|
representatives vote 2017-12-07#5
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2018-03-28 14:59:18
|
Title
Bills — Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017; Consideration in Detail- Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 - Consideration in Detail - Charities
Description
<p class="speaker">Andrew Broad</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (1), (3), (5) and (6) together as circulated in my name. I might inform the House I'm doing my amendments in two sections. The first reason is, knowing that the Manager of the Opposition Business was going to give a speech that was going to bring down the parliament, I thought it was in our best interest to delay things a little bit longer and ensure we are in government a little bit longer. The second is because the two parts of my original amendments have two different distinct meanings and tackle two distinctly different things. If I can put this in a term, I would call this the <i>Castle</i> amendment, for those who have seen the movie.</p><p>Essentially, what you do in your own home is your own business and how you interpret your own beliefs in your own home is your own business. This, of course, broadens this principle across to a religious organisation that has facilities. What they do in their own facilities is their own business, and their beliefs should not be interpreted by a judge but should be consistent with the values they hold dear. I suppose you could put that in <i>The Castle</i> language as 'the vibe'. It's the vibe.</p>- The majority voted against [amendments (1), (3), (5) and (6)](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Famend%2Fs1099_amend_8c46e64b-b4be-49de-9608-c3263c34c96a%22;rec=0) introduced by Nationals MP [Andrew Broad](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/mallee/andrew_broad), which means they failed.
- ### What were these amendments?
- Broad MP [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-12-07.125.1):
- > *Essentially, what you do in your own home is your own business and how you interpret your own beliefs in your own home is your own business. This, of course, broadens this principle across to a religious organisation that has facilities. What they do in their own facilities is their own business, and their beliefs should not be interpreted by a judge but should be consistent with the values they hold dear.*
- ### Why did some Coalition MPs vote Yes and others No?
- The Coalition was split on this issue, with some voting Yes and others voting No. This split within the party is unusual but, given the nature of the subject matter of the vote, the Coalition decided to run this as a free vote, meaning that its members could vote however they chose rather than having to vote along party lines.
- ### What does this bill do?
- This [bill](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:legislation/billhome/s1099) will allow same-sex couples to marry under Australian law. However, it will also:
- > *enable ministers of religion, religious marriage celebrants, chaplains and bodies established for religious purposes to refuse to solemnise or provide facilities, goods and services for marriages on religious grounds; and make amendments ... to provide that a refusal by a minister of religion, religious marriage celebrant or chaplain to solemnise marriage in prescribed circumstances does not constitute unlawful discrimination.*
- Read more in the [bills digest](https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1718a/18bd054).
<p>Essentially this amendment should ultimately, if it is lost here, be referred across to the Ruddock inquiry for consideration. This is borne out of the example of the Christian youth camp that had a belief structure. People had donated with their own money to build some facilities, and when those facilities were being sought to be used by people whose beliefs were contrary to that belief structure, the court took an onus of trying to interpret what that belief structure should be. I think people, if they think of the Australian way of doing things, hold very true to what is your own business is your own business and, if you paid for it, you should have the final say.</p><p>I notice in the Dean Smith bill that we're debating here, he draws on this principle very truly when it comes to the actual facilities for the marriage ceremony. This amendment seeks to broaden that when we think about the facilities a church or religious organisation might own. Recently a facility I know of, a church, was inquired upon by the Victorian education department in order to host an event. What the department failed to tell that church was the event it was wanting to host was the training for the local community for the Safe Schools program. This was in a town where there are many, many places where the department could have chosen to hold that event. It was, frankly, an affront to that church to have not been informed that the training for a state based education program was going to take place in the church facility without them knowing. It put the church in a very difficult situation. Do they refuse? Do they refuse and say, 'This is actually contrary to our beliefs.'