Trent Zimmerman (North Sydney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to speak briefly on this, particularly in response to that last contribution. But I will say something up-front, because the assertion was made by the mover that voting against this amendment was voting against freedom of conscience.

There are a number of reasons which lead me to vote against this amendment. First, this amendment basically creates two separate definitions of marriage. When we're talking after a postal survey where so many Australians wanted equality of marriage, I think that to say there are two different types of marriage is fundamentally wrong. Marriage will be marriage under every circumstance under this act and that's how it should be.

Secondly, in relation to celebrants and this whole issue of religious freedoms, I want to make one key point which flows through many of the amendments that are presented today. The right to religious freedom is expressed as absolute, but, in all of these amendments, the right to religious freedom only extends as far as being able to discriminate against same-sex couples wanting to be married. For example, the traditional marriage celebrant proposed by this amendment can't decide that he or she doesn't support interfaith marriages, or can't decide that they want to refuse to marry divorcees. It's only for same-sex couples where the right to religious freedom is extended. I think that is why it's regarded as so discriminatory.

Particularly in relation to the point that the previous speaker made, I want to clarify that section 5(1) of the act as it currently stands allows for the recognition of ministers from small and emerging churches. It allows people who are not ministers of recognised churches to so register. That means that they will be covered and allowed to exercise the rights of ministers.

See this speech in context