Rick Wilson (O'Connor, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to acknowledge the overwhelming support for changing the definition of marriage as expressed by the Australian people and to put my own position on the record as we debate the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. But, firstly, let me wish all of the same-sex couples planning to marry the same joy of marriage that my wife, Tanya, and I have shared in our 17 years together.

Let's look first at a little history on this issue. In 2012 during the 43rd Parliament, legislation to reform the Marriage Act was brought before the parliament and voted down. It is worth noting that in opposition many of those who had previously voted no suddenly became zealous reformers.

At the 2016 election, the coalition parties took a very clear policy to the people of Australia: that we would give the Australian people the opportunity to have their say on this momentous change to the institution of marriage in our country via a compulsory attendance plebiscite. When enabling legislation was put to the Senate in February this year it was cynically voted down by the Labor Party and the Greens. I do note with some irony that all celebrations currently taking place could have occurred eight months ago if not for the political opportunism of those opposite.

Despite being confronted with this roadblock, the government was determined to uphold its commitment to the Australian people, so we facilitated a non-compulsory postal plebiscite. As we all know, and as many in this place have acknowledged, the postal plebiscite has been a resounding success. Despite all of the naysayers predicting doom, 79 per cent of Australians took the opportunity to have their say, and I am very proud to say that, apart from a couple of isolated incidents across the nation of 24 million people, we conducted the debate in a respectful and dignified manner. The 61.2 per cent vote in favour of changing our definition of marriage was resounding and gives enormous legitimacy to the reform this parliament is about to pass. Across my electorate of O'Connor the vote was 56.2 per cent yes and 43.8 per cent no, with a response rate of 75.7 per cent. While this was the lowest 'yes' vote across Western Australia, it's a very definitive result.

My personal position, as reflected in my first speech in this place in 2013, and as has been put consistently on the public record, is that I support the traditional definition of marriage, but I would not stand in the way of the will of the Australian people by voting against a bill to reform the Marriage Act if that is what the Australian people voted for. Having said that, I have always reserved my right, once the overall passage of the bill was assured, to abstain from voting if the bill brought before the parliament failed to contain protections for religious beliefs, conscience and freedom of speech.

Whilst acknowledging the current bill does contain some protections for ministers of religion in relation to performing marriage ceremonies, I don't believe that the broader community is sufficiently protected. The nearly five million Australians who voted no are the new forgotten people. I don't see big business, tertiary institutions, the public service, unions, the media or governments supporting their rights. During the plebiscite, a young woman in Canberra called Madeline was sacked from her job simply for posting on Facebook that she supported the traditional definition of marriage. The Archbishop of Hobart, Julian Porteous, was recently dragged before the antidiscrimination commission for sharing Catholic Church teachings on marriage with Catholic school students. In a British example, the High Court recently supported a Derby City Council decision that a Christian couple who had successfully fostered many children were no longer suitable foster carers due to their traditional and religious views on marriage and their noncompliance in promoting or accepting same-sex attracted lifestyles.

As the father of four young children, I am particularly concerned about retaining the right to protect them being taught radical sexual fluidity concepts at school until they are of an age and maturity to make an informed decision. Any decision that my kids make in the future I will respect and support. I'll always love them unconditionally and with all of my heart.

I, myself, have been on the receiving end of personal attacks from those who disagree with my views and spew vitriol on Facebook and via email. I have been labelled homophobic, which I am certainly not, and have been called things that cannot be repeated in this place. As a politician, that's an unfortunate part of my job, but I look for no sympathy. I am not prepared to expose the 33,000 people in O'Connor who voted no to the sort of abuse I have recently received. I am particularly concerned about the winner-takes-all attitude of the many people who have contacted me since the announcement of the result. There appears to be little love in their hearts for those who have the temerity to disagree with them, and this has only strengthened my resolve.

To that end, I am aware of a series of amendments that will be introduced after this second reading debate. I will be supporting amendments that seek to protect free speech, protect freedom of religion and conscience, and provide certainty for religious charities and schools. If, as I sincerely hope will be the case, these amendments are passed, I will be voting in favour of the final bill. If the amendments fail, I cannot in all conscience vote for a bill that will expose constituents in my electorate to the danger of persecution, vilification and legal proceedings for simply following their long-held faith and beliefs, and I will be abstaining.

See this speech in context