Angus Taylor (Hume, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017.

I did not come into politics to be a cultural warrior. I didn't come into politics with the intention of imposing my morality on others. I most certainly didn't come into politics to lead the charge, one way or the other, on the question of same-sex marriage. I had other objectives in mind when I decided to abandon my first career for a parliamentary career. Mostly I came here to strengthen Australia as a country offering extraordinary opportunities and freedoms to all our citizens.

I don't consider my personal view on the issue of same-sex marriage as more or better informed than anyone else's. Each and every one of my constituents has their own view about this matter, and I have always thought, 'Who am I to judge any person, let alone any constituent, on this question?' Same-sex marriage is a personal, individual question of values. Each person, whether for or against, has views on the matter formed by his or her own life experiences and is capable of reaching an opinion on the question of same-sex marriage without any expert assistance whatsoever. We do so by reference to our own moral compass. Some people do so by reference to a religious conviction, others without requiring a religious framework at all. As I said, I judge no-one on this matter.

There are valid moral arguments on both sides of this debate. Anyone who cannot acknowledge that is essentially, I believe, a deeply intolerant person. For this reason, since before I was even preselected to run in Hume back in 2012, I said that I would follow the views of my electorate on this issue. That was well before any idea of a national vote on the issue was even on the table. When the idea of a national plebiscite arose and then turned into a postal vote, I immediately committed to voting in the parliament in accordance with the national vote in order that a national vote not be frustrated.

Now, I acknowledge that my approach is at odds with the Burkeian proposition that in a representative democracy in the Westminster system:

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

This proposal that a representative does not and should not capitulate on every matter to authoritative instruction from his electorate is a very good rule of thumb, but in rare issues of pure morality and values where no expert opinion is of any assistance, where it is a matter of pure personal judgement, such as it is in this case in my view, I believe the sound idea is to seek to follow one's constituents rather than to lead them.

I congratulate the 'yes' campaign on their win, and I fully accept that the nation and my electorate have had their say and have voted yes. For those who have argued in favour of this for a long time, including old friends of Louise and me, I offer my sincere congratulations. In accordance with my pledges in connection with my own constituency, and in accordance with the national vote, I will support the passage of this bill through the House.

I personally voted no. I do have strong Christian beliefs—these have informed me throughout my life, and they will always guide me—but the decision to vote no did go beyond this. We've seen heinous acts against people because of their sexuality, acts that should never ever be repeated. I don't want to see similar acts against those with strong beliefs, often religious beliefs, about the definition of marriage. We've seen these things happen to good people who take a different view on the definition of marriage in other jurisdictions. People have been harmed as a result of their contrary views about same-sex marriage. We know that people have lost jobs, have been kicked off boards, that charities have closed down, that faith-based schools have had their registrations threatened, that fundamentalist Christians have had their businesses destroyed because they take a different view. They have been harmed merely for taking a different view and expressing it. This, in my view, is an intolerable situation in a representative democracy, just as bullying based on sexuality is intolerable. I will always fight against both.

Central to my personal vote was Labor's intransigence and clear intention to deny its members a conscience vote on speech and religious freedoms and parental choice. We know that roughly the same number of Australians who voted yes also want the protection of the freedom of those who believe in a traditional definition of marriage. The Smith bill does not offer adequate protection to those who voted no or the very large proportion of reasonable, fair-minded Australians who voted yes, relying on the promise that we would protect people who took a different point of view. So I believe that this should be a bill for all Australians, both those who voted yes and those who voted no. This has the potential to be a unifying moment for all Australians.

So, I will support sensible amendments to protect the freedoms of those who believe in a traditional definition of marriage. I expect these amendments will cover a range of issues. Most importantly, they should include protections for freedom of speech, protecting people such as Archbishop Porteous in Tasmania, who simply expressed his deeply held beliefs, despite state legislation limiting free speech in this area. The amendments should protect charities that favour the traditional definition of marriage against attempts to take away their status recognised by the government. The amendments should protect employees who have a traditional definition of marriage. They should not be, in any case, victimised for their beliefs. The amendments should include freedom from being required to express or associate with or endorse a statement or opinion about marriage which is inconsistent with a person's or organisation's genuine religious or conscientious convictions about marriage. The amendments should include freedom for parents to choose how their children are educated on this important issue.

In Australia and in jurisdictions overseas, the experience is that individuals and organisations that support traditional marriage can and will be subjected to discrimination and detrimental action because they hold, express or lawfully act on these convictions. Unfortunately, as I've said, the international experience shows that, unless changes are made, disputes and lengthy, costly litigation are absolutely inevitable. Interestingly, we are seeing a Supreme Court case in the United States being heard, as we speak, on exactly this issue.

In all common law countries other than Australia, there are statutory or constitutional bills of rights that provide for freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I don't believe in bills of rights. But the point I make is that protections exist in all of these countries. We have the ability to put them into specific legislation—not a bill of rights but specific legislation—to provide equivalent protections for this country, just as there are in Canada, the United States, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.

It's crucial to note that the proposed amendments that I have outlined in my speech protect individuals, businesses and organisations which support traditional marriage against discrimination and detrimental conduct that has been initiated against them. The amendments do not license supporters of traditional marriage to discriminate against same-sex married couples or people of same-sex orientation in any way that is not already permitted under Commonwealth law. The only exception to this in the amendments is the discussion on the non-minister or marriage celebrants which extends the Smith provision to be consistent with the Senate select committee's report and, of course, international law.

We should support this bill but we should also support amendments that provide for genuine protections of religious belief, freedom of speech and parental choice.

See this speech in context