Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Hansard source

Labor will be opposing this amendment. Indeed, we will be opposing the other amendments that will be moved, for the very simple reason that this bill now needs to pass the parliament. It should pass the parliament in an unamended form. It should pass the parliament in the form in which it has come to us from the Senate because, as the member for Grayndler has already made clear, we need to get this done.

This is a bill about marriage equality. It's a bill that allows couples to marry in Australia. It allows for couples who are already married overseas to have legal recognition of their marriages at home. Contrary to the suggestion made by the member for Deakin, this is a bill for 100 per cent of Australians. To be clear about what these particular amendments do, they create a new category, described as traditional marriage, that would single out same-sex couples for discrimination. The reference in these amendments to conscientious belief might sound innocent enough on its face, but it would be unprecedented and dangerous to allow discrimination on that basis. It would be a step back from longstanding antidiscrimination provisions, and that's why Labor is very clear in our opposition to this amendment.

Australians have cast their vote already for true equality for all Australians. They did not cast their vote for new forms of discrimination to be introduced. The amendments that are put forward by the member for Deakin contain elements from the unloved and unmourned Paterson bill in the Senate, which was abandoned. If these amendments were to succeed, they would create two separate categories of marriage—an entirely retrograde step. They would create an unnecessary, artificial and unhelpful distinction between man-woman marriage and marriages between other consenting adults. The consensus report of the Senate select committee supported amending the bill that was to be introduced, amending the definition of marriage. This was a unanimous report from the Senate select committee. Paragraph 2.20 of that Senate committee report says:

The committee supports the use of '2 people' as the appropriate definition to broaden access to marriage for all Australian adults.

To make it clear, so that there's no confusion about the other aspect of these amendments, the bill that's before the House does not allow for civil celebrants to refuse to solemnise a marriage on the basis of their personal beliefs regarding same-sex marriage. What the bill does allow for is for celebrants to self-nominate as a religious marriage celebrant, if they wish, where they are a registered marriage celebrant, as for ministers of religion. Again, the bill is consistent with the Senate select committee's report from February this year, which reached a historic cross-party consensus on the pathway forward. This amendment goes in the opposite direction.

As I have said, we are very directly of the view that the introduction of conscientious belief as a justification for a refusal to perform a marriage ceremony would be a very dangerous proposition. It is contrary to the entire framework of Australia's existing antidiscrimination laws. Labor does not support the drastic extension of discrimination to include exemptions on the basis of conscientious belief. This bill is an opportunity to increase equality across Australia. It should not be used as an opportunity to increase discrimination.

See this speech in context