Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Hansard source

Well, I've said it several times. I've said it voted no as well—51 per cent, if you were listening. So, in Western Sydney we had a 'no' vote. Again, it's disappointing that here today the Labor Party think that the views of five million Australians—five million people who voted no—should go unrepresented. I want to address that briefly today, because it is vital in a democracy that the rights of minorities are protected as much as the rights of the majority, and five million people voting no is a substantial minority. And look at what has happened over the past few years. I draw the attention of the House to the rank hypocrisy we've seen in this debate. I've been here for the last 10 years. Some of you opposite who are here right now have not. We have voted to deny same-sex marriage seven times in this House since I've been here—seven times in this chamber. When John Howard inserted the traditional definition of marriage, as being between a man and a woman, it was unanimously supported by every person in this chamber at that time. It was unanimously supported by every member of the Labor Party, every member of the Liberal Party and every member of the National Party. It wasn't that long ago.

Since then, the House has voted to deny a vote on this more than seven times. Since then, we've had the Labor Party change its position so that it would not be possible to be a Labor member of parliament and hold a 'no' position on same-sex marriage—and, in a few years, you will not be allowed to be preselected in the Labor Party. The biggest and most shameful part of the debate is that we are not genuinely having a conscience vote in this parliament—not in the Senate and not in the House of Representatives. The Labor Party is not free to vote on religious freedom amendments. Members of the Labor Party are not free to exercise their conscience. I want to record for this House, without naming any individuals, that there are members of the Labor Party in this House and in the Senate today who do oppose same-sex marriage, who do have a different view, and who are concerned for religious freedom. They hold those concerns, yet they are not free to exercise their conscience. They exist, they are there—out of respect for them, I will not name them—but they are not free. That is not leadership from the Leader of the Opposition.

I want to praise Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull for the decision he's taken. It takes courage to allow your members a free vote when you know they disagree with you. There is courage in the Liberal and National parties because our leaders, the former Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister, allow us the freedom to exercise our conscience on these issues. The Labor Party, under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, denies a free vote, so we will not actually have a conscience vote in this parliament. It is to the shame and discredit of this parliament that a genuine conscience vote on an important question like this will not be conducted. It hasn't been conducted in the Senate. We know members of the Labor Party will be bound on these amendments that we are proposing—and I will speak to the amendments that may be foreshadowed shortly.

I believe it is a failure of parliamentary process when we can't have a conscience vote. I thank the Prime Minister for bringing forward also an additional process that will take stock of religious legislation in Australia, led by a former member of this place, Philip Ruddock, and an eminent persons panel. It will give us another layer of protection, given that the Labor Party will not allow their members to consider religious freedom amendments. The consideration of those amendments is vital to the construction of this bill. Rather than being so concerned with emotion—we have let our reason give way to our emotion in this debate—we should be concerned with the construction of the law. We should be concerned with the rights of individuals. We should be concerned with the rights of the minority. That is the role of legislators in this place. We should not allow reason to give way to emotion in this debate. We must apply reason to ensure that the rights of the five million who voted no are respected as much as the rights of the eight million who voted yes.

It is as Alexis de Tocqueville said in Democracy in America: if you have unchecked political power, it leads to the tyranny of the majority. The greatest danger that de Tocqueville saw was that public opinion would be become an all-powerful force and the majority could tyrannise unpopular minorities and marginalised individuals. It's one of the most powerful discussions of democracy that has ever been had. The concept of the tyranny of the majority is one that we must resist in this parliament. It is why members of the Liberal and National parties will bring forward amendments in this House, as they did in the Senate, to ensure that we have protections for religious freedom at the same time that we provide for same-sex marriage. It's what our reason must consider as we pass a law of this nature. To not allow a free vote, to not allow an exercise of conscience when we are having a conscience debate on religious freedoms, allows the Labor Party to be ruled by the tyranny of the majority.

The coalition respects religious freedoms. Liberal and National senators, along with some independent senators, voted to protect religious freedoms. I suspect that, when this vote comes to a head and the amendments are considered, it will be the Liberal and National members of the parliament who are on the side of protecting religious freedom and ensuring that we have those important protections by way of amendments to this bill. There is no doubt that this bill has not sufficiently addressed the matters of protection of religious freedom, freedom of conscience and freedom of thought. There is need for vital amendments to this bill. There is nothing wrong with considering those amendments in a free and open debate. I say to the Labor Party again: why won't you allow your members the freedom to consider, in good conscience, amendments to protect religious freedom in Australia? There are five million people who voted no. Most of those 'no' voters come from Labor electorates in Western Sydney. Why wouldn't we respect them and allow for a free debate on this important topic?

The coalition respects religious freedom. Individual coalition members will be moving amendments to respect religious freedoms. It's a triumph of politics over the whole process, which will not allow a genuine conscience debate on those amendments. I would say again to members that, when we pass laws, we take into account all of the things that the Australian people are telling us. In this postal survey, they very clearly told us that they have no problem with same-sex marriage in Australia. But in many surveys since then and before then, with the same rate of support for same-sex marriage, they have also said they are concerned with protecting religious freedom in Australia. It ought to be a fundamental concern for Australians and for members of this parliament. We hear so much from the Labor Party about the results of opinion polls—that people have supported same-sex marriage constantly for a long time—but they've also supported respect for religious freedoms at that rate for the same amount of time. It would be good to see Labor coming forward and genuinely entering into negotiation to ensure that those freedoms are protected while we legislate for this historic change in our society.

I have been a consistent supporter of traditional marriage and, in this respect, I intend to join with colleagues and move an amendment. I foreshadow that amendment, which I will speak to later in this debate. I believe these amendments will support and help preserve the vital freedoms of thought, speech, conscience and religion that we have in Australia. Whenever we pass laws of this nature, we must have these as primary concerns. Our reason must not give way to our emotion. Our role as a parliament is to find in this debate the balance of freedoms to ensure that one right does not override another right, and we must seek to prevent any abuse of rights as we change our society. We do not want to come back here in the years ahead and attempt to repair matters that we could prevent by the way of substantive amendments to this bill.

We can now have same-sex marriage and we can also have important protections for religious freedom in Australia. The rights and the concerns of the five million Australians who voted no are just as important as the eight million people who voted yes. We can, and we should, engage our reason in this debate, not our emotion. We should not allow groupthink or collectivism in the Labor Party to prevent us from having a genuine conscience vote on important protections for freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. We need to amend this bill. I'll make the case for the amendments when I speak to those amendments. But I say to the House that we should get this right now. We should legislate religious freedom and protections now, and we should not let reason give way to emotion.

See this speech in context