George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate the thoughts of the previous speaker, the member for Goldstein, and those who are opposing this, but there is one consideration that I don't know has been taken into account, and that is that there are many churches and other religions which under Commonwealth law do not have status to provide marriage certificates. They are small churches. Some of them are very independent churches, with just a single pastor and his congregation. Often, the ministers of those particular denominations or independent churches go out individually and apply for a civil celebrants licence because it is an easier thing to do; there is much less red tape than going through the process of getting the Attorney-General to look at covering them as a religious organisation. A lot of them are evangelical churches with strongly held biblical beliefs around marriage. In knocking this amendment down, you're going to be saying to all of those pastors that they can no longer abide by the principles and articles of faith of their religion. They are going to have to give away the right to marry. That is basically what you're saying. Those pastors are no longer going to be able to marry, because in doing so they're going to put themselves and, I guess, their entire congregations at risk of litigation and at risk of being hauled before the Human Rights Commission. I've got to say it's a very dangerous area that we've slid into if that is indeed what this House wants to do. We're effectively then saying that even for a religion, even for a pastor, there is no out for them unless they're covered by something that's very difficult to get, and that's the Attorney-General's exemption.

I see some members shaking their heads, but it is actual fact: it is true. I know of several pastors in my own electorate that have arrangements like this. They are civil celebrants in their own right. They do not belong to a bigger denomination, and right now, if the House knocks back this amendment, they are going to be forced to perform same-sex marriages or they're going to have to give up that licence. So there's no freedom of religion here for those people. I take the argument—I don't agree with it, but I take it—of the previous speaker, the member for Goldstein, about freedom of religion. Well, I tell you what: if that's freedom of religion, it's not worth the paper it's written on.

If our freedom of religion is simply leaving our faith behind at the church door, the synagogue door or the mosque door and not actually putting it in practice in our own lives—particularly when it comes to ministers of religion and what they have to do in the course of their jobs—then this House is effectively eroding freedom of religion, freedom of faith and freedom to act out in the conscience of your faith. This is even for those civil celebrants who, for whatever reason, decide they're going to be civil celebrants but are Christians. Again, I know people like that in my own electorate. Their freedoms are going to be eroded here.

I would say: think very carefully about what you're going to do. It goes further than what you think. In doing this, you're going to be ensuring that there are a lot of people who would otherwise support this bill that will no longer be able to do so.

See this speech in context