Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm conflicted here today. This is not an easy debate for many of us. We don't discriminate in this country by virtue of the colour of someone's skin, nor do we discriminate against someone by virtue of their race or their physical or intellectual disability, and nor should we. Nor should we discriminate against someone by virtue of their sexual preference. But discrimination is something that goes both ways. Respect is something that should go both ways. I understand that many members of the LGBTI community feel that they have been discriminated against for many years. I understand that. It is not right that they have been discriminated against for many years not just by the community but by the laws of this country.

In my second reading speech on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017, I gave a very personal story of our family's journey and my own journey to get to the point I've reached on the issue of same-sex marriage. Since I've done so, I've received a lot of support from my colleagues here and my colleagues on the other side of the chamber, and I'm very appreciative of that. I've received a lot of support from friends and family back home. But, unfortunately, I've also received a lot of abuse. Bear in mind I said in my speech in the second reading debate that I supported the right of same-sex couples to marry. I said that I would respect the will of the Australian people who strongly—very strongly—supported same-sex marriage. I said in my speech that I had changed my mind. Yet, since having delivered my own speech, I was subjected to hate speech and I was subjected to ridicule of my own faith. Respect is a two-way street. It is that ridiculing of my own faith that convinces me that we must have the protections of religious beliefs that are contained in this amendment.

In the lead-up to this debate, I met with a number of delegations in support of same-sex marriage and I met with those that oppose the bill. When I met with a number of religious leaders in my electorate recently, they—rightly, in my view—asked me this question: 'Andrew, if this bill comes in, will we have the right to say from the pulpit on Sunday that in this church we believe that marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others for life, without fear that we will be hauled before the courts or a tribunal for discrimination?' They asked me whether their religious schools would have the same right for their teachers to be able to say the same thing. The answer is that currently there are no clear protections for religious leaders that mean they can stand up and preach that from the pulpit or that school religious teachers are able to say the same thing. There are no clear protections for them, and that is why I believe that these amendments should be supported. But that does not mean, and I want to make this very clear, that I do not support the bill in its original form, insofar as people of all sexual preferences should be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

See this speech in context