimination. These provisions strike the right balance in protecting religious freedom while also not impinging on other rights and the rights of others.

A crucial element of this bill is the clauses establishing a statement of belief. In summary: a statement of belief is a genuine belief made in good faith in accordance with what a person considers to be part of their belief system. The bill protects the making of statements of belief. This protection extends only to statements, not conduct, which may be discriminatory. Furthermore, the narrow protection of statements of belief extends only to other antidiscrimination laws or other prescribed state laws. The committee heard from Mr Mark Sneddon of the Institute for Civil Society, who remarked that statements of belief do not provide any individual a protection from every consequence and sanction, and that individuals can still face employer sanction, be in brief breach of contract, be in breach of code of conduct and face regulatory action from professional bodies.

Keeping with the bills' balanced approach, malicious, threatening or vilifying statements of belief are not protected under this bill. This allows for a shield against discriminatory complaints for moderately expressed religious views. The regulated nature and in-built protections means there is no sword here to use against others. Indeed, in the committee it was heard that the statement of belief had a narrow scope allowing banal statements. This reality of the bills' provisions does not reflect the commentary and scaremongering peddled by lobby groups. The further need for this protection is made clear in the application of some state discrimination laws. In Tasmania, we see the bar for protections set too low. Religious people feel they cannot even express traditional doctrines of marriage. Even the threat of these complaints and the spectre of lawyers and court costs to defend what many Australians feel is uncontroversial in their own faith community deters people from speaking. This is not right and has ever been remarked as possibly in breach of Australia's international human rights obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In practice, the Attorney-General's Department has outlined that a statement of belief defence will act as a federal defence to a claim of discrimination under Commonwealth, state or territory antidiscrimination laws. It will not, in and of itself, force discrimination complaints to courts, and, if they choose, states and territories have the power to arrange complaints to be heard at tribunals. The bill gives further protection by not allowing qualifying bodies to impose standards that would disallow a person from making a statement of belief when they are not working. Again, this is balanced. This protection does not extend to if the qualifying body conduct rule is an essential requirement of the job. Teachers, lawyers, health professionals and tradespeople should not be at risk of losing their registration or qualifications by reason of the expression of their religious beliefs in their personal capacity.

This bill gives religious organisations the protections needed to safeguard their religious ethos. This is a key issue for religious schools and their communities, who wish to maintain their faith and culture. The bill promotes this by allowing religious educational institutions to act in good faith, in a manner that a person would reasonably consider to be consistent with that religion's beliefs and teachings, including preferencing persons of the same religion. This is only permissible if done in accordance with a publicly available policy. It is important to note that the Religious Discrimination Bill itself states that certain conduct that is permissible under the bill may still be indirect or direct discrimination under other Commonwealth antidiscrimination laws, such as the Sex Discrimination Act.

People have asked me, 'Why such a rule for all religious schools, for all their employees?' Does it matter for a maths teacher at, say, a Christian school to be a Christian? Most people see the link for religious studies or humanities, but why maths? To that, I say: 'It is not about the individual subjects. It is about the type of people in the school, and the ethos the school values and wants to promote.' A student may see a maths teacher after class or in the yard about topics unrelated to class work. We all know the increasing burden teachers face as students' personal lives and problems become more apparent in the schoolyard, with little support from qualified professionals. It's important that all staff share the values of the school so parents and students have confidence in the community they put their children in.

Not only this, but it goes further, to an issue of freedom of association. In their submission to the committee, Jacinta Collins of the National Catholic Education Commission stated:

If people don't want to work in an environment which is operating within a faith based ethos, they can work in a public school or a school of another ethos or faith. It is an issue of choice, or, in my view, it's actually freedom of association … It's associating around our faith so that we can meet our mission about the transference of faith at the same time as delivering a high-quality education.

The proposed bills are about completing the antidiscrimination framework Australians enjoy. In keeping with our international obligations, and to protect all members of Australian society from discrimination, we must pass these bills. Anyone who has read the bills and not relied on wilfully spread misinformation will tell you the targeted measures of the bills, and the protections within that, will not see wholesale collapse of Australian society and instant discrimination and vilification—far from this. We will see religious and nonreligious alike enjoy protections under the new law and deliver clarity on permissible, personal and professional conduct.

