Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the amendments moved by the member for Canning to the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017, and I thank the House for the opportunity to do so. Today we will expand on an institution that is a cornerstone of our society, as it has been for centuries, and many of us, including me, will respect and reflect the outcome of the postal survey in the final vote on this legislation today. But I rise to speak because this bill should be one that represents all Australians, regardless of whether they voted yes or no to the question about same-sex marriage, and the only way that we can be certain of this is to support this amendment, which goes to the very core of the importance of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and parental choice.

This amendment aims to protect Australians who hold a sincere and relevant belief in traditional marriage, and, to borrow a phrase from the member for Canning, it is designed to be not a sword but a shield. The proposal protects free speech by allowing individuals to express their genuine belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, as long as the expression does not harass or threaten, as outlined in clauses 88J and 88JA of the member for Canning's amendments. Further, individuals and entities would be protected from detrimental treatment initiated against them by public authorities because of their traditional belief about marriage, as detailed in the antidetriment provisions in clauses 88K, 88KA and 88KB.

Many real-world examples highlight the importance of these sections and the need to protect individuals and entities who express traditional beliefs. In the UK, for example, in the Johns v Derby City Council case, the English High Court upheld the decision of a local council that a Christian couple with traditional views on sexual ethics would not make suitable foster carers because they would not be open to promoting a homosexual lifestyle.

And of course we know all too well of the serious case in Tasmania where a booklet outlining the Catholic position on same-sex marriage, distributed by a Catholic archbishop, was held by the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to be a possible violation of antivilification legislation. The matter proceeded to a conciliation session, but was, thankfully, abandoned after many months by the complainant.

But what I'm particularly conscious of in this amendment is the need for parents to have a right to withdraw their children from classes where the material taught in the class conflicts with their moral or religious beliefs, as contained in clause 88R of these amendments. This is absolutely vital for two main reasons. Firstly, it highlights that these amendments are not just about religion, clergymen or weddings in churches; they are also about our families, our children, our grandchildren and their freedoms, because, without these amendments, will schools, parents and teachers fear that they cannot express clearly and publicly their relevant marriage belief? Surely they ought to be able to do so, if we truly believe in freedom of expression as a reflection of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Otherwise, what is there to stop other possible consequences that we have not yet fully worked through as a nation, such as the compulsory adoption of gender neutral theory that we're already seeing outworked in some programs like Safe Schools that we know so many Australians have already raised concerns about? As I said in my earlier speech to this House, we have never yet had an entire generation of children that have grown up without gender as a reference point in their lives. Many people here may be comfortable with that, but many people may not be. And, as such, parents ought to have the freedom and the right to withdraw their children from classes at school because of a relevant marriage belief.

This for me is an important amendment to strengthen parental rights and to ensure they continue to be able to have a say over what their child is taught in class when it relates to their deeply held religious or conscientious belief. By accepting this amendment today, we are finding a way to carefully provide protections for people to articulate their longstanding beliefs on traditional marriage in a non-threatening way and to ensure we don't create a different form of inequality in law by legislating equality for same-sex marriage.

I would add that, if same-sex marriage is about legislating equality and freedom of choice, we need to be able to ensure that those same freedoms are also protected for those who still believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. There are, of course, in this amendment, important provisions that these views must not harass or threaten, and that protections will not be available where the person seeking protection is themselves discriminating. So I commend this amendment to the House and urge other members to carefully consider it in this important time in our nation's history.

See this speech in context