Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Preventing Family Violence) Share this | Hansard source

We'll be opposing these amendments. These amendments largely reflect the Paterson amendments that were lost by 44-20 in the Senate when this bill was before the Senate. I seek to oppose the amendments on the basis of three sets of reasons: the first being procedural, the second being principle and the third being the merits.

The procedural reason to oppose the amendments, with the greatest respect to the member for Canning, is that any amendment to this bill will cause a delay because there will then be a disagreement between the houses, and a delay in the passage of marriage equality will break the nation's heart. We don't know how long that delay would be, but we do know it could go for some time. It is manifestly unfair to ask people to wait longer for marriage equality. People have waited long enough for marriage equality. We should not amend this bill. There are people like my friend Berenice, who is in her 80s and in hospital very ill, are waiting on the passage of this bill, and there will be many other elderly people who are as well. Let's do what the nation has asked us to do and get this done.

The second set of reasons is principles. Amendments such as these, which are radical departures from the state of the current Australian law, may well be things that we should consider, but they should be considered in a way that is appropriate and in a way that has opportunities for detailed consideration and review. The Ruddock panel that has been established will be the ideal place for these amendments to be considered and discussed in detail. For example, these amendments were not covered in the consensus Senate report that came out of the select committee, which was a cross-party committee, earlier this year. There has been no opportunity for detailed review, detailed submissions or detailed consideration of these specific amendments. As I say, it may well be that collectively we seek to create new rights or change the way that religious protections are established in this country. I look forward to engaging in a constructive manner with the member for Canning and others next year when the Ruddock panel is underway, because I'm certainly in favour of protecting human rights, including the rights to freedom of religion.

The third set of reasons to oppose these amendments is on merit. As I say, it's difficult because these amendments are so radical and do depart from the existing Australian law and we haven't had detailed consideration of them in an orderly fashion. There is an attempt to rush them through the parliament, but let me make some observations having made that caveat. In terms of the freedoms that are sought to be enacted in this bill, we're talking here about new provisions that are unlike, really, anything that we have in Australian law. The freedoms are, as I say, something that should be considered in detail, but we need to also remember that, when we talk about human rights, it is almost always the case that human rights compete with each other and that balances have to be struck. I think most people reading, in particular, proposed section 88J and the related sections would have concerns about whether the correct balance has been struck with them.

The no-detriment provision that's been provided is unorthodox. It provides greater protection than similar provisions in respect of attributes such as sex, race and disability. The language that is used in the no-detriment clause prohibits people being treated unfavourably for the reason set out in the provision, yet for sex, race or disability you have to show that you have been treated less favourably than someone who has doesn't have the relevant attribute. Why have a different test in respect of this particular no-detriment provision? Again, there may be a good case for this, but it's something we should discuss and hear, and at the moment I have very grave concerns about that particular issue. Similarly, there may be a case that all of those no-detriment provisions use the formulation that the member for Canning has proposed and that Senator Paterson had previously proposed.

Finally, on parental rights: this provision seems to be trying to create a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Parents already choose which schools to send their children to, of course, and they seek to send them to schools that align with their views. The Law Council of Australia has advised that the bill and the legalisation of marriage equality, of same-sex marriage, do not do anything to change teacher professional development or the learning resources made available to schools, and I note that people have sought— (Time expired)

See this speech in context