Ross Hart (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm delighted to have the opportunity to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 that we have before us in the House today. This moment has been a long time coming, and I'm so pleased and proud that the time is now here to deliver marriage equality to all Australians. As a number of members have already said in this place, particularly the member for Gellibrand, there is a considerable level of frustration at the fact that all of us here in this chamber are presenting speeches on this issue. But it's very important to me to explain why it is that I am making my contribution here today.

In my home state of Tasmania, eight out of 10 eligible voters took part in the marriage equality postal survey, with 63.6 per cent of them indicating their support for changing the law to allow same-sex couples to marry. Tasmania has a transformative history with respect to LGBTI rights, and it is heartening that a majority of Tasmanians are today supportive of marriage equality. Tasmania has experienced a significant shift in social and political attitudes ahead of national trends in that time. Many played their part, but I would like to recognise Rodney Croome in particular for his dignified, reasoned and principled activism over decades—firstly, with respect to removing criminal sanctions against members of the gay community and, subsequently and progressively, addressing issues of discrimination, culminating in this debate.

I'm thrilled that every electorate in Tasmania returned a majority 'yes' vote. I am, however, acutely conscious that the result for many in the LGBTI community involved very significant stress, anxiety and, indeed, questioning of their very identity and self-worth. I'm very sorry that this process was imposed upon this community. I cannot begin to understand what it would be like to have my feelings of self-worth, my sexuality or my identity questioned in the full glare of the political process with the opportunity for prejudice and discrimination to be brought to the fore despite every exhortation for reasoned and respectful debate.

Nevertheless, given the fact of the survey and its sanctioning by the High Court, it was vitally important that those seeking marriage equality campaigned for a successful result. In my electorate of Bass, around 55,000 participants completed the postal survey, with 61.7 per cent supporting a change in the law. My office played host to a 'yes' campaign official announcement party on 15 November. Members of the LGBTI community and their friends, allies and supporters gathered to watch the ABS deliver the result. The electorate office was bursting at the seams, with people spilling out on to the street waiting anxiously for the result to be announced. On this occasion, it was an absolute pleasure to stand by and watch as history was being made. This was a time for those with a personal interest in the matter to speak out and have their voices heard. I personally felt that this was not a time for appropriation of the result by those without that vital personal interest.

I'd like to recognise the efforts of everyone involved in the 'yes' campaign and give a special mention to the Bass volunteers. This was truly an issue that encouraged people to become politically motivated. I must also acknowledge Rick Marton, Mara Schneider and everyone else in Launceston who worked hard to push marriage equality forward over the years—in particular, Susie Clarke, 'super grandma' and tireless supporter; David Broughton, master letter writer; and Ray Mostogl, business leader. A big thank you also to the team from Party in the Paddock and LUSY Productions for getting enrolments together in the lead-up to the survey.

My office had a group of around 20 volunteers knocking on doors, hosting street stalls, making calls and putting up posters. It was a small group, but each and every member displayed such a passion and enthusiasm for the task at hand. I would particularly like to acknowledge those people for whom the 'yes' campaign was their first experience of campaigning. Jacob, Robyn, Mikala, Petra, Elaura, Katrina, Hilda, Harriet and Cordelia, thank you.

I well recall campaigning in one shopping centre. We identified what we called the 'nanna factor'—a succession of elderly people who exhorted us that it was now time for marriage equality. That factor was proved time and time again in many electorates across Australia, with 133 electorates recording a positive response. The overwhelming positive outcome of the postal survey was a clear directive from the Australian people to their parliament: 'Just get this done.'

There are those who seek to minimise and belittle the result. For example, some are claiming that less than 50 per cent of eligible voters have supported a change in this legislation. I absolutely reject any such contention. The government made it clear that, in introducing legislation to conduct a plebiscite, it was seeking to fulfil an election promise. It indicated at that time that, if the plebiscite was unable to be passed by the parliament, it would conduct this postal survey on the same principles. Whilst the survey didn't require any enabling legislation, it is instructive to review the defeated bill to conduct the plebiscite. The 2016 bill was never expressed to require a majority of all enrolled voters. It is absolutely ridiculous and intellectually bankrupt to claim that either the defeated plebiscite or this survey required a majority of eligible voters to support the proposition. Rather, it is significant that Australians have provided leadership to the parliament on this issue—leadership that the Prime Minister could not deliver.

Those everyday Australians have told us, loud and clear, that they want to live in a country of fairness, of tolerance, of equal rights for all. Of the cohort who voted no, there were some who expressed their views by reference to their religious beliefs without expressing any sense of intolerance towards the LGBTI community. I acknowledge and thank them for their representations to me and the courtesy with which they made those approaches, which were many, both for and against the bill. Unfortunately, there were many who, in the name of religion, wished to revisit many of the antidiscrimination provisions introduced by each of the states and the Commonwealth over more than 20 years and, in particular, seemed to argue for a return to the dark days when same-sex relationships were not acknowledged and in some cases had potential criminal consequences. My firm view is that, if it is necessary and appropriate to provide for express freedoms, this legislation should not be amended so as to provide for those freedoms. As a number of people have already said in this place, as a matter of principle, piecemeal amendment of this legislation will do a disservice both to the LGBTI community and to any religious seeking the protection associated with religious beliefs and rights. It is significant that there are already state based and federally based antidiscrimination provisions, not only within antidiscrimination legislation but also within legislation like the Fair Work Act, which prohibits discrimination with respect to particular characteristics, including religious belief. This means that in most cases a person may not be the subject of discrimination with respect to a religious belief or religious practice. In contrast, there are express exemptions with respect to some discriminatory issues—in particular, sexuality—which benefit those who claim a religious connection, such as a church or a school which is based upon religious principles.

I appreciate that, during the survey, many in the 'no' case argued that freedom of speech with respect to the exercise of religion was already under threat, both here and overseas, and would face a further threat if same-sex marriage was made lawful. My understanding is that many of the examples given of supposed consequences of same-sex marriage, particularly in the international context and in the context of a notorious case involving the Catholic archbishop of Hobart, involved conflict between antidiscrimination provisions that benefit both those who are LGBTI and also those who are religious. Those arguments appear to me to be misconceived, because they relate to the right of the LGBTI community to be free from discrimination, not to the right to be married.

There is no doubt that the LGBTI community deserves the right to live their lives free from discrimination, as do those who profess religious belief. I absolutely believe that it's possible to practice deeply held religious beliefs without in turn engaging in conduct which, for example, from section 17 of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act:

… offends, humiliates, intimidates, insults or ridicules another person …

But as I've already said, parliaments have already decided that in certain limited cases those who profess a particular religious view shall be free, notwithstanding antidiscrimination law, to act in a discriminative manner with respect to employment of persons.

I'm quite prepared to consider the outcome of the inquiry which is to be undertaken by Mr Ruddock. The irony of the right of politics effectively seeking the introduction of a bill of rights with respect to the exercise of religious freedom has already been identified by the member for Goldstein in several public statements. I firmly believe every family deserves the stability and recognition marriage confers, and that is why I stand here today in support of this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context