Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Vocational Education and Skills) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. There are two indisputable facts that have arisen in the public debate on same-sex marriage: (1) Australians have voted overwhelmingly to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples; and (2) Australians want to ensure that religious freedoms are safeguarded. In my view, it's incumbent upon the parliament to reconcile both with this legislation. And, as the original bill does not provide a number of specific religious safeguards in relation to the definition of marriage, these amendments are necessary.

A Newspoll in August found that in response to the question 'Do you think parliament should provide guarantees in law for freedom of conscience, belief and religion if it legislates for same-sex marriage?' 62 per cent of people said yes; 18 per cent said no; and 20 per cent were uncommitted. So roughly the same proportion of people support religious protections as support same-sex marriage. Clearly we have an equal obligation to both groups to reflect their views, and this can be done. Many people voted yes with the expectation that religious freedoms would be safeguarded. In my own electorate of McPherson, for example, 60 per cent of people in the 2016 census actively identified as Christian with only 31 per cent saying they have no religion. My electorate recorded a 65.5 per cent 'yes' vote, higher than the national average. Clearly a great many people who are Christian or who are of other faiths voted yes, and I believe many did so with the expectation that religious freedoms would be safeguarded.

The Leader of the Opposition said in September:

I can give this guarantee to the Australian people: I and Labor not support legislation which impinges upon religious freedom in this country … What I promise Australians is that before the legislation for marriage equality is completed or voted on in parliament, we will make sure that concerns about religious freedom are met with and dealt with and are treated with respect.

The amendments that we are introducing today are about making sure those concerns are met and dealt with. And the Leader of the Opposition needs to honour his word and vote in support of these amendments. If he does not, I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to explain how Labor has taken into consideration the 62 per cent of Australians who want religious freedoms protected.

This bill before the House requires amendments so we can specify religious protections in regard to the definition of marriage while at the same time expanding it. There are a number of aspects identified by human rights lawyers and constitutional lawyers that are absent and should be included in this bill. These include: recognising both traditional marriages and two-person marriages as valid marriages in Australian law under the definition; protections for marriage celebrants with religious and conscientious objections; recognising legitimate beliefs on this issue and freedom of expression; an antidetriment shield provision protecting individuals and organisations with a genuine traditional marriage conviction from being subjected to unfavourable treatment by public authorities because they hold or express or lawfully act on that conviction; and freedom from being required to express, associate with or endorse a statement or opinion about marriage which is inconsistent with a person or organisation's genuine religious or conscientious convictions about marriage. Protections for charities should include non-discrimination in government funding, protection of religious bodies and schools and rights for parents to withdraw children from certain classes if the content conflicts with their religious or conscientious beliefs.

As these amendments clearly demonstrate, we can specify religious protections in regard to the definition of marriage while at the same time expanding it. Amendments to protect religious freedom will not mean a weakening of antidiscrimination laws. It's not about giving people of religion a licence to discriminate. It's about acknowledging and allowing people to maintain sincerely-held religious and conscientious personal views without them being discriminated against for those views. This is the fundamental basis of freedom of thought, religion and speech which we pride ourselves on as a Western democracy. Beliefs in same-sex marriage and traditional marriage, while oppositional in nature, should be able to exist side-by-side.

The Australian community is overwhelmingly loving, tolerant, mature and respectful enough to know that we can accommodate a wide range of views and ideas. We can agree to disagree and not see differences of opinion as some sort of short-coming to be denied and subverted. We can legalise same-sex marriage and at the same time protect the fundamental rights of those who, for religious reasons, do not personally support it. It will not make any marriage less legal. I commend the amendments to the House.

See this speech in context