Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler—Leader of the Opposition) (02:11): I would ask the government to reconsider its position on this. I listened to the Prime Minister in this chamber, in his summing-up address, say that his objective here was to achieve bipartisanship. Unfortunately, after the Prime Minister wrote to me last year, there have been no meetings, which is what was suggested, no discussion and no working through of this.

One of the problems with rushing through legislation like this is that you can make unintended errors, which have real consequences. That is what Labor is attempting to fix here, not in any rancorous way but simply to say that we think it is reasonable that you have a statement of belief but that you need to clarify it by ensuring that you are not adding to the discrimination of others by recognising the need to remove discrimination on the basis of religious belief.

It should be very possible for this parliament, with people with goodwill, to be able to have provisions which ensure protections for people of faith without removing protections for others. That is what this amendment is aiming to do. That is why it isn't just one group; it is disability groups, human rights groups, women's groups, aged-care organisations, the Australian Medical Association, LGBTIQ groups and the Law Council who have all expressed concern. I say to the Prime Minister: if you are at all fair dinkum about trying to get a bipartisan agreement, then you should support the amendment which is being advanced here.

Discrimination is bad in all its forms, but it should not be the case that, in order to protect the rights of any one group, you are taking away the rights of others. That is what this provision, that the shadow Attorney-General has moved, is attempting to do. It's attempting to fix a problem here. If it is not fixed here, we of course will continue to pursue it. We'll continue to pursue it here in the House of Representatives and we'll continue to pursue it in the Senate, but we will also commit to fixing the problems that are being created, if amendments aren't dealt with appropriately, to fix the flaws in this legislation.

Everyone in this chamber may well have a range of views, and I accept that that's the case. But there is no-one in this chamber who can say that this is a process that is causing greater national unity. That should be the objective here: not to look for division but to look for how we bring people on this journey in the same direction. These concerns that have been raised are legitimate, and that is why we should support this amendment. Because this amendment which we're moving here will fix a consequence—it may well be an unintended one, but the consequence is there, and it's been laid out for us very clearly by all of those groups.

You want people, as well as the whole country, to be in a position to say, 'Isn't it a good thing that people of faith are more protected after this legislation than they were before,' without saying 'but' after that and without having to say, 'But it's unfortunate that other groups, including some of the most vulnerable groups in our community, are losing their rights that are existing rights.' We are taking away provisions unless we support this amendment.

The SPEAKER: The question is that the opposition amendment to government amendment (8) be disagreed to.