Nicolle Flint (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

We're here this morning after a late night last night, continuing to debate this Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 because the Australian people have had their say on same-sex marriage. Their decision was clear. A majority want a change to the traditional definition of marriage, and that is what we will deliver. We, the coalition government, promised the public that they would have their say in a decision that was reached before my election to this place. We took our policy to the Australian people at the 2016 federal election and, by voting to elect the coalition government, they voted for our approach. The Prime Minister and the government fulfilled our commitment to carry out a same-sex marriage plebiscite. We were unwavering in our promise to give Australians the right to contribute to the debate and to have their say. I wish we could say the same about those opposite, but they blocked us at every step and in every way. We, however, fulfilled our promise so that each and every Australian could express their view on this historic change and reconcile themselves to this historic change.

This is a very important point. Everyone who wanted to have a say had a say, and their voices were heard. This was a democratic process. The unprecedented turnout for the voluntary survey—far above what those opposite and some commentators expected—reflected the strong will of voters on both sides of the debate to express their views. The Australian people voted to change the traditional definition of marriage and we, as their elected representatives, are now acting to honour their decision. Just over 60 per cent of the Australian people voted to change the traditional definition of marriage. This result was reflected in my electorate of Boothby, and I will honour their decision and that of the Australian people. It is now the job of this place to implement this decision and to legislate to change the definition of marriage. However, it is also the job of this place to ensure that the views of almost five million Australians, who voted for the traditional definition of marriage, are maintained and respected too.

Many of these people hold strong religious convictions. The fundamental tenets of their faith were formed thousands of years ago and have not wavered through the centuries between. We owe it to these people to protect their religious beliefs and freedoms. In fact, as the Treasurer expressed so beautifully in his contribution to this debate, we owe it to our nation. It is my hope that everyone watches or reads the Treasurer's contribution, especially those opposite. It's one of the most thoughtful and impressive speeches I have seen presented to this place. As the Treasurer outlined, our Christian values informed the founding of our Federation. I will quote some of the Treasurer's words because it's difficult to say it better:

… at section 116, our Constitution deliberately afforded the protection that 'the Commonwealth shall not make any law for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion'.

This is the religious inheritance of our Federation—our Constitution, from more than a century ago. If we ever act in dissonance with these founding principles, I believe it will be to our nation's great peril. This is not to say that Australia is a nation with an established state religion. Thankfully, it is not. We are, thankfully, free of such a restriction on our liberty. Such freedom should not be used, though, as a weapon against the importance of faith, belief and religion in our society or as a justification to drive faith and religion from our public square. At the same time, protection of religious freedoms cannot be used as a cloak for religious extremism that undermines our very freedoms.

We may be a secular state but we are not a godless people to whom faith, belief and religion are not important. Quite the contrary: it is deeply central to the lives of millions of Australians.

The Treasurer goes on to say:

Separation of church and state does not mean the inoculation of the influence of faith on the state. The state shouldn't run the church and the church shouldn't run the state. In fact, the separation of church and state was set up to protect the church from the state—not the other way around—to protect religious freedoms.

And this is what we must do. We must protect freedom of speech, freedom of religion and religious beliefs, just as I believe we must protect the other institutions that have enabled these freedoms and have made us one of the most respected, respectful and peaceful nations on earth: our system of constitutional monarchy, our Westminster parliamentary tradition and our Judaeo-Christian principles that have informed our wonderful society.

On this issue, the mandate of the Australian people is clear: introduce legislation that changes the definition of marriage. However, to pass legislation that does not encompass fair and comprehensive religious protections would put at risk the freedoms we hold dear and the democratic values that we all represent. This is why I will be voting to honour the result of the plebiscite but supporting the amendments to be moved by the members for Cook, Deakin, Mitchell, Canning and Mallee.

See this speech in context