Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. I want to start by congratulating a few people who have been able to get this bill to where it is. In particular I want to acknowledge Liberal National Party members from Queensland—Warren Entsch, the member for Leichhardt, and Trevor Evans, the member for Brisbane—who have wanted to see this change. I congratulate them as fellow members of the Liberal National Party. I also want to congratulate the 'yes' campaign on the win, with 61 per cent of Australians voting in support of the question. Congratulations on being able to achieve that. And I want to congratulate the 'no' campaign—the Coalition for Marriage, the Australian Christian Lobby—for standing up and representing the views of the almost 40 per cent of people who said no.

As for my personal position on same-sex marriage, I was very clear with what I told people prior to the 2016 election, and that is that I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and for heterosexual relationships only. I believed that same-sex couples, in Queensland at least, already had the same rights through civil unions in Queensland, and that was a position that I took to the last election. To every same-sex couple that asked me directly what my thoughts were on it, I was straight with them and gave them a completely straight answer face to face.

The plebiscite has been held. I want to congratulate the Prime Minister on sticking to his word from the last election and giving the people of Australia a say on this matter. He needs to be congratulated. We know that this will become law by the end of the week. Same-sex couples will be able to marry in 2018 after applying for a marriage licence. After the Governor-General signs it off, 28 days later they will be able to marry. The Prime Minister needs to be congratulated. He was a supporter of same-sex marriage, but he stuck to our election commitment to give all Australians a say. I think that was really important and it was one of the only ways to get a result, given that the parliament has had this debate many times before. The last time this question was asked was in 2012, when Julia Gillard was Prime Minister and the Labor Party were in power, and it was defeated. 'No' came across. In fact, the previous member for Petrie, now the state member for Redcliffe, clearly voted no and was part of the reason it didn't go forward.

Every step of the way, the members opposite—the Labor Party—have fought to make sure that the Australian people didn't get a say. Why? I'm not exactly sure. It was probably because they didn't trust the Australian people to say yes and they feared failure in relation to that. So this is a big win for the Prime Minister and for the government.

I actually think that having the plebiscite is a win for same-sex couples as well, because what it says to them is that most Australians agree and want to see the bill go forward—which is important. I disagree with the member for Adelaide and the member for Jagajaga, who say there is still more to do because, in many ways, people said this was the last remaining piece of equality that needed to go through. And when I am out in my community talking to people, people are very respectful of many people. The whole plebiscite debate in my area was conducted very well overall, but I think that it does send a strong message to same-sex couples that, yes, the Australian people have had a say. They voted for yes, the bill will go through by the end of the week and we go from there.

I don't really think that the bill itself provides protections for everyone in the community. I think there is a little bit of criticism of this bill outside of the fact that it provides protections for priests and pastors and those religious people who will actually marry same-sex couples. Outside of that and outside church buildings, there are a whole lot of protections that are not mentioned in this bill which could be. Shame on the Labor Party for not voting on the amendments in the Senate last week, for stifling the vote, for not having a free vote there, again, and for ignoring the genuine concerns of many people. The fact is that this week we could do both. We could legalise same-sex marriage and we could also make sure that those protections are put in.

If you look at the front page of The Australian today, one of the articles on there says, 'Schools warn PM on gay marriage'. It says that Simon Benson, head of the one of the most prestigious private schools, located in Malcolm Turnbull's electorate, has warned that unless the Prime Minister secures amendments to the same-sex marriage bill, or the parliament does, to protect faith-based schools, they could be at risk of being defunded or even deregistered. The fact is there are a lot of people that fear that, and I fear that for schools in my own electorate—schools like Mueller College in Rothwell, like Grace Lutheran Primary School at Clontarf, like Grace Lutheran High School at Clontarf and Christ the King Primary School at Deception Bay. The fact is that Protestant and Catholic schools teach that marriage is between a man and a woman. So what does that mean? At the moment they are receiving government funding. Does that mean that down the track, say within the next 10 years, in 2028, they will longer be able to receive government funding because they teach a traditional view of marriage? It is a genuine concern for people, and the parliament could clear it up this week and not skimp on it.

