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

I just want to correct a few things that have been said in this debate—and I do want to take a different step from the tone that was just taken in relation to Defence Force personnel.

We're not talking about the exercise of conscience on operations. Indeed, the serving men and women overseas obey their orders, and they do so, yes, as servants of the government. But military service is unique, and this amendment addresses a unique area of the Defence Force operations. I want to correct the member for Griffith and the member for Bowman about this. It was a recommendation of the Senate select committee. That is why it is in the bill. The amendment that I presented is to improve the nature of the law in the recommendation of the Senate select committee on the issue of chaplains in the Defence Force. We are dealing with that issue in this amendment, so no-one will be talking about issues of conscience amongst our serving personnel. It is specifically about the chaplains in the Defence Force, who, traditionally, have conducted marriages for service personnel overseas.

The reason it is in the bill is that it was part of the Senate select committee's considerations. They considered it. So the member for Griffith is dead wrong about that. It was recommended that it be inserted into the bill. It has been inserted into the bill; it is in the bill. What I am saying in this amendment, and in speaking to the House here, is about a workaround for what normally happens where the CDF appoints a religious officer who is also a serving officer of the Navy, Air Force or Army. What needs to be put into this bill is that we do not want to find out about a conscientious or religious objection overseas in the field. We're requiring the CDF to make that inquiry first, before appointing that officer. It could be the case under this legislation that an officer could be appointed by the CDF without that consideration taking place. It is a protection for the ministers of religion appointed by their denominations.

Let's get back to the core issue here, not the emotion. Let's get back to our reasoning in this debate. The issue is that the denominations of religion appoint these ministers to serve in the Defence Force. They are religious ministers, and it is not the principal purpose of their employment; it is the secondary purpose of their employment. The CDF appoints them to travel overseas. We do not want to find out in the field that one has been appointed to serve on an overseas mission and is required to marry a same-sex couple but they have a conscientious objection. That can happen under this bill. This is pre-emptive, it's practical and it's sensible, and it remains practical and sensible.

This is what the normal procedure of this House is. For those people here in the galleries who are watching a proceeding of parliament for the first time, this is what we do with bills. We improve them. There's no subversion; there are no underhanded tactics. We look at the law, we examine the impact of the bill and we suggest and propose practical amendments. This is one of those. It will improve the legislation and I commend it to the House.

See this speech in context