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

I rise to oppose this amendment. Can I start by saying I acknowledge the member for Canning's genuine and deeply held views about protecting religious freedom, but I think they're misplaced in this case. I want to start by reiterating points that have been made in this debate already. The bill before the House does not have one word or clause that restricts the religious freedoms of Australians in relation to their views on marriage. In fact, the bill is designed to protect those rights in relation to marriage itself. It includes protections for ministers of all faiths, for religious organisations and for existing celebrants. The bill sits alongside existing laws that protect the rights of religious schools to teach as they believe they should, or that make discrimination against employees because of their religious or political views illegal. I draw the House's attention particularly to section 351 of the Fair Work Act.

I come to this debate recognising the fundamental importance of religious freedom and free speech. It is why I support the government's decision to establish the Ruddock review. That review will provide us with a proper opportunity to soberly reflect on the adequacy of current Australian law. I oppose this amendment for a number of more specific reasons. First, the amendment goes well beyond issues relating to marriage alone. If you need any evidence of that, it is revealed in its explicit reliance on seven constitutional heads of power other than marriage itself, including the corporations power, external affairs, trade and commerce, territories, telecommunications, banking and even the insurance power.

Second, this amendment seeks to fundamentally redefine the role of the Commonwealth in our federation. It will act to extinguish the rights of states to legislate in certain areas, including their own discrimination laws and their current responsibility for public schools in certain areas. That is no small decision. And they are exactly the types of issues that need to be properly considered as part of the Ruddock review.

Third, the amendment radically winds back existing protections for the LGBTI community, in a legally unorthodox and unprecedented way. I do not believe that in a debate that follows Australians voting for greater equality, this parliament should be endorsing legislative changes that reduce that equality for LGBTI citizens. This is at the heart of the problem with what the proponents of this and some of the other amendments are trying to achieve. It is asserted that this is about protecting freedoms. But those freedoms, as the member for Canning himself acknowledged, only extend so far as the right to manifest beliefs relating to the gay and lesbian community and particularly same-sex marriage. They are specific and discriminatory as a result. Nowhere in the amendment are similar protections afforded to Australians who hold beliefs in favour of same-sex marriage. In other words, it offers only one side of protections, and that is wrong.

Finally, I want to touch on the issue of parental rights. This amendment allows parents to withdraw their children from classes where material is being taught or presented that might be contrary to their beliefs on same-sex marriage, sex outside marriage or, more broadly, same-sex relationships. There is a debate to be had about parental rights and there is certainly a debate about whether these provisions which override the states are actually constitutional. Two things need to be clear. First, parental choice is implicit in Australia's system of school education, which allows parents to send, with considerable federal funding support, their children to schools that reflect their values—and this is how it should be. Second, in our public education system, a key principle is the universality of that educational experience. Our states rightly permit parents to decide whether their child will attend religious instruction in a public school. But this amendment goes well beyond that. It will mean parents can withdraw their child from any class—civics, history, literature or science, for example—but only in matters relating to same-sex relations. It is not a broad right for parents.

At the practical level, where a school under this amendment has to give a week's notice in writing to all parents about the teaching or presentation of material that might offend, there is a real issue about whether it is actually workable. I want to give one example. Recently, a local student interviewed me about marriage equality as part of a project which required students of his class to interview a community leader about an issue of their choice. Under this amendment, when that student stood up in the class to present his report, the teacher would have been required to immediately shut him down while the school provided a week's notice to parents on the potential subject matter.

I understand the desire of members of this House to protect freedoms, including those relating to religion, but now we have a process established by the government for that to be properly done. I therefore urge the House to vote against this amendment.

See this speech in context