Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Hansard source

And I say to the House, again: the purpose of this amendment is a practical purpose. It is to improve the quality of the legislation. It is rare that we get any bill passed without amendment through both chambers of the House. It's a quality improvement. You can support it. It will send a good signal to our service men and women and to the people who may be married by their officers who are appointed by the CDF. We don't want them finding out overseas on deployment that a genuine conscientious objection has occurred overseas or someone being ordered into the field where they have a genuine conscientious objection, remembering that they are appointed by the denomination of their religion and remembering that, while it is in the bill, it is not sufficient for them at the time. They could still be appointed by the CDF to do this even though they have that genuine conscientious objection.

So again I say to my colleagues here, on this side of the House: this is a good amendment for you to support. I've heard your arguments. I don't agree with all of them. We have a debate here in this House today genuinely, on this side of the House, between the Liberal Party and the National Party and the crossbench. We're having a genuine disagreement about some issues. We are seeking greater protections for freedom of thought, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, in these amendments. This particular amendment is particularly addressed to a matter of Commonwealth responsibility, our serving men and women, the people who are appointed by the commander of the defence forces, the Chief of the Defence Force, and we recommend it strongly to you.

I say to the Labor Party: this is your chance. This is your moment. This is where the Leader of the Opposition could step up and show some leadership. He could actually say to his members: 'This one is a practical amendment. You are free to cast your vote on this because it will not harm the bill. It will not delay marriage equality in any way, shape or form, and we will improve the legislation. We will have ensured that we have those vital protections for freedom of religion, worship and practice in our serving men and women in the arrangements that are made for the people that marry them overseas. It's practical. It's sensible. There is no reason not to do this.'

And, to the five million people who voted no, who have concerns for religious freedoms and protections, and for the 45,000 service personnel—and many of them will seek to get married overseas. Indeed, members of the same sex will seek to get married in the defence forces overseas, and nothing in this bill will prevent it. Nothing in this bill will harm it. Nothing in this bill will get in the way. In fact, it will enable it. But, at the same time, we don't want one right overriding another. Let's allow the CDF to consider that matter before he appoints that officer, to ensure this doesn't happen, and put this important and vital protection in the bill at the time we pass this legislation.

See this speech in context