Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Aged Care) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. I first want to acknowledge and respect the will of the majority 'yes' vote in the recent postal marriage survey. I acknowledge the 'yes' campaigners' long fight for this reform and pay tribute to those who've maintained a respectful and reasoned discourse over the course of the last several months and years.

I think we must acknowledge that, if this bill passes, we must consider the legitimate concerns regarding religious freedom that have been raised. It's important that these issues be investigated by the Ruddock review and that religious freedom protections in Australia be considered in greater detail. Those who know me know that I have always had a very strong view regarding marriage, its definition and its place in our society. It is the cornerstone foundation of our democracy, with religious and cultural traditions as its core.

I want you to know that I have always stood against discrimination of any kind in our society, and I have vehemently supported antidiscrimination legislation. It's important that we recognise that this reform will not simply end discrimination against same-sex-attracted people. As a parliament, we should be looking to remove any discrimination based on sexual orientation. This fight will continue regardless of this bill. We must bring a divided nation together on this issue and ensure leadership and unity. The time for division has passed. It is now time, as a parliament, to move to ensure there are adequate protections for religious freedom, freedom of speech, parental rights and the rights of charitable organisations in this country.

The result of the marriage survey must be appreciated in its entirety: 61.6 per cent of Australians, or 7,817,247 people, voted yes; however, a large number of Australians voted no, with 38.4 per cent, or 4,873,987 people, voting for the traditional view of marriage. A significant number of Australians did not participate in the survey at all, as 3,278,260 people, or 20.5 per cent, decided not to return the survey to the ABS. Seventeen electorates across Australia did not vote for a change to the Marriage Act. In the seat of Blaxland, 73.9 per cent voted against the proposition we are debating; in Watson, 69.6 per cent; in McMahon, 64.9 per cent; in Fowler, 63.7 per cent; in Werriwa, 63.7 per cent; in Parramatta, 61.6 per cent; and in Chifley, 58.7 per cent. Western Sydney has a large migrant population that holds a proudly traditional view of marriage based on religious teachings. Their views, and the views of everyone who participated and did not participate in the survey, should be respected. I note my colleague the member for Blaxland's comments after the postal survey result. The Hon. Jason Clare stated of the result in his electorate:

Good people with good hearts can have different views on this … issue.

In my home state of Tasmania, 63.6 per cent of Tasmanians, or 191,948 people, voted yes; however, 36.4 per cent, or 109,655 people, voted no. A significant number of Tasmanians also elected not to complete the survey—20.3 per cent. Nearly one-fifth of eligible voters in Tasmania, or 77,020 people, did not return their survey to the ABS. In the electorate of Braddon in my home state only 54 per cent of people voted to change the Marriage Act. This displays a significant and notable split within the community on this issue. I'm one of the 109,655 people in Tasmania who voted against changing the Marriage Act, and I stand firm in my decision to do so. Australians expect the Australian parliament to ensure a balanced way forward for all communities so that the four out of 10 Australians who voted for a traditional marriage will be allowed to practise freedom of speech and freedom of religion. These core democratic values are so important to our country, and should never be underestimated or undermined.

As a parliament, we must ensure that by implementing change to the Marriage Act, in changing the definition of a secular marriage, we display respect for the almost five million Australians who voted no, as we equally respect the seven million people who voted yes. This is the fair thing to do and upholds the spirit of the country. We live in a pluralist society, which means people hold various and competing viewpoints. There is nothing more democratic than a pluralist society. Many argue that this bill will end discrimination against a group of Australians, but we must be sure that we do not end up discriminating against another group in order not to discriminate against the first group.

Nationwide, four out of 10 Australians voted against changing the traditional definition of marriage. This is a significant number of people and they should be heard, not ignored. Whether people's reasons for voting no were endowed in a religious, personal, cultural or spiritual view, they were completely entitled to vote 'no'. I note that the 2017 Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill acknowledged that evidence demonstrated that there are substantial matters of law and individual human rights to be dealt with that extend well beyond the Marriage Act itself.

