Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Hansard source

This will be a historic week, the week that same-sex marriage becomes lawful in Australia. I want to start my contribution on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 today by acknowledging those who have worked very hard to see this change come to fruition, including many individual members of parliament and many people outside of the parliament. The emotional nature of the debate in this place, and particularly by the gay members of parliament, shows how important this change is to so many people. I want to acknowledge this and respect this. Thousands of people across Australia will celebrate the passage of this bill, and, for some, a key ambition of theirs will now be able to be fulfilled. I never considered this debate as being about whether you supported gay relationships or not, and I am disappointed that many equated a 'yes' vote to respecting gay people and a 'no' vote to disrespecting them. My hope is that everybody respects that some people are same-sex attracted and that their relationships are meaningful, complex and loving, just like heterosexual ones. My hope is that we love all people regardless of their sexuality.

My reservations about changing the Marriage Act to include same-sex couples was my view that marriage is an institution that traditionally has been primarily about creating a bond for the creation, love and care of children. And I was concerned that if the definition is changed to be purely one about recognising love, rather than a foundation for the raising of children, then the institution itself would potentially be weakened. I hope I am wrong. I hope that, by expanding the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, the institution of marriage will be strengthened. My hope is that more couples will take advantage of it, make life-long commitments, and that their relationships will prosper.

There has been a lot of discussion about the manner in which we have got to this outcome. Many have said that we should have dealt with it a long time ago in this parliament through a conscience vote. I disagree. I strongly supported taking this issue to the Australian people and letting them decide. Every poll indicated that people wanted to have a say on this, and the outcome of the postal survey confirmed this with 80 per cent participation. Equally importantly, the change to allow same-sex couples to marry has far greater legitimacy because of the public vote, rather than just a vote of 226 members of parliament or a vote of the Supreme Court as occurred in the United States. I would hope that even the most ardent critics of the postal survey would acknowledge this. Marriage is a foundational pillar of society, so changing it was rightly taken to the people to decide.

My electorate of Aston voted strongly in favour of changing the law, and consequently I will vote to support the bill before the parliament. This was my public commitment before the postal survey was conducted, and I will honour that commitment. I would like to see reasonable religious protections in place when we make this change to the Marriage Act. My primary concern is that people are not vilified for having traditional views on marriage or for expressing their view. It is deeply disturbing that the Hobart Catholic Archbishop could be in breach of anti-vilification laws because the church circulated a booklet to Catholic parents outlining his traditional view on marriage.

Freedom of speech underpins our democracy, and I don't want to see this fundamental freedom weakened. I am also concerned that religious charities and schools do not lose funding or charitable status because they hold genuine convictions about marriage. Consequently, I will support amendments to this end. If the amendments are not successful now, I hope they will be considered by the Ruddock review into religious freedom and then brought back to this parliament.

Let me finish where I started by again acknowledging those who have campaigned hard to see this change happen. But I also acknowledge that almost 40 per cent of the Australian public did not support a change. Let's respect the fact that the majority want to change the Marriage Act, but let's respect the 'no' voters and their genuine concerns for religious and speech freedoms.

See this speech in context