Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I want to address a couple of the points that have been raised. In essence, what we're hearing from those who oppose this amendment is that if you have a conscientious, deeply held view on traditional marriage, you will effectively be unable to continue to be a marriage celebrant. That is what we are hearing. That's anathema to me. That is anathema, I think, to people who hold freedoms—freedom of conscience and freedom of thought—very dear. It also is quite a peculiar argument, as I said, that if you have a deeply held religious view you are entitled to continue to be a civil celebrant, but if you have a deeply held secular view you are not. This is a distinction this House should not approve.

I also want to directly address a couple of points by my good friend the member for Brisbane, about the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which I think he referred to. General comment 22 says of article 18:

The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (which includes the freedom to hold beliefs) in article 18 (1) is far-reaching and profound; it encompasses freedom of thoughts on all matters, personal conviction and the commitment to religion or belief, whether manifested individually or in community with others.

Then general comment 22, which specifically addresses his point, provides:

The Committee draws the attention of States parties to the fact that the freedom of thought and the freedom of conscience are protected equally with the freedom of religion and belief.

Again, our Senate select committee accepted that we adhere to these beliefs under article 18 and noted:

General Comment 22 makes the specific point that equal protection is afforded to conscience, and as such any attempt to differentiate on the rights of an individual based on conscience vs religion may be contested

So here we have a Senate committee, made up of every major and minor party in this House, which has accepted that article 18 should not allow for an artificial bifurcation between religious beliefs and deeply held conscientious beliefs—and that is exactly what this bill does. If we don't support this amendment, we are saying we don't adhere to article 18, and, more perversely, we are saying that only those who have deeply held religious beliefs will be entitled to continue as civil celebrants, but those who have deeply held secular beliefs are somehow second-class citizens.

Also, just while I'm up, I want to present a supplementary explanatory memorandum, with a statement of compatibility with human rights, if leave is granted.

See this speech in context