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

I am an unashamed advocate for freedom of religion, the foundation of liberalism itself. Liberalism is based on the idea that the individual is sovereign and that sovereignty is respected by their unlimited freedom of conscience. Freedom of conscience is, of course, the foundation of freedom of religion. People are free to think as they see fit. I said 'unlimited' because that is what I mean. In a Liberal democracy, government are not the thought police. That was recognised in section 116 of the Constitution, which says:

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

The importance of freedom of conscience is directly connected to the freedom of speech. You cannot think if you cannot learn. Free speech is essential for imparting ideas and having them tested, challenge, absorbed and dismissed. Freedom of religion is about the freedom to exercise your conscience to choose a faith—critically—or not.

It's an exercise of freedom of religion to choose to be Catholic, Muslim, Pentecostal or Jewish, among many other faith traditions. It's also an exercise of freedom of religion to be agnostic or atheist. That is what people misunderstand about freedom of religion and religious freedom: it's for everybody, because everybody has a conscience. As I said in my speech in the second reading debate on the marriage amendment bill last year, a free society does not seek to homogenise belief or conscience but, instead, affirms individuality and diversity and fosters tolerance and mutual respect. Freedom of religion is foundational to a pluralistic society. Freedom of religion is about the manifestation of that conscience consistently. But, like a lot of freedoms, it is rightly tempered by a need to respect the rights and freedoms of others. So a call to act consistent with your conscience is exercising assembly and coming together in faith communities, but it is equally an exercise of a nonbeliever to come together with others on that basis and without their faith.

Periodically, we get into debates about the limits of that freedom. In a social democracy the state prescribes how people can manifest that conscience. In a liberal democracy we start by assuming the exercise of that freedom and merely identify the line where it causes harm to others, guided by an interest to expand the space of freedom for everybody. These principles date back some 116 years to when the great John Stuart Mill argued in On Liberty that:

… the only purpose for which power can be rightly exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.

Herein lies the challenge of contemporary debates. 'Freedom of religion' and 'religious freedom' sound the same, but they're actually different things. Freedom of religion is about freedom of conscience and manifesting that freedom principally for worship. Religious freedom extends beyond that principle in how far all people, of faith or otherwise, can use their conscience to justify conduct. People don't get bonus freedom for having faith, nor for the absence of it. They have the same freedom. It is only their motivation that differs.

In the coming weeks, we're going to have a discussion about what that means, and I'll be guided by the understanding I've outlined already. Already we've had a debate about religious freedom and children. Human rights are fundamentally an adult concept. Parents, of course, have a right to raise their children in their faith and cultural traditions. But, when it comes to children, their health and welfare must come first, ahead of the world view of their parents—no matter what it is, whether religious or otherwise.

How religious freedom is interpreted and balanced in law is a critical conversation for our country to have. But we have to make sure that we understand that we're not just talking about people of faith communities; we're talking about the freedom of everyone, and how it's consistently applied. As many people will understand, as we debate these issues in the coming weeks and months, the standard which you apply to others, you have to accept, in law, will be applied to you as well. Now is a time to call people to reason and respect, so that we can live in this great country, peacefully, together.