Chris Crewther (Dunkley, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm very pleased to be seconding these amendments moved by the member for Mitchell today, as well as supporting all of the five protection amendments. I want to quickly note again my reasoning for supporting these amendments. I have my own religious beliefs about what Christian marriage is, but I voted yes in the postal survey as I believe in freedom and equality under the law and in not restricting the definition of marriage, so as to allow for any two consenting adults to marry under state law. I also said publicly I would vote yes on the final bill in accordance with the will of the people. At the same time, I would hope that colleagues supporting allowing any two consenting adults to marry would support the freedom of individuals who hold a genuine belief to express their belief and not be forced to act contrary to that belief. That is why I am backing these amendments today. In essence, my reasoning for taking on both positions is my fundamental belief and freedom.

The current bill allows for the appointment of authorised celebrants by the Chief of Defence Force to conduct weddings if the CDF has a force deployed and if there is member of the Defence Force overseas who is going to get married. That could mean that a Christian or Muslim officer with a belief that marriage is only between a male and a female could be appointed as an authorised celebrant without taking regard of that individual's conscientious objection. Being under instruction, that officer would not be able to oppose an order to take on that position nor, once they were in that position, would they be able to choose not to marry a couple of the same sex, even if that conflicted with their own personal religious convictions.

What these amendments do is recognise an individual's personal beliefs and convictions before the appointment is made. Before the CDF makes the appointment, they should ask whether the officer would be happy to conduct same-sex weddings. If they were happy then the appointment could go ahead. If they weren't then—recognising the individual's right to their beliefs and their religious views—another officer who was happy to solemnise any marriage could be appointed instead. In summary, all these amendments mean is that the Chief of the Defence Force would need to check that the officer was happy to conduct all marriages between two consenting adults, and that person could then be appointed. These amendments simply lay down a competence check. This is in line with international human rights law.

In addition, I would note that this gives the ability of an officer to refuse an appointment by the CDF, if that officer had a conscientious or religious objection, or to consider the willingness of the person to take on that role in the first place. These amendments are consistent with the February 2017 report of the Senate Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill, which noted that celebrants who are not religious ministers should be able to refuse to solemnise a marriage consistent with their religious convictions. If these amendments are not adopted, here is a potential situation: an officer would be forced to take on an appointment as an authorised celebrant upon being ordered to do so and they would be forced to marry any two consenting adults, against their Christian or Islamic or other religious faith.

Let be me clear, as a person who received bullying at a young age for being gay, even though I'm not gay, and who also received bullying for being a Christian, I do not want to see discrimination against either. A person should not be discriminated against simply because of their sexual preference or perceived sexual preference. At the same time, I don't think we should eliminate one form of discrimination and replace it with a new ability to discriminate against Christians, Muslims or people of other religious faiths, who, I might also note, are likely to be in a minority in Australia soon. That is why I ask colleagues today to support these crucial amendments to allow officers to freely exercise their religious beliefs by preventing an appointment where they would be forced to act against those beliefs.

See this speech in context