Ken Wyatt (Hasluck, Liberal Party, Minister for Aged Care) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. When I first entered parliament I met an incredible character—Warren Entsch, the member for Leichhardt. He was a whip at the time, and one conversation I had with him was on his vision and commitment to the LGBTI community. He talked at length about why he was championing the cause, and during that discussion my own faith and belief in marriage was challenged by Warren, not a in a negative way but in the context of saying if two people love each other, why should we stand in their way? Why should we allow our own personal judgements to prevent them considering the context of marriage the same as other Australians do? Those discussions continued with him, along with many others, over a period of time throughout my first term in this House. I do want to acknowledge both the member for Leichhardt and Senator Dean Smith for the work that they have done. There are many others on both sides of the chamber, and I don't wish to make this a political issue by acknowledging people by party so I will do so by referring to the capacity of those individuals to think outside of confined definitions, to seriously consider the relationships that people enter into.

When we meet someone and we fall in love with them, we fall in love with them because of the endearing qualities that they have. Those qualities mean so much in very endearing terms. Over a period of time I have heard from a number of people from the LGBTI community who I have interfaced with over the years in my roles in education and in health—in health more than anywhere else. I think back to a staff member of mine. I was talking one day about the prosecution of a name that I saw in the paper, Toonen, in Tasmania. I made a comment about Toonen v Australia—the outcome of that case and the implications that it had. It was a recognition that somebody chose to live a different life to what was considered the norm. Out of that he said, 'That was my brother.' We talked about the challenges that he went through. I followed the career of Don Dunstan's, partly because of his own political persuasion but also because of his gutsiness at the time in being very open and frank about the relationship that he had and his own attraction to same-sex marriage.

I have been lobbied by many people in the period that I have been in the parliament. I want to acknowledge Rodney Croome, who I didn't always see eye to eye with, and I also want to acknowledge Shelley Argent. Both of them are very articulate in putting forward the views of the people that they represent. They talked about, and brought to me, people who wanted to have their view expressed. That was important in influencing and making us as members of this parliament think about a section of our community who were being isolated to some extent but certainly treated differently.

As I reflected on what I was going to say tonight, my mind turned to a program called MindMatters in secondary schools. I went to the launch of MindMatters in approximately 2000, and they talked about the resilience of young students in high schools. They talked about the construct of the program and, at the end of it, I sat and I asked the question: 'How did you include Indigenous people, culturally and linguistically diverse groups and LGBTI people?' There was this incredible two minutes of silence before somebody on the panel stood up and said, 'We didn't.' In that process, MindMatters decided to produce a component called CommunityMatters. I had the incredible privilege of meeting a young woman who we did a vignette on because we were needing to reflect a perspective of a young person who was challenged by the construct of being attracted to the same sex while her peers were putting pressure on her to be like them. When that vignette was done and they showed her mother, because we needed to have her permission, her mother said, 'I now understand my daughter.' As a parent she said, 'I now will support her because I became aware of what it was that my daughter was grappling with.'

I heard a colleague from the other side last night talk about her journey and for the first time being allowed to express her emotions for another in a way that she had not been able to. Right at the beginning of the debate, I was interviewed by Patricia Karvelas. She asked me a question at the end. She said she wanted to talk to me about constitutional recognition and, in the typical fashion of journalists, she said, 'Ken, what is your view? What is your position on same-sex marriage?' I said to her at the time, 'I have a personal position, based on my faith, but if my electorate supports through a plebiscite a position that is a majority reflection of the 'yes' vote, I will honour their voice. I will commit to making sure that their views are reflected through my representation as the member for Hasluck.' When I look at the results I see that 79 per cent of people voted and 62 per cent supported the 'yes' campaign. I haven't deviated from that, and I will honour their desire, because when we get those opportunities to reflect our constituents in this place it is a privilege.

