David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to table an explanatory memorandum relating to the bill.

Leave granted.

I table the explanatory memorandum and seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

I introduce the Freedom to Marry Bill 2016 to legalise same sex marriage. My arguments for doing so fall under three heads: liberty, conscience, and state power.

I turn first to liberty.

I support the legalisation of same sex marriage because I think that people ought to have the freedom to choose their own life path. That is, they have liberty: as John Stuart Mill said, 'over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign'.

When the law says that gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans, and intersex people cannot marry, in an important sense it is diminishing their liberty and their ability to make life plans: a major choice is closed off. The state is interfering, intervening, telling certain people that they can do what they want, and telling others they can't. Indeed, it is worth noting that under current Australian law, intersex people cannot marry anyone at all.

Many will be aware of classical liberals only when we talk about economics. It is not well known, for example, that Milton Friedman—probably the 20th century's most influential economist—supported legalising same sex marriage.

However, a great libertarian economist's support for legalising same sex marriage should come as no surprise. It was economists like Friedman, Hayek, and Mises who published ground-breaking research showing that private individuals generally make better choices for themselves than do experts engaged to decide on their behalf. Why, then, do we confine marriage choice to some people, and deny it to others?

I turn next to conscience.

I have built into this Bill protection for claims of conscience. As does the existing law, this Bill ensures ministers of religion do not have to solemnise marriages of which they disapprove.

I have also ensured that the Bill protects claims of conscience for civil celebrants, and for all providers of goods, services or facilities for weddings. When the non-religious make moral claims, they ought to be taken as seriously as the moral claims made by the religious.

I turn at last to state power.

As I pointed out in my first speech in this place, the State is a wonderful servant but a terrible master. In an important sense, the State stands for all of us, and that quality of representativeness means that if it undertakes to provide a service, it must do so in a neutral fashion. The State cannot discriminate, and if it does so, that is an abuse of power.

This is brought home when one realises that some authorised celebrants are officers of a State or Territory. Their functions are linked to the core liberal principle of equality before the law. This Bill ensures that all those who come before such celebrants can be married.

The Freedom to Marry Bill 2016 enhances liberty, protects conscience, and restrains state power. I commend the Bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.