House debates
Wednesday, 6 December 2017
Bills
Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017; Second Reading
9:57 pm
Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing and Science) Share this | Hansard source
The member for Sturt says, 'It should have been done years ago.' Well, who by and what for? People will treat it as if it's an esoteric point, but it's actually a critical point. If we have a situation where the executive or a Prime Minister irresponsibly—or they might believe they're acting responsibly—can appeal to the public in a very simple way on the notion of people's rights, that is a very dangerous precedent, I think. No matter how well it's worked out this time, it is a very dangerous precedent.
I began my speech in 2012 quoting Edmund Burke, and I just want to do it again for those on the benches opposite. None of them are here at the moment—the member for Sturt is listening. I'll just remind him about Edmund Burke's famous speech to the electors of Bristol. Burke said that a representative owed his constituents:
… his unbiased opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.
This parliament and its representatives should not be swayed always by the simple matter of public opinions, of public opinion polls, of referenda, of postal ballots, because sometimes people's passions lead them to decisions they later regret, and sometimes simple notions have very counterproductive outcomes. So I hope in the future that these debates are dealt with by this parliament. Rights should be granted by this parliament, and if they have to be granted by the people then that should be done as part of a properly organised constitutional referendum. But I fear the government has set a precedent, and I hope it is a precedent that is not followed for a very long time.
That said, I commend the bill to the House. I think it is a simple and kind measure that fellow Australians have finally granted gay and lesbian Australians.
No comments