Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to rise to speak on the amendments moved by the member for Deakin. I will start by confirming that it's my intention to vote for the bill. My electorate voted 58 per cent yes, and 42 per cent no; therefore, I'll be voting yes to the substantive bill.

However, there are some concerns I have with the bill and there are also some concerns I have with the member for Deakin's amendment. My concerns go to the Attorney-General Department's list and a website that is titled 'Finding a marriage celebrant'. Currently, that lists three separate categories that someone can go to. The first category is 'Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants who perform civil ceremonies'. The second category is 'Commonwealth registered marriage celebrants who perform religious ceremonies for independent religious organisations'. And the third category is a list of 'ministers of religion of recognised denominations who perform religious ceremonies'.

What is proposed is that those who come under the original bill, those that come under the second two categories, can refuse to solemnise a same-sex marriage. That is what the bill provides for. It also provides for those in the first category, which is Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants who perform civil ceremonies, to elect to opt out. It will enable them to also refuse to conduct a same-sex wedding. Now, I am concerned that the government would keep any list of people with a minority view, no matter what that may be. We live in a society today where there is increasing intolerance against people with minority opinions. I am sure all those in the public galleries today would oppose that. We want to live in a society where people are able to express their differences, to say they disagree with mainstream opinion and to do so without fear of harassment or threats. What this bill does is create separate categories that would list Commonwealth-registered marriage celebrants who will perform same-sex marriages and those who won't. I do not believe that is the government's responsibility. I believe it would be far better if there were an opt-in process so that those who wish to perform same-sex weddings opt to be on that list. I do not think it is the government's responsibility to hold a separate list of those who don't.

The other concern I have is that there is a 90-day window that enables those on the first list to opt out. One of the most important things when we talk about freedom of religion is the freedom to change one's religion throughout one's life or to change one's religious beliefs over time. This bill only allows a 90-day window for someone to decide to opt out and be on another list. People must have the right in our society to change their religious beliefs over their life, but that is something that the 90-day window does not allow. I know that these issues are not going addressed by this bill or this amendment, but I would encourage the review by the Hon. Philip Ruddock, the former member for Berowra, to seriously consider these issues. We want to make sure that people in this society are not subject to any form of vilification because they hold opposing views to their fellow Australians. My fear is that what is proposed in this bill will create that opportunity for those civil marriage celebrants who have different opinions on same-sex marriage for religious reasons.

I will leave my remarks there. I hope that all members of the House would give consideration in the future to this list. It is not the government's job to have separate lists of people who hold minority opinions on any single subject.

See this speech in context