Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise as a strong defender of freedom, period. That includes religious freedom as well.

An honourable member: Freedom Boy!

I wear the moniker of 'Freedom Boy' very proudly—don't worry. Despite being without faith, I have always been a strong advocate for religious liberty, because it goes to the heart of people's identity and security. A person's faith does not end at the church door, any more than sexual orientation ends at the bedroom door. They inform the fullness of our lives, our characters and our choices. I take all people's freedoms very seriously. A free society does not seek to homogenise belief or conscience but instead affirms individuality and diversity and fosters tolerance and mutual respect.

The choice that has always faced our country is whether we are a social democracy or a liberal democracy, and I am in the liberal democracy camp. Social democracies empower government to legislate permissible conduct, but in a liberal democracy we remove barriers to freedom, just like the barrier that is removed by the bill on marriage for same-sex couples. We are expanding the freedom for people to marry, but that doesn't mean religious liberty should be discarded. It should be considered as part of the thought process of any legislation.

The unlimited freedom of conscience is the freedom to hold and form opinions, religious or otherwise. That is not inhibited by the bill that is before the parliament. Freedom of speech is the freedom to express and communicate ideas and your conscience. That is not inhibited by the bill before the parliament either. Of course, everybody's free to disagree with law. Those advocating for change have demonstrated that point clearly. As the members know, I will always stand up against laws that make it unlawful to offend where they arise. Religious freedom is the freedom to manifest your conscience, as is demonstrated in the report being delivered by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Free speech and religious freedom have always been tempered by law. They are not an unlimited licence. If you care about everybody's freedom, not just your own, the objective should be to enlarge the space for these freedoms for everybody, as I always seek to do.

Left-Green progressives would have us believe that religious freedom comes from the United Nations and international treaties. It does not. It comes from a system of law and culture that respects the freedom of the individual and their right to pursue their life, their opportunities and their enterprise. It comes from honouring the traditions of our liberal democracy, where everything is legal unless it explicitly is made illegal. Religious freedom is not protected by creating group rights, bills or charters of rights or by entrenching the language of international treaties in domestic law. The latter is particularly dangerous because it allows courts to use legal interpretations from foreign jurisdictions to interpret Australian law. Not only does it lead to potentially limiting religious liberty; it also undermines our national sovereignty. That is why I will always start from a position of opposing efforts to codify the boundaries of religious liberty, because they will only lead to narrowing it. We should want as much space in the public square for as much freedom as possible for all people, religious or otherwise, so long as we take account of the rights and freedoms of others. That is the approach I will continue to take in this parliament.

I would also like to quote from a speech I gave last year, specifically dealing with some of the issues around religious liberty and what it means in 21st century Australia. It is from my paper Rediscovering Humilityfor the Centre for Independent Studies' Acton Lecture of 2017. I said:

The state of religious freedom in Australia today is, frankly, unsettled and perpetually evolving. It is one of the few Rights that is explicitly protected in our Constitution prohibiting the Commonwealth 'from making laws for establishing any religion, imposing any religious observance, or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion' under section 116. Yet many people of faith feel that changes to government laws increasingly dismiss or deprioritise religious liberty. For example, State governments have been reviewing antidiscrimination laws and look likely to water down some provisions around respecting the freedom of religious service providers to employ staff and adopt practices consistent with their faith traditions. I don’t plan to enter into those specific debates—

as a federal member when they're around state law—

but to highlight that they reflect a growing tension within Australian society about the place of religion. Not that it is new. In his speech to the 1897 Constitutional Convention, future Prime Minister, Edmund Barton, encapsulated the view of the role of government over religion at the time:

'The whole mode of government, the whole province of the State, is secular ... The whole duty is to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s ... secular expressions should be left to secular matters while prayer should be left to its proper place.'

Barton’s words are apt because they highlight the binary lens through which most people look at the relationship between religion and the state. In the 21st Century there are many more shades of grey. The Constitution makes it clear: the Australian government is secular. The grey is where government ends and society begins, and whether we are a secular or pluralist society. A secular society is one which respects religious liberty, but recognises its place as a primarily private practice. Faith ends at the temple door. It has a limited place in the public square. There is no room for religion in public institutions, such as schools and hospitals. Equally unless they want to accept secular strings, religious institutions can’t accept public monies to deliver services to the community.

A pluralist one respects that, like other individual characteristics, faith informs all aspects of people’s lives. Public institutions reasonably accommodate faith and religious institutions are not discriminated against simply because of wanting to act consistent with their traditions. Instead they are embraced as a way of delivering a diversity of services. These different approaches fundamentally inform how different political parties approach issues of religious liberty. The Greens are in the secularist camp. The Liberals and Nationals are in the pluralist camp. Labor used to be in the pluralist camp. Today they are drifting in the direction of secularism with a diminishing understanding of the importance of religious liberty.

See this speech in context