Tony Zappia (Makin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Manufacturing) Share this | Hansard source

This debate on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 is not about the definition of marriage. That question was settled by the Australian people. It is, however, about how parliament enacts the will of the Australian people and the values that Australia projects into the future. There are three simple statements in the Australian Citizenship Pledge which beautifully encapsulate the values which, to date, have characterised Australian society. Those statements are:

… whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

This legislation is a test of those values, and it embodies all of them. It is legislation which reflects the will of the Australian people and therefore goes to the first of the three principles being our belief in democracy.

The legislation arises from a process in which all eligible Australians were given a vote. Almost 80 per cent of eligible Australians participated in the process and, of those, 7.8 million voted yes, 4.8 million voted no and 3.2 million did not vote. The outcome was clear. In the Makin electorate, which I represent, 60.4 per cent voted yes and 39.6 per cent voted no. Those who argue that the 'yes' vote did not reach an absolute majority and, therefore, is not a mandate for change are in denial. To use a phrase borrowed from Abraham Lincoln: this legislation is of the people, by the people and for the people.

That brings me to the second principle being 'whose rights and liberties I respect'. The word 'respect' does not mean acceptance or entitlement. It does, however, imply 'acknowledgement' and 'having regard to'. The question of rights and liberties is complex. It is a matter covered by numerous state and federal laws and international conventions which Australia is signatory to. I particularly note the reference by others who have spoken in this debate to article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In every society, the rights and liberties of one person inevitably impinge on the rights and liberties of others. Nevertheless, in a democracy, the greater good prevails, and that is determined by the majority view. The survey question that Australians responded to was about marriage. It was a simple question:

Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?

It did not contain questions about civil and religious rights. Those matters were not canvassed. That raises the questions about the rights and liberties of the over 4.8 million people who voted no. In this parliament, in a normal election, their votes would have been reflected in Senate representation, where proportional representation applies. Over the centuries, people have died because of their faith or their conscientious objections and beliefs. It still happens in the world today. Such is the faith and conviction of people that they will give up their lives for their beliefs, and no law will ever diminish their conviction. They, too, have rights that should be respected and protected.

Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition stated before and after the survey that protections would be provided, as also recommended by a parliamentary Senate select committee which carefully examined the questions about rights. There were clear commitments that I believe were well understood and accepted in good faith by the Australian people when they cast their votes. I also note that not all people who voted no did so because of religious objections. People also voted no because of conscientious or cultural convictions. Protecting rights and liberties is complex. Notwithstanding the complexities, commitments made by political leaders should be honoured.

The government has referred the question of protections to an expert panel headed by the Hon. Philip Ruddock and including Father Frank Brennan, Professor Rosalind Croucher, Fiona MacLeod and Annabelle Bennett. They are all eminent Australians with extensive legal and human rights expertise. Parliament should allow the panel to do its independent work and to present its recommendations. It may take some time, but it will ensure that the best possible outcome is achieved. I also note that the legislation before us already contains some religious protections. More protections may be needed to address matters of conscience or culture. Those are matters for the expert panel. Rushing through amendments now may result in more uncertainty and more court challenges rather than less. Yet I note that government members want to go in both directions—that is, set up an expert panel while simultaneously moving amendments which pre-empt and may even undermine the work of the panel. Few of our laws, if any, are so well written that they are always fair in all situations to all people. That is why matters regularly end up before the courts. That brings me to the third principle about the rule of law: once legislated, laws must be adhered to. It is therefore critical on such a difficult and complex matter that parliament enacts well-considered legislation, that the law is clear and that the legislation does not cause more problems than those which it seeks to resolve.

The reference to the expert panel also highlights a much broader question about human rights. It is a question raised not only by this legislation but in association with other legislation of the Turnbull government, including, in recent times, refugee policy, national security legislation and social welfare laws. If Australia had a bill of rights or something similar, there might not be a need for the individual safeguards that we often see attached to other legislation and that are now being called for with respect to this legislation.

To sum up, marriage is a construct of society. It has existed for thousands of years, across cultures, religions and nations. It is not exclusively a religious construct. Society can therefore deconstruct or reconstruct the meaning of marriage to reflect the will of the people at any given time. I do not expect that passing this legislation will be the end of the matter. Indeed, it will likely lead to many other necessary changes to existing laws and possibly court interpretations of those changes. The will of the Australian people is nevertheless clear. Parliament should accept the will of Australians and change the law to allow people of the same sex to marry. The change will not just legalise the relationship but, importantly, bring widespread social recognition to same-sex relationships. Of greater consequence is that passing this legislation, combined with the 61.6 per cent 'yes' vote, sends a strong message of acceptance by Australian society of people in same-sex relationships, regardless of whether they marry, as well as acceptance of all people who, to date, have been discriminated against because of their sexuality.

I conclude with these remarks. On 10 May 1972, Dr George Duncan, a law lecturer at the University of Adelaide, drowned after being thrown into the river Torrens for being a homosexual. It was a dreadful, malicious act. His death became a turning point in homosexual law reform and in community acceptance of people regardless of their sexuality. The passage of this legislation, which I will vote in support of, will be an even more profound turning point for Australian society and what we value.

See this speech in context