Jason Falinski (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. I do not wish to detain the House for long in moving to a vote on this matter but I did feel that it was proper to explain briefly to this chamber why I will be voting in the manner and form in which I shall be voting. I cannot say that I had some sort of road-to-Damascus experience, an epiphany brought about because someone I loved or respected or held in high regard had shared with me their experience and its injustices were so clear and the virtues so sure that they pleaded like angels, trumpet tongued, against it. The truth is: for as long as I can remember, I have known people who were gay and were treated no differently except—and this is a rather large exception—under the law.

My father had a business partner who openly lived with his boyfriend at a time when homosexuality was illegal in New South Wales. One of my good friends in the Liberal Party was Ross Barlow. I say this because he recently passed away. He lived with his boyfriend and partner for over 50 years. As he lay in the hospital bed, delirious from his long illness, he asked me if the postal ballot had been successful. Unfortunately, Ross passed away before I could answer that question definitively.

Homosexuality has never really struck me as being unusual or, honestly, that different. I guess it would be easy for me to hide behind the clarion call of democracy in support of my views. We gave the people a voice and they spoke with a roar. In Mackellar, 84 per cent of people voted and nearly 70 per cent said yes. But I'm also persuaded, as many who have come before us have noted, that replacing the tyranny of dictators with the tyranny of the majority is no advance. Instead, I believe that government is at its noblest when it is providing freedom to its citizens, when those freedoms do not impinge adversely on any single person and are giving voice to those freedoms. To have a freedom that cannot be properly exercised is also no advance. If government is to regulate marriage then it should be regulated to ensure everyone has access to it.

As a practising Catholic, I accept that my personal views on marriage may no longer be expressed in law. However, it weighs more heavily on me that I should not use government to enforce upon others my personal views. Just as I would not want those opposite to impose their personal views on me, it is not unreasonable for them to ask that I do not impose my personal views on them. Few of us in this House are gods. And few of us always know what is good for us, as is readily demonstrated on a daily basis. So how can we presume to always know what is good for others? These choices, whether right or wrong, are best reserved for the individuals who are most directly impacted by them.

I know that there are many who are worried that their freedoms to express their beliefs and conscience openly and without undue constraint may be compromised by this bill. I'm obviously one of those people. A discussion about the inherent rights of those of conscience is long overdue. Compared to the United States, where these matters were considered and resolved some two centuries ago, Australia has much work to do. My distinct preference is for this discussion to be dealt with holistically rather than piecemeal in a bill designed to give expression to the people's voice by expanding the definition of marriage in law. As such, I support the Ruddock review as the best path towards protecting those rights both now and into the future.

This parliament should always look to give as much freedom to people as possible, only constrained by the removal of a right or freedom of another. Therefore, this parliament should support provisions that protect people's rights to express their conscience, and, where there is doubt, we should sow certainty. But just as importantly, this parliament should now allow people who love each other to marry.

See this speech in context