I note:

… if Australia is to remain a plural and tolerant society where different views are valued and legal, legislators must recognise that this change will require careful, simultaneous consideration of a wide range of specialist areas of law, as opposed to the common perception that it involves changing just a few words in one act of parliament.

Australia has a proud history of upholding Western democratic freedoms at home and abroad. Australia assisted in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The declaration states, 'Everyone has a right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change his or her religion or belief and freedom either alone or in community with others in public or private to manifest its religion or belief in teachings, practices, worship or observance.'

I'm sure many of you will recall the case of Madlin Sims in September of this year. Ms Sims took it upon herself to sack an employee after that female employee posted, 'It's okay to vote no' on Facebook. This person engaged in political debate and exercised her right to freedom of speech, but, because she exercised this fundamental, democratic principle, she lost her job. Unless we ensure appropriate protections are in place, this is the type of intolerance incident I fear could become the norm if safeguards are not put in place in the future. The challenge we face in this place is to ensure the almost five million people who voted no are not marginalised because of their traditional view of marriage they hold dear. We need to ensure that there exists adequate protections for freedom of religion and freedom of speech in this country.

Only ministers of religions and civil celebrants who, within 90 days of this bill passing, register their objection will be protected. We must ensure that the religious freedom of all Australians of faith are investigated and protected. We need to protect people who espouse a religious viewpoint or hold a strong Christian faith, Jewish faith or Islamic faith. Many of you would be aware of the case of Archbishop Julian Porteous of Hobart. In 2015 Archbishop Porteous was taken to the antidiscrimination commission for publishing and distributing information on Catholic teachings of marriage. Religious leaders, outside a wedded context, must be protected. We must have protection to ensure that cases such as Archbishop Porteous's does not happen again. Currently another archbishop or other religious leader can be brought before the an antidiscrimination tribunal for advocating their teachings on marriage.

We must also look at this reform and the interaction with state-based antidiscrimination laws. Commonwealth laws only protect freedom of political and religious belief in the area of employment. In all other areas people depend on other state laws to protect them. State antidiscrimination laws must be considered and be consistent so people are protected from persecution, regardless of this bill. The current antidiscrimination law in Australia is significantly unbalanced as to who it protects in this debate. It protects same-sex orientated Australians and people who speak on their behalf from discrimination in every state and territory and federally, but the law in some states provides no protection at all to individual Australians who support traditional marriage from a conscientious or religious conviction, particularly New South Wales and South Australia. Similarly, federal law provides no protection to individual Australians who support traditional marriage based on a religious conviction. There are no laws in any jurisdiction that protect associations or charities from detriment because they adhere or express a belief in favour of traditional marriage. We must ensure that we balance the rights rather than the exceptions for religious freedom. Religious freedom in terms of exceptions from antidiscrimination law neglects that religious freedom is a right in and of itself. Religious freedom belongs to all people; not just institutions or professional clergy. The Senate select committee noted that 'Australian human rights commitments are protections that apply to all individuals.' Many of you will be aware that the Senate select committee report called for additional protections for religious freedom.

We must acknowledge that there may be non-religious objections to same-sex marriage. People may not have a faith based reason for not wanting to participate in same-sex weddings. A person's right of conscience on this issue should be respected even if it is not on religious grounds. If someone wishes to continue to publicly or privately object to a change in secular marriage they should not be persecuted. Civil marriage celebrants who do not want to solemnise same-sex marriages for religious reasons must make this objection public. No government should be forcing a person to declare their religious affiliations in a public way. It is a burdensome imposition not only on the freedom of religion but also on the right to privacy.

Religious bodies must be afforded protection and the protections must extend further than merely bodies established for religious purposes. In the recent case of Christian Youth Camps v Cobaw, the definition was read so narrowly by the court that a Christian youth camp with the word 'Christian' in its name was deemed not to have been established for religious purposes. A court may narrow the protections available to decide that a body is established not for religious purposes but for educational, charitable or other purposes. This is a significant flaw which will have religious bodies across the country extremely concerned for their long-term viability.

