Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the amendment moved by the member for Corangamite. I do so not because I don't want to delay the bill and see it go back to the Senate. I'm perfectly relaxed about the prospect of the Senate reconsidering the bill and the amendments that the House of Representatives passes. I agree with the member for Warringah that we never wait on the Senate—the Senate doesn't direct what the House of Representatives does. I oppose the amendment because I think it's based on a false premise. I again quote the member for Warringah, who read the first section that seeks to be changed, which is: 'Nothing in this act limits or derogates from the right of any person in a lawful manner to manifest his or her religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.' The amendment seek to introduce that into the act. But it seeks to introduce an amendment into the act for something the act doesn't do in the first place—the act doesn't derogate the rights of freedom of religion in this country—so it is based on a false premise. This amendment is designed to ensure that religious freedom is not inhibited or limited by the introduction of marriage equality.

My contention in the speech on the second reading and my contention this afternoon is that there has never been a reason to believe that marriage equality somehow inhibits the religious freedoms of ministers of religion or of institutions. And that is specifically provided for in section 116 of the Constitution, which provides for the separation of church and state, and in the actual bill that came to us from the Senate and that we are debating. Introduced by the member for Leichhardt, the sections that seek to introduce new sections to the Marriage Act 1961—sections 47, 47A, 47B and 71A—put it beyond any doubt at all that ministers of religion, Defence chaplains, religious celebrants, institutions, churches, will not be required to allow marriage equality in their institutions or to marry people of the same sex. As a legislative traditionalist, I don't believe that we should introduce unnecessary amendments into a bill to correct an injury that does not exist. Legislation should be passed by the House of Representatives that corrects an injury or a failing that we believe needs to be corrected and it should not include superfluous amendments that do nothing other than apparently correct something which, in my view, is a myth. This bill does protect religious freedom. It doesn't require anyone in Australia to act against their religious principles. Therefore, I do not support the amendment.

See this speech in context