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

For the benefit of the House, I won't speak for much longer. It is not right that religious organisations are able to claim exemptions from the Sex Discrimination Act that other organisations don't enjoy, and we've seen the hardship that that has led to. It has led to people in many instances losing their jobs and being discriminated against, and we do not understand why, in 21st century Australia, such exemptions continue to exist. What worries us about picking up those exemptions and putting them again in the Marriage Act is that it opens the door, we fear, for, in the future, organisations or commercial entities attached to organisations that might be one or two steps removed—they might be owned by a church or by a church-like organisation or associated with a church-like organisation or potentially even an individual—to say: 'Hang on, there must have been a new and expanded protection for me, otherwise they wouldn't have put it in the Marriage Act. Let me claim that exemption and now let me claim the right not to provide a service to you in connection with your marriage.' That is very concerning because, if you looks at the US, you can see the path the people who have opposed equal marriage in the first place want to take next—that is, one of litigation—where they will continue to try and wind back the protections that are enshrined in this bill. We're very, very concerned that, by putting something in this bill that does not need to be there, we might open the door for future litigation. I hope I'm wrong. I hope that, when the courts look at this, they say, 'There's nothing in here that isn't already in existing legislation; it gives you no new rights.' I accept that that's what the member who is moving the bill will say is the case—that it's simply a restating. I hope that I'm proved wrong.

I want to place on the record today that these provisions should not be in this bill and it might be necessary in the future to come back and take them out, if we find that they're being abused. If we find that they're working against the intent of this bill and being used to undermine the freedoms and equality that are granted by this bill, then we might need to come back and remove them. I understand that these amendments may not get up and I understand that many people will be voting against me on these amendments, not because they necessarily disagree with the spirit of them but because they're backing in the compromise. I accept that as a position. It's not the position I take but it's a reasonable position to take. I hope what flows from that is that, in the future, if we find out that the provisions in the bill are working against the LGBTI community in a way that we've seen overseas, we can have a sensible discussion about revisiting it and potentially taking these provisions out of the legislation. With that, I commend the amendments to the House.

See this speech in context