Talks of amending the Sex Discrimination Act should have nothing to do with this bill, and debate on the merits of any amendments can be discussed when they're proposed. The task at hand is establishing a religious discrimination act that will bring peace of mind to all Australians, particularly those of faith.

Andrew Wilkie (Clark, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm opposed to the Religious Discrimination Bill in its current form, just as I was opposed to the previous version of this legislation put forward by the government. This bill will have an enormous impact on the rights and freedoms of many Australians, and particularly Tasmanians. Tasmania has the strongest antidiscrimination laws in the country, and it's because of this that we have the most to lose under this legislation. Indeed, we have the fiercest protections against discrimination for minority groups and are the only state in Australia that prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, gender identity and relationship status by faith linked organisations, including schools, hospitals and charities. We are also one of the few states that prohibit all hate speech, with no exceptions on religious grounds.

The government has said that the bill is not intended to replace state laws. However, if it is passed, that's exactly what will be done here, because this bill creates a direct conflict between state and federal laws, allowing people who are complaining of religious discrimination to sidestep state laws and practices. So, in effect, Tasmania's Anti-Discrimination Act would be undermined, despite the Tasmanian parliament twice upholding the state's hate speech laws and the Supreme Court of Tasmania having found them to be constitutionally sound on more than one occasion. In other words, this bill demonstrates a blatant disregard for state and territory laws by the federal government. Indeed, the federal government should be looking at Tasmania's antidiscrimination laws as a model for national reform, but instead it is intent on watering down the strong protections we have in the island state. This is something that Tasmanians do not want, and even the Liberal Premier has said as much recently.

The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that this legislation will serve as a shield, not a sword. This is also not true, because this bill will allow people to make harmful and arguably discriminatory statements against others in the name of faith. It could allow, for example, a doctor to tell a vulnerable woman that she is sinning in the eyes of God because she is seeking access to contraception. It could allow a person to say to another that their disability was caused because they turned their back on God. It could allow a school to sack a member of its staff simply for being gay. It could allow a nurse to tell a patient that their HIV diagnosis is a punishment from God. It could allow faith linked schools to teach students that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, despite the overwhelming majority of Australians voting in favour of marriage equality and it now being Australian law. Indeed, it could allow a school to force parents to sign a contract agreeing that their children will only identify as the sex they were assigned at birth, as we saw in the media just last week. Quite frankly, it's absurd that people feel they are being persecuted if they are prevented from persecuting others. Don't get me wrong: I support freedom of religion when it means not discriminating against people of faith, but I will not support legislation that allows discrimination and hate speech in the name of faith.

I do acknowledge that two controversial provisions from the original draft bill have been removed: the Folau clause, which provided individuals with legal protection from having their employment terminated because of expressing religious beliefs, and the clause which would have enabled health providers to refuse to provide treatment based on conscientious objection. The removal of these provisions is welcome, but some of the most controversial provisions remain in the bill, and new inclusions, such as the clause allowing statements of belief as a defence to discrimination complaints, make this bill simply unsupportable, particularly considering this definition is not subject to clear or well defined limitations.

Implementing legislation which permits religious freedoms without appropriate corresponding limitations and safeguards is reckless and potentially dangerous. It goes against the public interest and completely disregards the wishes of the community. Indeed, a poll conducted by YouGov just last week found that 77 per cent of Australians oppose religious exemptions from laws against discriminatory speech. Moreover, I have received correspondence from hundreds, if not thousands, of Australians calling for this bill to be scrapped. The community recognises the dangers of this bill, so why can't the government?

What's equally concerning is the fraught process by which we have got to where we are today. The government would have been more than happy to push this legislation through the parliament without any scrutiny, but due to public and internal pressures the bill was subject to not one but two concurrent inquiries over summer. However, it's important to note that the process by which these inquiries were conducted was entirely unacceptable. For instance, the consultation process allowed just 25 days for public submissions into what is arguably the most complex discrimination law in Australia's legislative history. What's more, the inquiries were conducted over the Christmas-New Year period, when many organisations have closed for the year. This bill has been on the government's agenda for over three years, and this is obviously a very important issue in the Australian community, but once again politics are prioritised over effective public scrutiny.

