Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

It is quite a significant occasion today to get up to speak on this Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. Clearly, the public vote endorsed a change to the definition of 'marriage', and there's no doubt that this parliament—there was no doubt in the Senate and certainly there is no doubt in the House of Representatives—will endorse the will of the people. It's no secret that I haven't been a supporter of same-sex marriage. Nevertheless, I won't be opposing this bill, notwithstanding its very deep flaws, because I respect the verdict of the Australian people as expressed in the postal plebiscite. And wasn't the plebiscite a great success? With nearly 80 per cent of eligible Australians voting, we have been absolutely vindicated in wanting to give them a say. It's quite shameful that so many individuals fought tooth and nail to deny Australians a direct say on this very significant social change. I suspect that, like so many of the elites on the left, they didn't believe that the Australian people could be entrusted with a decision such as this. We now hear the flowery words of everyone around the chamber about the quite resounding 'yes' result being a good thing. They are the same people who used every tactic and did everything in their power—indeed, they even took the postal plebiscite to the High Court, where they were unceremoniously turfed out—to try and deny the Australian people a say in the postal plebiscite.

I give particular credit, firstly, to former Prime Minister Abbott, who was the Prime Minister at the time when a determination of the coalition party room said that the Australian people, for a significant social change such as this, should get a say and should be the final arbiters of that decision. I also give great credit to Prime Minister Turnbull, who, in the face of a very unprincipled Leader of the Opposition, stood firm, took a commitment to the election, was endorsed by the Australian people, stared the opposition leader down and got it done. So I give great credit to Prime Minister Turnbull for everything he did to empower the Australian people to have their say. And they did, and they overwhelmingly endorsed a change to the Marriage Act to include same-sex couples.

Having said that, almost five million Australians voted no, and their voices also need to be heard in this chamber. We cannot have a political culture, in any way, shape or form, of winner takes all. Their views must also be respected. Whilst, on one hand, there's absolutely no question that the Marriage Act should be amended to allow same-sex couples to marry, the wishes and the views of those five million Australians, to the extent that they can simultaneously be respected, must be respected. In that sense, this chamber is here to represent 100 per cent of Australians, not the 60 per cent who voted yes and certainly not the minority of 40 per cent who voted no. To the extent that it's possible, we have to respect and represent all of those people.

The Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill, which we are speaking about today, acquits, quite rightly, our responsibility and obligation to change the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry. Sadly, it falls hopelessly short of providing religious freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and parental rights—the sorts of freedoms, quite frankly, that were promised to the Australian people throughout the postal plebiscite process.

I take my hat off to and congratulate those in the 'yes' campaign who successfully argued, and convinced many millions of Australians who voted yes, that 'of course' religious freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, parental rights and thoughts would be protected. I think there are many millions of Australians who took them at their word when they said, 'No, this is just about allowing same-sex marriage couples to be married. There are no other consequences.' For that reason, I foreshadow that once the second reading stage concludes and we move into consideration stage I will be moving an amendment to further strengthen the religious freedoms in the bill. I will also be supporting a range of other amendments that I'm aware will be moved by my colleagues to acquit our obligation to represent all Australians where it doesn't conflict with what we're fundamentally doing in this bill, changing the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry.

Some have argued that no further amendments are necessary, because doing so seeks to address problems that don't exist. Sadly, these are the same people who, when arguing against the postal plebiscite in February last year, said that we shouldn't do it, because it would unleash a torrent of harassment and abuse towards gay and lesbian Australians. I suspect some of them sincerely felt that, but I suspect others used that as an excuse not to support the pathway to where we have arrived today.

Sadly, as many members have noted in this House, it turned out that most of that harassment and abuse came from some very extreme elements of the 'yes' case. I had no doubt during the campaign that decent, honest, well-meaning 'yes' voters would have cringed at half of those events where 'no' voters in particular were treated extraordinarily badly, but that does show there is a sizeable group that don't have tolerance for any other views and certainly don't have tolerance for the five million Australians who voted no. Some of these events included white powder being sent to the 'no' campaign offices; an attempted car bombing; death threats; activists harassing almost every 'vote no' event; threatening behaviour, in a couple of cases jumping on the stage at 'no' campaign events; calling for the death of 'no' voters; and, of course, the high-profile case of a 'no' voting teenager being sacked when she expressed her view on social media.

These are the examples that found their way into the media. I suspect there were countless others where an absolute intolerance was shown by, I think, a minority of those who were purporting to be 'yes' voters. They were a small minority, but a very damaging minority nonetheless. That's why this bill must do everything it can to acquit the promises that so many people in this chamber made that there would be no further consequences for religious freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of thought and parental rights.

In coming to this debate—a really significant debate in the time that I've been in this parliament—I had a look at my maiden speech and reflected on it. In that speech I spoke about the two greatest influences on my life—my family and my faith. It is clear to me that these two influences, for me personally, have also been the two influences that have had the most profound impact on our society. I think few can deny that. As an Australian of Lebanese descent, and a Maronite Catholic, I think I have greater insights into the hesitance of so many ethnic communities in supporting a change to the definition of marriage. As we saw from the results throughout the country—and I don't think it is controversial to say this—areas with a high proportion of people either born overseas themselves or with a parent or two parents born overseas overwhelmingly had a much lower 'yes' vote. A range of electorates, particularly throughout Western Sydney, had a very significant 'no' vote. The electorate of Blaxland, for example, had a 'no' vote in the 70s.

In reflecting on my faith and reflecting on my heritage as a first-generation Australian, I came across a very important quote from the Maronite bishop Antoine-Charbel Tarabay, who is the leader of my church. He said it more eloquently than me when he said the following: 'For us Maronites, our faith is more than just a set of beliefs. It is a way of life and a constant reminder of the persecution and hardships that our forefathers had to endure to preserve this faith and to pass it on to us. We hope and pray that Australia, this generous nation that has welcomed millions and millions of migrants, will continue to respect and protect the religious freedoms of all people.' That absolutely summed up, I think, the feelings of so many Australians in this debate, and I think it sums it up for them regardless of their faith, whether that be a Christian faith, Hindu, Sikh, Islamic, Buddhist or other. But so many of those communities have witnessed, seen firsthand, experienced and, in many cases, suffered the bitter consequences of religious intolerance and persecution. That is why so many of them today are absolutely begging that this House absolutely acquits our responsibility to conform to the overwhelming wishes of the Australian people and change the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry, but that, importantly, we live up to the commitments of so many and provide absolutely stringent religious freedoms—freedom of speech; freedom of thought; freedom of conscience—and protections for those who subscribe to a traditional view of marriage.

We've seen in so many jurisdictions around the world who draw on the same bodies of law that we do—the same international obligations on discrimination, antidiscrimination laws and human rights laws—that those who hold a traditional view of marriage suffer disadvantage in their society in a post-same-sex-marriage world. I don't think anyone in this chamber wants to see that. So, even if you think it's unnecessary, for the avoidance of doubt, I would be urging everyone in this chamber to support the amendment that I will move, and the amendments that I know many of my colleagues will move, to strengthen the freedoms in this bill. None of them are to provide any ability for discrimination against gay and lesbian Australians; they are just protections that provide those who hold a traditional view of marriage the comfort that they will not be harangued, harassed, or in some other way suffer a financial or legal disadvantage by holding on to their traditional views of marriage, because, as Bishop Tarabay said, for so many Australians, including me, these are deep-seated values. These are values and freedoms that brought so many communities to our country to start with. And, as Liberals and Nationals particularly, if we don't protect those freedoms, who will?

See this speech in context