Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Hansard source

This morning it is my absolute pleasure to rise and speak on this historic piece of legislation, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. This follows what I believe was a historic exercise in democracy—the first of its kind in Australia—when the Turnbull coalition government gave effect to the 2016 election promise to give the Australian people a say on changing the law to allow for marriage between adults regardless of gender. I think the Prime Minister deserves acknowledgement for meeting this promise despite an extraordinary effort and attempts to prevent him from doing so. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever before seen such forces arrayed against a government delivering a promise that it took to an election. But prevail we did, as did our trust in the Australian people and their response.

In a country noted, in a great many respects, for its political apathy or indifference, the response of Australians to a voluntary exercise was absolutely emphatic. Some 79.5 per cent—four in every five Australians—returned a response to this postal survey. That, in itself, is an absolutely stunning outcome, and I believe that it delivers a legitimacy to this survey that is absolutely unchallengeable. More than 12.7 million people made their voices heard.

In our home state of South Australia, Acting Deputy President Fawcett, nearly one million people, or 79.7 per cent of eligible people, participated in the Australian marriage survey. However, I think we need to acknowledge that, whilst over 60 per cent of Australians indicated their support for the change in the Marriage Act to enable marriage to be a union between two people and to no longer enforce the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, across Australia and in our home state of South Australia there were a vast number of people who registered a 'no' vote. In fact, nearly five million people in Australia registered a 'no' vote.

Whilst we focus very heavily on those people who strongly advocated for a 'yes' vote or strongly advocated for a 'no' vote, there was a group of people in the middle who I believe were probably the overwhelming number of the population and who I'm sure all of us in this place heard from—the 'Just get on with it; it's inevitable' vote. So, I think we need to be very careful, when we proceed with this bill, to ensure that we actually take into account the concerns of the people who were ideologically, fundamentally and absolutely committed to the votes on either end of the spectrum, bearing in mind that the people who voted yes were overwhelmingly successful, by anybody's terms, in an electoral situation, with over 60 per cent of Australians expressing a desire for the Marriage Act to be changed.

As I said, 4.8 million people said no. They are a group of people whose concerns we would be very foolish not to listen to. For many of these people this is an absolutely fundamental issue. It's a fundamental issue of their religion. It's a fundamental issue of the underlying belief in the way that they live their lives. I think it is absolutely incumbent on those of us here, who over the next few days will have the opportunity to debate, in committee, the bill that's been put before this house by Senator Smith, to make sure that the strongest possible protections are put into this bill to enable those 4.8 million people who said no, who are a substantial number of our population, to feel that their voices have been heard and that we have listened to their concerns. At the end of the day, we went to the people and we asked them a very simple question: do you want us to change the Marriage Act to allow two people to be able to be married under the Marriage Act? I don't think anybody asked the public whether they wanted us to discriminate any further and cause any further damage or discrimination to people as a result of changing this particular act.

We have before us an opportunity to make sure that this is the strongest and best possible piece of legislation to deliver the outcome that the Australian people have asked us to deliver but, at the same time, to protect the interests of not only those 4.8 million people who voted no but, most particularly, the smaller proportion of those people who voted no for whom this is an absolutely fundamental issue of their very existence. So I can assure you, Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett, that I will be paying very close attention to the amendments that are brought before this chamber and making sure that I try to work with my colleagues to convince them that the protections for those people who voted no are just as important as the protections for and the freedoms of those people who voted yes. To that end, I acknowledge that there has been a lot of work done by a number of people in relation to making sure that these protections are put into place, and I acknowledge your involvement, Mr Acting Deputy President, in this as well.

With personal responsibility also comes a series of obligations. I certainly didn't come into this place or become a senator to protect people from the consequences of their own words and their own actions. I'm all for freedoms, but I appreciate that we do live in a society, in a community, and that the freedom to swing your arm actually ends at the start of the other person's nose. It's called being responsible in the exercise of your freedom of speech. In reality, if you say something stupid when exercising your freedom of speech, the government shouldn't and can't penalise you or sanction you, but you can't protect other people from thinking that you're stupid. So I think it is extraordinarily important that we make sure that we get the provisions in place to make sure that we have an adequate number of protections, but, at the same time, we can't go to the extent of protecting people from admitting to the world by their actions that they're actually stupid.

I foreshadow the fact that there are a number of amendments that are coming into this place in relation to a number of key areas, and there is one thing that we need to make sure that we do with these protections, because, if we do nothing, the opportunity is actually there to weaponise activists. I think we need to be very careful to protect people against the minority out there in the public who would seek to make hay over the next few months as the legislation settles in. I have to say I've always found it quite extraordinary that somebody who seeks to do something and requires the services of another would actually think that they would want to go and ask somebody to participate in their very special day—in this instance, a wedding—when they know that the person who is going to provide that service is not somebody who supports their values or views in life. Sadly, we need to make sure that we protect the people who might otherwise have a differing view from the weaponisation of activists who would seek to make a point by going out there and demonstrating, and I don't have to go very far to find a number of examples where people, for the purposes of trying to make a point, actually victimise other people in our community. So I call on everybody to apply a little bit of common sense here to make sure that they don't go out there to try to make a point by making somebody else's life more miserable.