Former Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commissioner Robin Banks has provided me with some worrying figures about these committee inquiries. For example, at the time of conducting her analysis, Ms Banks found that, although the overwhelming majority of the submissions received opposed the bill, only 14 per cent of the submitters had the opportunity to give evidence in person. On the contrary, of the small number of submissions received in support of the bill, 53 per cent of the submitters were allowed to give evidence. Further, there were four submissions from legal academics or legal groups which supported the legislation, of whom three gave evidence. On the flipside, there were 21 submissions from legal academics or legal organisations opposing the legislation, and only two of the submitters gave evidence. This leads to the conclusion that the committee has privileged certain voices, of religion, over others, and it is an unacceptable example of lack of due process. In short, the entire inquiry process has been a farce and a tick-box exercise by the government to justify passing this unjustifiable bill.

If the government is serious about protecting the rights and freedoms of all Australians, then it must ensure that the right balance is met between protecting people from discrimination based on their faith and protecting people from harm based on statements or actions by others in the name of faith. We are also bound to ensure that such a balance is reached under our international obligations. For instance, as a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, under article 18 we must ensure that 'Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.' This right includes the freedom to express one's religion or belief, but, importantly, it also provides an essential and well-defined limitation. Article 18.3 states:

Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Such a limitation would ensure the protection of all rights, whilst also maintaining the autonomy of state and territory laws. We cannot selectively apply our international obligations. The human rights of all Australians must be considered and applied as a complete package, including international law.

Australia remains the only democratic nation without any sort of bill or charter of rights. I have sought to remedy this with my Australian Bill of Rights Bill, which I've now introduced twice but which has not been supported by either major party. This bill would address the issue of religious discrimination. It would render invalid any Commonwealth, state or territory law that is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights, to the extent of that inconsistency. It would also specify that Commonwealth, state and territory laws should be interpreted so as to be consistent with the Bill of Rights.

In terms of the issue we are discussing today, article 6 of my Australian Bill of Rights enshrines a right to freedom of religion or belief, and article 4 allows for freedom of expression. Importantly, however, my Bill of Rights imposes a necessary limitation, in that people will be limited in expressing their rights as is necessary to ensure that the fundamental rights and freedoms of others are protected. So I say to all members of parliament: if you really want to protect the rights and freedoms of all Australians, my human rights bill is what we should be debating here today. That is the bill that should be passed.

In summary, I cannot support the Religious Discrimination Bill in its current form, because it doesn't ensure that all Australians are protected from discrimination and because it would have a particularly harmful effect on the Tasmanian community, which already has a strong protective framework. We should not be advocating for one group of Australians against another. Our laws should protect each and every one of us equally, no matter who we are, what we believe or who we love. We must move towards a more inclusive and accepting society, which promotes equal rights for all, not special rights for some. In light of everything I've said in his speech, I move the amendment that has been circulated in my name:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"the House declines to give the bill a second reading and notes that:

(1) this bill will have a greater negative impact on Tasmania than any other state or territory because our anti-discrimination legislation is currently the best in the country; and

(2) the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 has the full support of the Tasmanian Parliament and been strongly endorsed by the Liberal Premier the Hon Peter Gutwein MP".

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the amendment seconded?

Rebekha Sharkie (Mayo, Centre Alliance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to expect.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Religious Discrimination Bill 2021 and associated legislation. Australian society is diverse and multicultural in nature. It is made up of immigrants from more than 200 different nations around the world, with very different ethnic, cultural and religious backgrounds. It is a credit to our tolerant society that Australians from varied cultures have been able to live together peaceably and in relative harmony, compared with the many countries in the world which are marred by civil unrest and conflict. Although we live in a tolerant society, there have been recent instances of discrimination in Australia based on religion, as reported in the media, which this legislation aims to address. It is the intent of this bill to add further protections for people based on their religion, in line with the existing legislation in place, which protects individuals based on attributes such as their age, sex, race or disability.