? What we're saying in this amendment here is it gives some comfort. It also ensures that they don't have to have it defined in their belief but is actually reflective of their beliefs and values. I don't know what the church decided in the end, whether they chose to go forward and let the Victorian education department use their facilities. But I think there would be many Australians who would say that the approach by the Victorian education department was unreasonable, and that the church should have a right to be able to say, 'Look, frankly, can't you hold that event somewhere else,' without running the risk of having litigious encounters. So that is why I support this amendment.</p><p>If you can think about it, the values we hold dear, as Australians, are that you should be able to hold your values; you should be able to determine what happens in your own asset. This broadens across to churches, to campsites and to religious organisations that have been established with their own money to do what they want and they have the right to hold that value. That is not offensive, I think, and is a freedom that Australians should uphold.</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Coulton</p><p>Order! To members that are in the chamber and guests in the gallery, could you keep your conversations down. This is an important discussion. Everyone needs to hear what's being said.</p> <p class="speaker">Barnaby Joyce</p><p>Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to make what I think will be a brief contribution to this debate. It's pertinent that I do it on this amendment. Being a long-time member of St Vincent de Paul, I think it's imperative that we enshrine their capacity to also adhere to their faith. It's very important because no-one would argue with St Vincent de Paul's right to help those who are most in need, from Matthew Talbot Hostel to Night Patrol. It does, obviously, draw on people predominantly of the Catholic faith, and these people should be allowed to continue on with their charitable work unimpeded by what might be tangential effects of this legislation.</p><p>I think it's also important to put on the record—I think it's cowardice not to—that I've said from the start that I would accept the view of the Australian people. I would never vote against the view of the Australian people. I do support the current definition of marriage as it stands. I am concerned in this debate that we should have a sense of the result of the plebiscite, in which roughly 60 per cent of people said yes—congratulations, that's a win—but 40 per cent of people said no. There should also be acknowledgement that absolute victory is absolute tyranny if you don't take into account some of the views of those who disagree. I know that, had the vote had been the other way around, that would be exactly the same argument used.</p><p>I don't come to this without a view of people in same-sex relationships. Warren Entsch noted before that it was a lonely old fight to try and get people equal access, especially through the dissolutions of superannuation and property rights. I actually supported those people in those relationships having equal rights and access. I don't come to this debate pretending to be any form of saint, but I do believe in the current definition of marriage, which has stood the test of time. Half of them fail; I acknowledge that—obviously, I acknowledge that I'm currently separated, so that's on the record. People should respect the views and the relationships of people's parents or grandparents. It is a special relationship between a man and a woman, predominantly for the purpose of bringing children into the world—if you are so lucky, noting that many people aren't.</p><p>As we go through this process and what I believe are conscience issues, I am somewhat perplexed that on none of these amendments have we had any support from any members of the Labor Party. I think if they were truly allowed to exercise their conscience there would be an occasion from time to time when there would be Labor Party members who no doubt have the same views as those who have occupied this side of the chamber on the amendments put forward, noting full well that we absolutely respect people's right to occupy that side of the chamber on the issues they find incredibly close and important to themselves. One of the reasons I say this is that on a debate where things had a 60-40 split, the probability that every person in the Labor Party would occupy that side of the bench on every issue is about three in a billion. So I just don't concur with the argument that this is something that people have done of their own free will. I think that there's a form of coercion in this.</p><p>That is unfortunate, to be honest, considering that after this part of the debate this piece of legislation will go through—as it should; that's the will of the Australian people—because on some of the issues there should have been more grace put into acknowledging those who have different views and who have rightly raised concerns with us. This issue of St Vincent de Paul is not a red herring. It's an issue that has been brought up in New Zealand; people have been taken to task in St Vincent de Paul in New Zealand. So on this issue if on no other, on behalf of the organisation that I love and cherish and for which I have worked for so long, I'd like to see this supported.</p> <p class="speaker">Warren Entsch</p><p>On this amendment, I just want to indicate I'll certainly be opposing it. This is an amendment that will radically wind back our discrimination protection—an amendment that directly targets LGBTI people. So let be me clear: the majority of Australians voted yes on same-sex couples being treated fairly and equally across every state and territory. Australians have said that they want same-sex couples to have the same dignity and respect.