Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Preventing Family Violence) Share this | Hansard source

The Senate voted against these same amendments by 44 to 20. It is unfortunately incorrect to predict that, if this amendment were to be passed, it would just mean an extra hour of the Senate's time. There is no way, frankly, that the member can predict that this will take an extra hour of the Senate's time. It is equally possible—in fact, much more likely, given the gap between the yeses and the noes in the Senate when this precise amendment was put before the Senate—that the Senate would refuse this amendment. The consequence of that, of course, would be a stalemate in the disagreement between the houses.

I know we all enjoy each other's company here, but I don't want to spend the next few weeks with the members in this House. I would like, and I'm sure that many other people would like, to get home. But much more important than what I want is what the people of Australia want. They don't want us to continue arguing for several more weeks or potentially longer. They don't want us to continue to fight. They want us to pass marriage equality, and the only way that we can be sure that marriage equality passes today is to pass the bill unamended. We know that these amendments were already debated and ventilated fully in the Senate when the bill was before the Senate recently.

This particular amendment—to go to some of the concerns that have been raised by the honourable member opposite—deals with the question of chaplains and military marriage officers. He seeks to change them to authorised officers rather than the marriage officers foreshadowed in the bill. The purpose of the provision in the bill was that chaplains could retain their religious exemption from having to perform same-sex marriages. The purpose is that chaplains would not be put in a position where they would have to solemnise marriages in a way inconsistent with their religious beliefs.

The consensus cross-party Senate inquiry report stated:

In relation to military chaplains, the committee notes that the proposed amendment would not change the current law. Should a—

future—

parliament consider introducing marriage equality in Australia, the committee suggests that the government consider reintroducing the concept of 'marriage officers' to facilitate the marriage of Australians overseas.

In other words, the point of these officers is to be officers who will undertake secular marriages for same-sex couples in the event that chaplains do not wish to do so on the basis of their religious beliefs. The purpose is to ensure that marriage equality is genuine, including for people serving in the military, so that they are not denied the rights of civilians because there happens to not be someone who is prepared to officiate their wedding. Why would someone who opposes marriage equality take up the office of marriage officer, knowing it has been created to ensure that same-sex couples can get married? It is beyond belief. This amendment is unnecessary. I understand the intent, but it is unnecessary. It ought not be supported.

The other issue with this amendment is that it seeks to include conscientious belief as well as religious belief. We have already ventilated that argument well and truly. Members are aware of the results of previous divisions in which that was an issue.

I urge the House to reject the amendment, pass the marriage bill and allow us all to continue to move forward.

See this speech in context