Religion is important to Australians. The 2016 Census of Population and Housing revealed that 61 per cent of the Australian population, which equates to 14 million people, are affiliated with a religion or spiritual belief. Christianity is the dominant religion in Australia, with 12 million people, and 86 per cent of religious Australians, identifying as Christians. However, just over two million Australians observe a religion other than Christianity, accounting for 14 per cent of religious people, or eight per cent of the total population. As a migrant nation, Australia is home to a diverse collection of people, and this is apparent through the wide variety of different religions recorded on the census. The most prominent non-Christian religions are Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism and Judaism. Although Australia is a predominantly religious country, about one third of all Australians—30 per cent, or seven million people—indicated that they had either no religion or a secular belief, such as atheism, humanism or agnosticism. This legislation also aims to equally protect people who do not adhere to any faith.

My electorate, in the northern suburbs of Perth, with a large proportion of overseas born migrants, is home to many different faith communities. The world's mainstream religions have a lot in common when it comes to concepts such as morality, ethics and charity. However, there have been a number of instances of religious discrimination against people of faith, with unfair criticism of individuals for actively exercising their democratic right to participate in community affairs. For example, I have been subjected to personal attacks by the media over several years for being a Christian, as have a number of my supporters and colleagues. Political opponents have questioned the right of people of faith to participate in the political process and have used slurs to denigrate mainstream Christian beliefs by referring to my supporters and me as being part of a cult. This is why a religious discrimination bill is required—to give lawful protection to people of faith the right to participate in society.

In the current debate on religious freedom, it is important that we are respectful and tolerant of the religious beliefs of all Australians. The legislation before us may well be more accurately described as promoting religious harmony, as opposed to religious freedom. As a lifelong Christian I am a strong supporter of traditional family values, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and multiculturalism. Governments should not restrict the rights of Australians to worship freely according to their faith, beliefs, values and conscience, except in instances where hate, violence or illegal acts are incited. Simply disagreeing with the religious views of another person or group of persons should not be grounds for government intervention.

Religious freedom extends into the realm of cultural freedom, which is important in our multicultural society. Individuals must be free to live their lives according to deeply held beliefs and values, which are not only religious but cultural in nature, without impinging on the rights of others to exercise their rights and freedoms. For example, Christmas is both a religious and a cultural festival in nature. The freedom to believe in Christ and the freedom to celebrate with customary carols and festive traditions are religious and cultural freedoms which must be preserved.

Religious beliefs often guide our choices in life. There is a distinct difference between the notions of discernment and discrimination. Individuals must be free to discern what is good from what is bad. They must have the freedom to choose between what is right and wrong and to determine what is appropriate and inappropriate. These choices are quite distinct from discrimination which legislation seeks to curtail. Each day, we make discernments in our choices and our behaviour and with whom we choose to associate. These choices must not be confused with discrimination. Legislation and regulation should not infringe on basic human rights to discern. Discernment is often required with activities that are legal, such as moderation in the consumption of alcohol, in gambling or in smoking tobacco.

Individuals, parents and families should be free to express their values and beliefs to their children. This legislation provides the necessary legal protection to make law personal choices based on religious belief. Many families of faith in my electorate choose to send their children to private schools operated by religious institutions, because they see value in the religious ethos of the school as part of a well-rounded education which not only prepares students for the workforce but equips them with faith based values and life skills for adult life. These parents make considerable financial sacrifices to send their children to religious schools and are justified in their expectation that the school will uphold the faith, doctrines and tenets of the respective religion. Although I'm an Anglican, I completed my high school education at Aranmore Catholic College, run by the Christian Brothers and the Sisters of Mercy, and I certainly benefited from the school's religious education program, which contributed to developing my Christian faith.

Similarly, at the other end of the life spectrum, many religious organisations operate aged-care facilities of a particular faith, and senior citizens feel more comfortable by being able to attend chapel services and observe within the facility the familiar traditions of festivals and holy days in keeping with their religious heritage. So it is not unreasonable for religious organisations to recruit staff who adhere or are sympathetic to a particular faith. The public is aware of the religious affiliation of the facility and has made a conscious choice to preference it over a secular service provider. The ability of religious institutions to preference applicants for employment who adhere to the faith, doctrines and tenets of the particular religion provides the opportunity for individual choice—

Llew O'Brien (Wide Bay, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.