Nonetheless, as I said, I foreshadow the fact that I certainly will be supporting a number of amendments. I look forward to coming into this chamber and debating them. I believe that a parent's right over the education of their child is a fundamental right. I believe it is my right to decide how my child is educated. I believe it's my right to determine that the values that I hold and that my family holds are the views that my child is exposed to in their education, and I believe it is absolutely my right for my child not to be exposed to views that are contrary to my beliefs. I am very, very strong on ensuring the parents' rights to determine educational outcomes. There is no right for a government or an institution or the education system to override my rights about my child, so I will certainly support amendments to that effect. I also believe that charities should have the right to protect their religious beliefs in their actions into the future, particularly as so many of our charities in Australia are fundamentally underwritten by religious organisations.

Very, very particularly, I think that we need to include no-detriment provisions, because I believe that, if I hold a belief, I should not be detrimentally impacted on by a law or an action of another. I'm entirely entitled to my opinion. As long as I don't breach any other law that might say that my view is of substantial and material damage to somebody else, I am still absolutely entitled to hold that view. And indeed, equally, I don't believe that anybody should be forced or compelled to endorse a view that they don't actually support.

So I think that there are a number of amendments that will be before this chamber for debate in the committee stage or as second reading amendments that have very, very strong and powerful provisions in them that will enable this particular piece of legislation, this landmark piece of legislation, to proceed, taking into account a number of views of people who possibly didn't vote yes. I think it will demonstrate to the whole Australian public that this is going to be a very mature and adult debate and that we can move forward with the minimum amount of impact on those people who possibly would have chosen not to proceed with this particular piece of legislation.

I'd also draw to attention that the reason that, in this federal legislation, we need to be so strong in focusing on this is the fact that so many of our state laws are quite different from other state laws. We can't have a situation where we've got an overarching piece of legislation as important as this piece of legislation and, for many of the underlying freedoms and discrimination provisions that sit so closely aligned with this particular piece of legislation, see one state being able to apply and interpret them differently to another. So I commend the amendments that are going to make sure that this is a harmonised approach to make sure that we give this particular piece of legislation—which, as I said, is so, so important to so many people in Australia—the best possible chance to come into effect and not be detrimentally impacting on members of our community.

During the historic debate, there was inevitably a focus on a number of people's bad behaviour, but I'd just like to point out that very little of it was bad. There was a bit, and I know that the people who were responsible for that behaviour have certainly been called out for it. They were a minority, and I'd like to commend the vast majority of Australians, and particularly those that were advocating very strongly for either the 'yes' vote or the 'no' vote, because they conducted themselves in a very dignified manner. I think it sets the scene well for the implementation of this new legislation, assuming that it passes this chamber and the other place, that we continue to do this in a mature, responsible and respectful way and respect all of the views of all Australians. With 80 per cent of people turning out to the polls, it's obviously something that the Australian public is really keen to participate in. I think that the fact that we have gone about this process in a very respectful way has given the Australian public the confidence to move forward in a respectful way as well.

One of the great things about Australia is the wonderful democracy, and I think that one of the things that we've seen through this process is democracy working. Our Constitution says that democracy is every Australian's birthright, and we are extraordinarily lucky as a country that that is the case. We came to our democracy by peaceful means, and it's crucial that we never, ever take it for granted. It takes a lot of things, sometimes including great sacrifice, to ensure that we are secure in our democracy. It takes an informed electorate of individuals and communities properly holding the government to account. It takes an objective and fearless media. It takes people who are prepared to run for office and people who are prepared to help them. It requires the enforcement of people's will, as well as the expressions expressed in law, in keeping the civil peace. It requires protection of the nation's sovereignty and independence by armed forces against exterior threats. All too often, it simply requires hard work. Winston Churchill said:

… democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms …

It is, in fact, the best form of government, but it is also the hardest. It's supposed to be the hardest because it's the most worthwhile. It's important not to make the mistake of thinking that democracy is about giving everyone what they want or to make things easy for people. It's about giving you, the public, and others a voice in government and the freedom to express your views—and sometimes your views don't prevail. It's also about accepting the results even if you don't agree with them.

Australia is a democracy. It is not only a conversation; it is absolutely a compact. This bill doesn't play favourites either. It affords ministers of religion, celebrants and organisations protections from penalty and sanctions. With the amendments that are being put forward, there is the opportunity for us to end up with a bill that is able to represent what Australia's democracy stands for, what it's always stood for. I believe we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity as a parliament, as a Senate and as a House of Representatives, and as a government to show the absolute best way for democracy, as we present our face to the rest of the world in the way we debate this bill—not only in the way we debate this bill, and, I assume, pass this bill; also in the way we roll it out into the community and the respectful and responsible way that everybody in society accepts that we need to move on.

We will be judged on how we are able to deliver this bill. We will be judged on how we implement it. We will be judged on the responsible and respectful way that we treat the people who didn't necessarily agree with our point of view, whether we were on the winning side or whether we were on the losing side. As a representative of all South Australians, like you, Acting Deputy President Fawcett, I will reserve my right to consider all of the amendments that come before this chamber over the course of this debate, particularly in relation to future legislation to protect religious freedoms for those people who would seek to have them protected.

I commend the bill to this house in its current state. However, as I said, I look forward to making sure that we make it the strongest possible bill by the time it goes to the vote. I will respect the view of the people of South Australia, who overwhelmingly voted for the Marriage Act to be amended. However, I hope that we will be able to achieve a bill at the end of this week that enables us to protect the freedoms of religion of those people who voted no.