The other thing that was important was the basis of the focus on equality. When you belong to a minority group, as I have, and still do, one of the challenges you have is bringing forth your view as a member of a minority group who seek changes. We're often challenged by having to convince the majority that we need a change to reflect our aspirations, our desires, our considerations and our future. Certainly in this campaign we had a very organised group of people committed to those who were in same-sex relationships and who desired to have marriage. They brought together the public of Australia to focus on the aspiration of love and the opportunity to join in marriage. When you're conflicted, you think about their position and your own commitment to what you believe are your values and your obligations to yourself as an individual. But we also have to consider in that context, too, that we have an obligation to consider diversity and to respect difference and those qualities that are inherently important to every one of us within the communities and society in which we live. If I take the human rights based approach—the principles of nondiscrimination, of the availability and accessibility of the same things that all other Australians have—there is an acceptance that as individuals and as couples we are not always the same but the quality of those relationships and that love doesn't differ. It is something that we need to respect, but the universality of the legislation in supporting the rights of fellow Australians to something that they desire is important for this House to consider.

I always was of the view that I would want to seek the views of broader Australian society, not to disaggregate a commitment by this House to addressing the issue of same-sex marriage but to have an important issue like this owned by Australians. It is no different to the argument that I've put forward in respect of Constitutional recognition, on which I have frequently said that I will respect the views of fellow Australians in supporting a significant change within a societal construct. I have listened to the various debates and enjoin myself with many of the comments that have been expressed on both sides of this chamber, and I acknowledge the concerns that individuals have in respect of protecting the rights of those who voted no. I want to share some of the comments from my electorate. I will honour and work towards reflecting their views as well, because there is a percentage that voted no. I quote:

… like so many other "NO" voters, I voted this way because of a variety of deeply held beliefs, including the belief that marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

I had churches within my electorate that said to me, 'If you are representing us, then protect us.' Equally, I had others who said: 'We have no issue. We believe in the love of God for those made in his unique image, and on that basis we would like you to support a "yes" vote if it is predominant.' Another wrote:

As your constituent, one of the many who have spoken up by voting "NO", I ask that you and your parliamentary colleagues now support legislation to permanently enshrine these freedoms into law, regardless of any changes to the Marriage Act.

While I note that there are protections there, I would certainly hope that we will address those protections within a raft of other legislation that we have that holds us to account against the issues of discrimination. The Turnbull government has delivered on its pre-election promise to give Australian people a say on whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. Thanks to the Australian marriage law postal survey, my electorate of Hasluck have had their say. As Hasluck's representative in federal parliament, I have always said over the course of this debate, as I said earlier, that I would need to respect the majority of the votes of those I represent.

Legislation has been introduced into the parliament to change the Marriage Act, and many of my constituents have voiced their concerns about protections of free speech, religious freedoms and honouring the intent of the postal survey. I share some of those concerns and welcome the decision by cabinet to establish a panel of eminent people, led by Philip Ruddock, who I hold in high regard and who I know will consider the adequacy of the legislative religious protections, not only in this act but in the other acts that are designed to protect Australians in respect of views and positions that they hold. The announcement of this decision demonstrates the strong leadership and commitment of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to protect religious freedom. The challenge of our democracy is to acknowledge the right we have to express our personal position on many issues.

Your views were expressed to me and I am truly grateful for the overwhelming volume of feedback and differing perspectives I have received. Please be assured that I reflect those views in the government party room on your behalf. Equally, I will continue to fight for protections of Australians, as I did in my stance on 18C to protect the rights of those who would have been disadvantaged by the construct of freedom of speech. I will be equally resolute to defend the voice of those who voted no, the services who take the contrary position, because the beauty of our country is that we are given an incredible privilege to express views and opinions but also our rights and equally our obligations as Australians to make sure that the harmonious fibre of our community and our society prevails and that respect is always two-way in the way in which we consider each other. So I commend the bill to the House and I thank you for the opportunity of speaking on this matter.

See this speech in context