I contribute to debate on the Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Religious Vilification) Bill 2023. The bill seeks to introduce a civil prohibition on religious vilification, consistent with the existing vilification provisions in the Act. As we just heard, those existing provisions come from an Act that was passed by a Labor government, and we seek to build on that great legacy. The bill makes it unlawful to, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for or severe ridicule of a person or group of persons because of the person's religious belief, affiliation or activity. So the public act—what it is and is not—is very explicitly defined.
Importantly, the bill does not prevent people from being able to express their reasonable religious views. It does not prevent the criticism of religion. It specifically prohibits public actions that incite hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule. That might seem like a small change to an existing Act, but it will have a very important impact on communities across New South Wales, especially in my part of the world, including south- west Sydney and Leppington. Yesterday we heard from the member for Bankstown about the kind of impact the change will have and the kinds of things he has seen and heard during his lifetime that fall outside the existing Act and why it needs to be updated.
Religion is a very significant element of the identity of many people in New South Wales and, as I said, particularly for my region of south-west Sydney. When you look at the statistics in the last census, in south- western Sydney there is a higher proportion of people who professed a religion and a lower proportion who stated they had no religion, compared to Greater Sydney and New South Wales as a whole. So 79 per cent of the population of the Liverpool local government area nominated a religion in the latest census—that is four in five people. Similarly, in Fairfield it was 78 per cent, and in Camden it was 70 per cent. Those figures are well above the Greater Sydney average of 62 per cent and the New South Wales average of 59 per cent. So in my part of the world, four in five people identify with a nominated religion. Across New South Wales and Sydney it is somewhere around three in five. So the bill will have quite an impact on the people in my part of the world.
Based on the last census, we also have a higher increase in people identifying as Muslim and Roman Catholic than the rest of New South Wales. This showcases the importance of religion in everyday life in the region I represent and, again, why the bill will have a significant effect for the people of my electorate. The bill adds new grounds for vilification to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977—specifically, religious affiliation as well as religious activity. The inclusion of religious activity is a particularly important element of the bill, and I will outline some reasons it will have an important impact in my part of the world.
For decades my region has been the new home for migrants and refugees fleeing war and persecution. Australia held out its hand and promised a safe haven and a new home where refugees could come and thrive in a nation that allowed them to practise their culture unhindered. For many of those communities, their culture, language and religion had been repressed for decades, if not centuries. I have heard firsthand of brutal regimes under which people have had to change their names, been forced to convert or profess another religion and suffered the banning of indigenous languages that were associated with their religion. This was commonplace and used as a means to strip these people of their identity. Now that they live safely in Australia, their new home allows them to practise and teach their culture, language and religion to the next generation.
Importantly, for many people who have fled terrible regimes, faith is indelibly linked to culture and language. Places of worship are not merely where people occasionally visit for the odd wedding or funeral; they are central to our sense of community in south-west Sydney. For example, our churches, mosques, temples and other places of worship serve many purposes in addition to weekly services. They host language schools that are vital for incoming migrants, as well as those who want to learn their cultural language. Earlier today I met with a delegation from the local Kurdish community—again, a people whose language has been repressed. They have set up a language school, similar to other communities that have come from that part of the world—the Mandaeans, the Assyrians, the Chaldeans, who are also people whose culture, language and religion are indelibly linked.
Such places also organise and host community service events such as food drives, volunteering and partnering with other local organisations to provide services across the community. They encourage and provide places for youth and seniors groups that create an atmosphere of community where people make lifelong friends. They also help individuals and families through personal counselling services. All of this benefits our community and our society as a whole. Providing resources to those who need them and fostering a sense of community is one of the great aspects of these places. They also provide an outlet for the people in our community who want to give something back and make a positive impact for those in more need. More often than that not, that spirit comes from people who have found Australia as their second home. They want to repay this country, and often want to do that through their places of worship and their community.
There are many places in my electorate that provide such services and they are an integral part of Leppington, while the new community is being built. We have thousands of homes, but unfortunately we do not have enough parks, community centres, community halls and even public schools, where these types of functions would normally take place. So it has been the job of places of worship do the heavy lifting, and I acknowledge that. Among them we have Chaldean churches, Hindu temples, a Sikh gurdwara and Buddhist temples from Cambodian and Chinese backgrounds. We have it all, and I am very grateful to live in such a diverse electorate.
The question might arise that if culture and religion are so linked for some communities, would religious vilification not be inherently prohibited through existing provisions for race and ethno-religious origin? Unfortunately, it is not. The concept of ethno-religious origin for the purposes of racial vilification in the Act has been narrowly interpreted and defined, and therefore does not cover many potential circumstances of religious vilification. One such example comes from the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal, which determined in a case that, at least some in circumstances, Islam did not amount to an ethno-religious origin. It is for those reasons that the bill seeks to specifically add religion and religious vilification to the Act.
Explicit and particular provisions such as those in the bill are required to ensure that religious vilification is comprehensively and effectively prohibited. Ethno-religious origin cannot be an edge case. It needs to be specifically put in the Act, and I am glad that we are doing that today. With the support of a key range of stakeholders, through consultation, including with religious and faith organisations, legal stakeholders and community and advocacy stakeholders, the amendments in the bill will protect people from religious vilification. More often than not, when members debate matters in this House, we forget to speak to the people who are directly impacted. I commend the Minns Labor Government for committing to a faith council that will have a body of representatives from across the religious spectrum. The Government will consult with that council on a range of issues—this bill is a perfect example of that.
In conclusion, I am happy that we are here but the Government should probably not be doing this. For a long time this change had been promised by the previous Government. The bill will help to ensure that all members of society can participate in public life and discussion without the fear of abuse, hatred or hostility. I commend the bill to the House.