I acknowledge the will of the Australian people is to introduce into legislation a change to the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry, and I support that. I said I would listen and represent the views of my electorate and I am doing that. Even though my own personal opinion was for traditional marriage, I will not be standing in the way. I also acknowledge that nearly 40 per cent of Australia voted no and that many of those who voted yes did not vote to relinquish their parental rights to decide the moral education of their children, nor did they vote to reduce their freedom of belief, freedom of speech and association. As Senator Abetz outlined last week, 62 per cent of Australians believe parliament should guarantee in law for freedom of conscience, belief and religion if it legislates for same-sex marriage. So they want same-sex marriage and they want these freedoms protected. The bill does not provide such protections, in my opinion.

The Australian people were assured that religious freedom is fundamental and that it would be protected in any bill that emerges from this parliament. The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Inquiry into the status of the human right to freedom of religion or belief found that, overall, the evidence supports the need for current protections for religious freedom to be enhanced. However, basic protections for parental rights and freedom of religion were rejected by the Senate last week. What confidence can I give to the constituents of my electorate and to the nearly 70 per cent of Australians who hold some form of religion, according to the 2016 census, that any recommendations from the Ruddock review will be supported by the upper House? I don't want to say I hope they will be supported; they should be supported. Unfortunately, as acknowledged by submissions to the Senate committee, Australian law, in contrast to the strong and clear protections for religious freedom under international law—article 18 of the ICCPR—provides weak and inadequate protection for freedom of religion and belief. International experience clearly demonstrates the consequences for Australia if we do not provide adequate protections for fundamental freedoms.

The legislation for change, as it stands, provides minimal protections, to the point of being non-existent, for freedom of religion and conscience for a significant proportion of our citizens. Will parents, foster carers, schools, charities and individuals have their strongly-held beliefs protected? Or will we, in attempting to fast-track legislation before Christmas, impose no religion as the state religion on our pluralistic, tolerant society, and drive religion and conscience from the public square through the threat of antidiscrimination laws? The inevitable intolerance and discrimination in the name of tolerance is disturbing. Here, right now, this week, the parliament has an opportunity to represent all Australians, to bring about the change to the Marriage Act to include same-sex couples—100 per cent—while also protecting the freedom of conscience and belief of many Australians.

There have been a lot of people in my electorate contact me in relation to making sure those freedoms are protected. Here I have an email from Christine in North Lakes. She said:

If you cannot stop this bill—

we don't want to stop the bill; we want it to go through and honour the plebiscite, which it will this week, as promised, despite the nay-sayers on the other side in the Labor Party—

please do what you can to support amendments to this bill that include freedoms for those who do not agree with this bill.

I also have an email from Alana, a grandmother in Deception Bay. She says:

As a 'no' voter, I'm very concerned about the rush to push through [same-sex marriage] into law in its current form. There are totally inadequate safeguards for freedom of speech and protection of each person's right to defend their beliefs and way of life.

An email from Marty Harnisch from Redcliffe says:

Hi Luke

Please represent us in protecting religious freedoms, freedom of speech and the right of children to innocence in the wake of the postal survey results.

I am so so concerned about the sexualisation of children and exposing them to confusion with the 'Safe Schools' curriculum …

Come on, little ones can't make decisions on these things! Please protect the church and the church schools so they can be the pillars of society I know they are.

The member for Hotham, when she spoke on this the other day, said that her feedback showed the No. 1 concern was in relation to Safe Schools. Down in Bald Hills, in the southern part of my electorate, Ian says:

Dear Luke

I am a Bald Hills resident …

With this battle now lost—

he was obviously a 'no' voter—

and the bill to be presented to Parliament, I am absolutely fuming that religious protections promised at the outset have been dumped by The Senate.

This was written last week.

This is a pathway to inevitable Safe Schools … with parents having no say into this indoctrination by withdrawing their children without facing the weight of the law.

I say to the parliament, and to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, that there is genuine concern in relation to the bill, and there is absolutely no reason why same-sex marriage cannot be passed this week while also ensuring that those religious protections make sure that the country that we have, the freedom that we have to express our faith and our views, will remain.

Once again, I condemn the Labor Party for ensuring that they do not have a conscience vote on this matter; that they vote en bloc. They did everything they could to make sure the Australian people did not have a say on this matter. The fact is: the government had a mandate, after the 2016 election, to make sure we gave the Australian people a say. We did. They voted yes. Marriage equality will be law by the end of the week. I will not be standing in the way, but at the same time I make the strongest argument to the parliament that we need to make sure that religious protection is upheld. I'll leave it with the parliament. Thank you.

See this speech in context