As it stands, parental rights and the rights of faith based schools have not been provided great attention in this debate. Many parents send their children to religious or faith based schools because of the reputation of the school or because of the moral world view which the school has a proud reputation for teaching. Religious or faith based schools are provided no such protection if they continue to teach a traditional or faith based view of marriage. We must look at protections for a school, principal or teacher from being brought before an antidiscrimination tribunal for teaching a faith based or traditional view of marriage.

Charities which have a religious or traditional view of marriage must be protected. Charities cannot undertake a disqualifying purpose which, according to the Charities Act 2013 (Cth) includes 'the purpose of engaging in, or promoting, activities that are unlawful or contrary to public policy'. Many of you will be aware that in New Zealand the Family First charity lost its charitable status for this reason. In Australia this could threaten charities such as Salvation Army, Anglicare and St Vincent de Paul, to name a few, that do so much within our communities across the country to make life better for marginalised Australians and those who are less fortunate. We must ensure that we do not make life harder for organisations which help so many people in the community that require assistance in times of hardship, family breakdown and cost-of-living crises.

The Senate select committee noted that the right of freedom of religion 'has two broad facets: the right to have or to adopt a religion or belief; and the freedom to manifest one's religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.' You cannot legislate to change the definition of secular marriage without protecting religious freedom in this country. If you do not, people will be persecuted. Religious organisations already receive threats and are persecuted on a regular basis by groups who do not share the same views. With the rise of social media it is so easy for people to abuse and intimidate people using these platforms. This should never be tolerated and it should never be accepted in civilised society. Such intolerance and aggression demonstrates a malicious attack on our entire community because it attacks the very fabric of a peaceful way of life. Many now argue religion no longer has a place in our society. I sincerely disagree with this view. I am of the view that religion still plays an important role within our community. Religion is one of the elements in our community that actually brings people together.

During my time in this place I've been consistently lobbied by members of my community to uphold the traditional view of marriage and to protect religious freedom and freedom of speech. Since the completion of the marriage survey, my office has been inundated with phone calls, emails and messages urging for religious freedom and freedom of speech to be protected in this country. I've also been stopped in the street by people urging me not to shift my position regarding this issue. I stand firm in representing these voices, the voices of nearly 40 per cent of Tasmanians and Australians who voted no. These members of our community deserve representation.

Freedom of religion is guaranteed under section 116 of the Australian Constitution. For hundreds of years, religion has been practiced in relative harmony. However, it can be argued that the Constitution has failed to protect religious freedom. Commonwealth laws only protect freedom of political and religious belief in the area of employment, which is why freedom of religion must be entrenched in individual acts of parliament. For so many Australians, religion provides them with a sense of who they are and how they act on a daily basis. For others, it does not. However, respect is a two-way street and fundamental to civilised society.

Although Australia may not be as religious as it once was, for many Australians we still are. Regardless of whether you are religious or not, the majority of us do respect an individual's right to practice their faith as long as it does not impinge on another person's legal rights. In reality, Australia has a diverse range of religious and spiritual beliefs. Statistics reveal that still around 60 per cent of Australians classify themselves as Christian, with 25 per cent identifying themselves as Catholic and 17 per cent identifying as Anglican.

Tolerance, compassion and understanding are all fundamental to a well-functioning and civilised society. Tolerance at this most important basic level amounts to respect—respect for others, respect for their right to share a different view from your own and respect their right to free speech and freedom of religion. We must ensure that we protect adequately religious freedom, freedom of speech, parental rights and the rights of charitable organisations.

It is now time, as I said earlier, to unite the country, to end division and to provide relevant protections so that Australians can continue in their lives in harmony and enjoy freedoms that make our country the best place in which to live and work. I look forward to the Ruddock review into the protection of religious freedom in Australia. But I want to place on record my sincere and heartfelt thanks for those members of my family and friends who are members of the LGBTIQ family. I want to thank them for respecting my right to have a view that is contrary to theirs; to know that they still love me and still consider me an important element of their family and their lives means so much to me today.

So, as others have said in this place, it is time that we move on and that we get this done. I concur with that, and I have no desire to hold up the passing of this legislation. I think it's important that we all remember we're entitled to have different views, we're entitled to be heard and we're entitled to practice our religion and to have freedom to do so in this country of ours.