Nicolle Flint (Boothby, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the amendment moved by the Treasurer and note that, as we seek to pass the legislation that aligns the rule of law with the will of the Australian people as determined by the national plebiscite, I want to note that I will be ensuring the substantive bill passes as per the will of the Australian people and my electorate. We must remember our responsibility to all Australians and pass a bill that is balanced and affords religious protections. To that end, it is our duty to ensure that amendments to the Marriage Act do not occur to the detriment of others. More specifically, it is our duty to ensure that adequate protections are in place to protect the significant work done by faith based charities to ensure that both views of legal marriage are recognised, to ensure adequate rights are in place for military marriage celebrants—as we have heard in previous motions—and to protect freedom of speech for all Australians.

These amendments and specifically this amendment seek to foster freedom in our society, which goes to the foundation of our democracy. Indeed, as I said in my maiden speech, we want people to have the freedom to speak without fear and to defend their ideas and their ideals not with violence or threats or court cases but through robust and respectful debate.

Faith based charities undertake approximately two-thirds of charitable endeavours in vital areas such as health, aged care, foster care and homelessness. It would be irresponsible for the parliament not to provide the protections that will ensure the future of these entities. My colleague has just read from the letter from the ACNC, and I note that they did suggest that 'one way to address the concerns that have been raised may be to provide in the amending legislation that nothing in the legislation adversely affects an entity's charitable status by reason only that the entity holds or expresses a position on marriage after the enactment of the legislation that if held or expressed prior to the enactment of the legislation would not have had such an effect'. That's why we are moving this amendment. We need to protect faith based charities from experiencing detrimental conduct by public authorities by ensuring that governments cannot withdraw funding from an individual or entity solely because that individual or entity holds a traditional view of marriage.

Unfortunately, the international experience shows that, unless religious protections are contained within the legislation, disputes and lengthy and costly litigation is inevitable and, ultimately, it will be the recipients of service provided by these organisations that will suffer. This is a particular concern held by many faith based charities, who, for unique historical reasons in Australia, comprise a significant majority of government funded charitable services providers. Their concern is not unfounded. It is fuelled by consistent calls for the removal of government funding from charities that rely upon religious freedom exemptions in the antidiscrimination laws. The amendments moved by the members for Cook and Mallee will provide much-needed certainty and associational freedom for Australian charities. They'll ensure that existing faith based charitable entities can continue to function effectively without the added risk of losing their means to do so.

We must protect freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of thought. Currently, federal law provides no protections for Australians who support traditional marriage based or their religious or conscientious views. Freedom of speech is an issue that I and many on this side feel strongly about. I emphasise that none of the amendments moved by my colleagues allows, condones or encourages discrimination against same-sex married couples or people of same-sex orientation. Rather, they legislate for a change to the definition of marriage in a manner that provides the legal guarantees that millions of Australians are asking for. These amendments protect organisations and individuals that support a traditional definition of marriage against discrimination or detrimental conduct respectfully and fairly.

I note that charities in countries similar to Australia have been stripped of their charitable status due to their support for the traditional view of marriage. We don't want to see that happen here. Unless amended, the marriage amendment bill may cause Australian charities to have their status revoked and their funding stripped. This would stop a lot of the good work they do for the people they help and put an unnecessary financial burden on hundreds of thousands of volunteers who give their time freely. That's why we have moved the amendment to provide certainty for faith based charities and the wonderful volunteers who support them and so many Australians.

See this speech in context