Steven Ciobo (Moncrieff, Liberal Party, Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment) Share this | Hansard source

I wanted to save my remarks in this debate for the consideration in detail stage and to make some specific comments with respect to the amendment that's before the House now. By way of general comments on the debate, I want to ensure that it gets passage as expeditiously as possible and so I will make my remarks relatively concise.

This has been, I think, a very important debate. There's no doubt that the Australian people have had their say. We saw the national result: 61.6 per cent voting yes. In Queensland it was 61.7 per cent, and my own electorate was overrepresented, compared to the national figures, at 63.8 per cent. I said all along that from my perspective there is absolutely no point in asking people to have their say if you do not respect the decision that they provide to you. On that basis, I indicated that I would support the decision of my electorate, and I'll be doing so in this debate when the bill comes before us—either amended or unamended.

With respect to the same-sex marriage debate, I think that it has actually been a very constructive process. I know there have been concerns that people harboured about the process. I know that people were expressing views that they felt perhaps there was going to be a poorly-chosen phrase and too much robustness in the debate, and that it would not be the correct way forward. But, fundamentally, I know from having had conversations with a number of gay friends, including my former chief of staff, that at the end of the process they felt validated. And I think that's a very big positive.

Having made that remark, I want to touch upon the amendment that's before the chamber and the amendments that are to come. I do believe, as others have mentioned in this debate, that there does need to be protections afforded in the legislation. Having these debates now as part of this process seems to me to be the appropriate course of action. I believe that the member for Canning's amendments, as well as the amendments that will follow, are all sound amendments and amendments that will improve the operation of the bill, notwithstanding the decision that was taken in the Senate and the investigation that the Senate committee undertook. Fundamentally, there do need to be adequate protections in place to ensure that those people who hold a different view are not subjected to discrimination for precisely the same reasons that we heard consistently put the views that this needed to be changed to ensure that there wasn't discrimination.

So, I believe that the amendments that are being put now are balanced amendments, amendments that appropriately safeguard and which provide—again, to borrow the member for Canning's language—a shield rather than a sword. This is the time to consider those in detail. I will be supporting the balance of the amendments, but I also will support the passage of the overall bill. Thank you.

See this speech in context