Andrew Laming (Bowman, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to add to what I think have been some excellent contributions on this side. You can hear both sides of this important debate happening on this side of the chamber, and I do wish that on the other side there might have been a slightly more detailed look at these very important amendments. It seems that this side of the chamber reflects the diverse views of the nation, and the other side doesn't. Clearly, why this amendment has been put in very good faith by very good people is a concern about the pre-eminence of one form of marriage. The concern about marriage celebrants is one that deserves to be discussed, but I feel that it is not an amendment that this House should carry.

In the fundamental understandings of what discrimination is, we have two definitions. One simply recognises that a difference is discrimination. But there is also the unjust and prejudicial treatment of a group, and that is also discrimination. We find it very hard, in this place, to create rules that allow the first and prevent the latter. For that reason, we have to be extremely careful to be defining something like marriage in two ways, when this great nation has told us they are prepared to extend the definition and create one form of union between consenting couples. As I said last night, if there are Australian adults out there wishing to marry, we should be allowing them to do it. This is a world lacking love not one with surplus love. It is a world lacking love, and we need to recognise love in all its forms. That has been decided. That debate is over. Now we need to ask ourselves a simpler question: is there any need for legislation to be defining more than one form of marriage? Quite simply, there is not.

I believe there is something unique and special about my marriage, but I believe that everyone would feel the same way about their own marriage—self-evidently. We can hold to those views in a free economy and free democracy without necessarily discriminating in any way that rubs it in the face of others that their marriage is different, because that's fundamentally what you do as soon as you profess your view publicly in a way that ultimately harasses or even humiliates someone else. That's not what 99 per cent of Australians want to do, but the reality is that this debate has energised the one per cent at either end of the extreme to find a way to take this sort of stuff to court, and it's such a shame that we have to consider these kinds of amendments, hanging off what should be a beautiful bill that allows every Australian the chance to marry.

There are important discriminatory issues to be considered, but they should not be hanging off this bill. There is a time to protect charities and a time to protect individuals who are mistreated and harassed by the state for their views, but it's not necessarily in this bill. We shouldn't be using this bill as a stalking horse to advance other quasi-religious concerns when it comes to marriage.

I want to conclude by discussing the many marriage celebrants out there. There are thousands in Queensland—I come from the bible belt of south-east Brisbane—but, of all of those celebrants, I'm yet to meet one who says, 'I have a completely non-religious conviction to traditional marriage.' For goodness sake, you go to a marriage celebrant because you don't want to get married in a church. They are hardly queuing up, for that reason. Those celebrants, if they hold a religious conviction, can go back and connect with their local church. I mean, in my part of the world you can't walk down a street without running into a church. There are plenty of opportunities for that.

Those religious exemptions already exist. I say to a very deep thinking member for Fairfax on this matter: conscience is utterly important, but, in this current world, giving conscience a new non-religious avenue simply allows licence for bigotry. We have existing legislative exemptions. They overwhelmingly cover views around marriage. If you're a celebrant who happens to not have that religious conviction—I'd love to meet that unicorn. If you exist, connect with your local church and you'll be fully covered to continue your work.

Fundamentally, if you are in the business of marrying people, if you are exchanging resources for marrying people, then get over it. Occasionally you might marry a couple that you don't overly like, but in this world you can't discriminate if you don't like someone. The moment you carve out these marriage celebrant exemptions, it’s just like saying the religious exemptions should be expanded to convention facilities and extended to public halls and facilities. It's endless. We have religious convictions; we all understand what they are. They're well supported by both sides of the chamber, and that's where this exemption should stop. For that reason, despite a huge number of my supporters having a different view, I have to vote against this amendment.

An incident having occurred in the gallery

See this speech in context