</p><p>This bill has already passed in the Senate. It comes from a cross-party committee process that considered these questions in detail. It will allow all loving couples to finally tie the knot. The bill already protects the rights of ministers of religion, religious marriage celebrants and religious bodies to refuse services to LGBTI people. This is consistent with what our laws already say. Churches and religious groups already can hire and fire employees, refuse service to gay people and teach their religious doctrine. This bill does not change that.</p><p>But this amendment to the bill will radically change the religious exemptions test in our discrimination laws. Australians voted yes to remove discrimination against the LGBTI community, not to introduce new forms of discrimination. Our discrimination laws have set the standards for acceptable behaviour. Australians don't want our nation taken back many years by entrenching mistreatment and discrimination against same-sex couples because they get married.</p><p>We have an eminent panel of religious-belief experts who will look at the religious freedoms in a meticulous and comprehensive way. They certainly can do that, I think, and that is the right forum to deal with changes to other laws.</p><p>This bill should deal only with the Marriage Act. This amendment would dramatically wind back these important protections that protect our friends and family and neighbours from noncompliance and marginalisation. It lowers the test for discrimination. But what does this mean in practice? It means that, after same-sex couples get married, they will be less free from discrimination. I certainly oppose it. Thank you very much indeed.</p> <p class="speaker">Mark Dreyfus</p><p>Labor opposes this first part of the amendments, which, to make it clear, is an amendment to the Sex Discrimination Act. It would radically unwind discrimination provisions through changing legal tests in unprecedented and legally unorthodox ways. Our discrimination laws set the standard for acceptable behaviour in Australia, and Australians do not want to wind the clock back 30 years. That is not what Australians have just voted for. The existing test in the Sex Discrimination Act is largely replicated in state and territory discrimination laws, which would mean that, if the first part of these amendments were to pass, Commonwealth law would be radically out of step with Australian law in the rest of the country. It would be legally unorthodox and extremely broad.</p><p>These amendments would dramatically lower the threshold for discrimination. The amendment appears to incorrectly import a concept from a Canadian Supreme Court case, Syndicat Northcrest and Amselem, out of context, to dramatically lower the bar for the definition of 'belief', amending the test from acts or practices in 'conformity' with religious belief to being 'consistent with religious belief', and from being 'in order to avoid injury to' religious susceptibilities to 'because of' religious susceptibilities. That is what it would do. That would lower the threshold for when a religious body can rely on an exemption in discrimination protections, altering the way in which incorporation of religious doctrine is assessed by the courts. The other thing that this amendment would do is to extend the types of organisations which are defined as a body established for religious purposes.</p><p>I do need to clear up one thing. It's been suggested that St Vincent de Paul supports this amendment. That is simply not correct. The amendment is inconsistent with the Senate report. The Senate committee emphasised that a marriage equality bill should be consistent with existing antidiscrimination laws. To deal with something that the member for New England has suggested: this debate has thus far been conducted without any partisan rancour. Labor aims to continue to debate this bill without partisan rancour. The note that was introduced to the debate just a moment ago by the member for New England should be discarded.</p><p>The amendment is unrelated to marriage. The bill before the House—and I have said this already in the debate—changes the law relating to marriage. That's all it does. It has within it religious protections. I want to refer to what the Prime Minister said at a press conference on 17 November. He said: 'Senator Smith's bill does include important protections for churches and for ministers of religion. It doesn't impose any restrictions on religious practice or religious speech or preaching or anything of that kind.' I agree with that and Labor agrees with that. And the Prime Minister said this: 'Freedom of religion is a critically important right of all Australians. It is part of us. It is recognised in the Constitution. So the protection of freedom of civil rights and freedom of religion in particular is one that's very important. But I have to say I do not see it as being threatened or impinged in any way by the Smith bill.' He's right about that too. Labor agrees with that, and that's the way in which this bill should be approached.</p><p>Finally, this amendment singles out LGBTIQ Australians. It's an amendment that would override state and territory laws in relation to LGBTIQ people in a way which cannot be justified, and Labor will not be supporting the first part of the amendment.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|