Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I note the continual reference to international treaties as the basis for arguments. Having served as Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, and not being a big fan of international treaties, I find it odd that those who might ordinarily oppose international treaties raise them as the basis of an argument. It's the sort of thing would I expect from the Marxist member for Melbourne, but less so from those on the Liberal side. But let's keep the spirit right. The key point is that, if we're going to use human rights as the basis of arguments for why different amendments should be included, we should understand the principles that sit at the heart of them. The freedom of conscience is the unlimited right for you to hold an opinion and to think, to be able to hold that view. Once you get into the point of action, it has always been limited by law. Article 18.3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights—not that I think this should be the basis of law—states:

Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.

Considering that the fundamental issue before us today is the freedom to marry, it is, as far as I'm concerned, a very legitimate restriction.

See this speech in context