Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I move amendments (1) to (12) as circulated in my name:

(1) Clause 1, page 1 (lines 14 and 15), omit "Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017", substitute "Marriage Amendment Act 2017".

(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (lines 12 to 14), omit all the words from and including "their religion" to the end of paragraph 2A(b), substitute "their religion or the views of their religious community; and".

(3) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 17), after item 5, insert:

5A Section 6

Omit "This", substitute "(1) This".

5B At the end of section 6

Add:

(2) This Act is not intended to exclude or limit the operation of a State or Territory law dealing with anti-discrimination, to the extent that that law is capable of operating concurrently with this Act.

(4) Schedule 1, item 8, page 6 (line 21), omit "(1) The", substitute "The".

(5) Schedule 1, item 8, page 7 (lines 1 to 17), omit subsection 39DD(2) (including the subheading).

(6) Schedule 1, item 20, page 11 (lines 6 and 7), omit paragraph 47(3) (c).

(7) Schedule 1, item 21, page 11 (lines 15 to 17), omit subsection 47A(1), substitute:

Refusing to solemnise a marriage on the basis of religious beliefs

(1) A religious marriage celebrant may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite anything in this Part if:

(a) the refusal conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the religion of the celebrant's religious body or religious organisation; or

(b) the refusal is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.

(8) Schedule 1, item 21, page 11 (line 21) to page 12 (line 11), omit section 47B.

(9) Schedule 1, item 48, page 14 (lines 29 and 30), omit paragraph 81(2) (c).

(10) Schedule 1, item 63, page 17 (line 10), omit "47(3) (a), (b) or (c)", substitute "47(3) (a) or (b)".

(11) Schedule 1, item 63, page 17 (line 18), omit "the circumstances mentioned in subsection 47A(1)", substitute "any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 47A(1) (a) or (b)".

(12) Schedule 1, item 63, page 17 (line 23), omit "81(2) (a), (b) or (c)", substitute "81(2) (a) or (b)".

The Greens are moving these amendments—and these are the same amendments as were moved in the Senate—to do a number of things. I'll explain shortly and without detaining the House for too long what each of those things does. I want to make the point that of course, whether or not these amendments are successful, this bill will be supported. This is a bill that has been a long time coming and is something the Greens have campaigned for for a very long time.

The amendments that have been moved will do several things. They're important not so much for technical reasons but because the principle of this bill, and the principle of the vote of the people in the postal survey that we didn't want to have but that came back with a resounding yes, was to enshrine equality. It was to enshrine equality in our laws. It was not to further entrench discrimination. And, in our mind, there are a number of items that are in this bill that we do support as a compromise bill but that nonetheless contain elements of that compromise that we are worried might potentially open the door for further discrimination in the future.

The items with respect to civil celebrants would remove the transitional provision that allows civil celebrants who are not ministers of non-recognised religions to become religious marriage celebrants and allows them to then have the ability to refuse to solemnise marriages on the basis of their personal religious beliefs. That is because, in the bill as proposed, the proposed right of refusal for existing celebrants who are laypeople reflects a shift from giving religious organisations exemptions from our antidiscrimination law to giving individuals exemptions based on their personal religious belief.

We do note that the Coalition of Celebrant Associations say that they only expect that a very small number of people might take up that exemption, but we are worried that there is a distressing precedent that is being set by allowing individuals rather than organisations to now start claiming this question of exemption on the basis of personal religious belief. It sends, we think, the wrong message to LGBTI Australians, and we should not be opening the door to allow individuals to start claiming those kinds of exemptions. You only need to think—if you took it out of the LGBTI context and put it into another context—of someone claiming an exemption on the basis of their personal belief around another attribute to see how this could be a potentially worrying move in the future, should it be expanded.

The items regarding personal religious belief fall into the same category, and I move those for the same reasons.

I want to also draw attention to the amendments regarding the title. If I look at the title, I understand, given that it was a compromise bill, why the title of this bill does not reflect the question of equality, but it is disappointing that it doesn't. We're proposing, very simply, a compromise solution that we change it back to 'marriage amendment bill' so that it's not about primarily protecting religious freedoms, which we say don't need to be protected beyond the bills that we've previously introduced in this place because they are already protected in other forms of the law. But we should recognise this for what it is—namely, an amendment to the Marriage Act, and that is its primary purpose.

With regard to the item concerning interaction with state and territory laws, this is important. In the discussions that took place that led to the compromise bill, which I reiterate we support, very real questions were raised about what this bill might do to those protections that exist in state or territory laws where the state and territory laws have gone further—in particular, one may think about Tasmania—in recognising the removal of discrimination, especially with respect to LGBTI communities. When one considers that with the goods and services question, which I will come to next, one understands, I hope, the import of the door that we are potentially opening.

The amendment with respect to goods and services should be removed. There are already exemptions in the Sex Discrimination Act that allow religious organisations the right of refusal in respect of goods and services. We do not support those exemptions, have campaigned for some time and will continue to campaign for the removal of those exemptions. (Time expired)

See this speech in context