|
representatives vote 2017-12-07#7
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2018-03-28 15:48:46
|
Title
Bills — Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017; Consideration in Detail- Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 - Consideration in Detail - Religion & right to refuse
Description
<p class="speaker">Sarah Henderson</p><p>by leave—I move amendments (1) and (2), as circulated in my name, together:</p><p class="italic">(1) Page 3 (after line 11), after clause 3, insert:</p>- The majority voted against [amendments](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-12-07.141.1) introduced by Liberal MP [Sarah Henderson](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/corangamite/sarah_henderson), which means they failed.
- ### What were the amendments?
- Henderson MP [explained that her first amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-12-07.141.1):
- > *provides that nothing in this act limits or derogates from the right of any person, in a lawful manner, to manifest his or her religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.*
- She then [explained that her second amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2017-12-07.141.1):
- > *enables marriage celebrants other than ministers of religion to refuse to solemnise marriages on the basis of the celebrants' religious or conscientious beliefs.*
- ### 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 class="italic">4 Protection of religious freedom</p><p class="italic">Nothing in this Act limits or derogates from the right of any person, in a lawful manner, to manifest his or her religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, item 20, page 10 (line 11) to page 11 (line 10), omit the item, substitute:</p><p class="italic">20 Section 47</p><p class="italic">Repeal the section, substitute:</p><p class="italic">47 Ministers of religion and marri age celebrants may refuse to solemnise marriages</p><p class="italic"> <i>Ministers of religion</i></p><p class="italic">(1) A minister of religionmay refuse to solemnise a marriage despite anything in this Part.</p><p class="italic">(2) In particular, nothing in this Part prevents a minister of religion from:</p><p class="italic">(a) making it a condition of solemnising a marriage that:</p><p class="italic">  (i) notice of the intended marriage is given to the minister earlier than this Act requires; or</p><p class="italic">  (ii) additional requirements to those provided by this Act are complied with; and</p><p class="italic">(b) refusing to solemnise the marriage if the condition is not observed.</p><p class="italic">(3) A minister of religion may refuse to solemnise a marriage despite anything in this Part, if any of the following applies:</p><p class="italic">(a) the refusal conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the religion of the minister's religious body or religious organisation;</p><p class="italic">(b) the refusal is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion;</p><p class="italic">(c) the minister's religious beliefs do not allow the minister to solemnise the marriage.</p><p class="italic"> <i>Marriage celebrants</i></p><p class="italic">(4) A marriage celebrant may refuse to solemnise a marriage, despite anything in this Part, if the marriage celebrant's religious or conscientious beliefs do not allow the marriage celebrant to solemnise the marriage.</p><p class="italic"> <i>Grounds for refusal not limited by this section</i></p><p class="italic">(5) This section does not limit the grounds on which a minister of religion or a marriage celebrant may refuse to solemnise a marriage.</p><p>Today we will be voting on a bill to allow same-sex couples to marry. This is a historic day for the Australian parliament and our nation. As I made clear in my second reading speech last night, freedom of speech and freedom of religion are fundamental freedoms in a representative democracy such as ours. I have long supported the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry, but throughout this debate I've worked hard to ensure that the views of every person I represent in Corangamite are acknowledged and respected. As I said last night, I believe charities must be protected, marriage celebrants must be free to marry whom they choose and freedoms of speech and religion must be protected. I am concerned that the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 does not provide adequate protections.</p><p>I wish to place on record that I support the principles which underpinned a number of the other amendments before the House today—such that we would all be free to hold, express or teach views supporting traditional marriage without fear of recrimination in any form—but I was concerned about their scope. In spite of some concerns that I had that these amendments might be beyond power, I supported the Treasurer's amendments relating to faith based charities. The amendments I have moved demonstrate that I have stayed true to the commitment I gave to my constituents that I will support a bill to change the Marriage Act with strong religious protections.</p><p>The first amendment I have moved ensures the protection of religious freedom. It provides that nothing in this act limits or derogates from the right of any person, in a lawful manner, to manifest his or her religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching. This amendment is intended to make it clear that religious freedom is protected using language based on paragraph 1 of article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It emphasises that nothing in the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 will in any way prevent or limit the rights of people to practice their faith, to preach their faith or to teach the doctrines, tenets, beliefs and observances which underpin their faith.</p><p>All Australians are free to choose their religion and to express and practice their religion and believes without intimidation or interference as long as those practices are within the framework of Australian law. If Labor members support religious freedoms, Labor members should vote for these amendments. But, as we have heard in this debate, Labor members have not been granted a genuine free vote.</p><p>The second amendment I have moved enables marriage celebrants other than ministers of religion to refuse to solemnise marriages on the basis of the celebrants' religious or conscientious beliefs. This amendment would provide further support to the religious freedoms of secular celebrants whose religious beliefs and practices preclude solemnising same-sex marriage. It would also afford protection to those celebrants who have a conscientious objection to marriages which are not traditional marriages between a man and a woman. In other words, it would protect celebrants whose personal, philosophical or cultural beliefs about marriage are not founded in a religious teaching or viewpoint. Such celebrants could decline to marry a couple without rendering themselves vulnerable to complaints brought under antidiscrimination legislation.</p><p>It is the case that the Senate has considered these amendments and that these amendments were rejected, but that is no reason for members in this place to vote against them. I'm also unpersuaded by the argument that amending the bill would delay the carriage of this bill. We have to get this bill right. That is a fundamental obligation on all of us as legislators, and that is why amending the bill in the manner I have proposed is important and necessary. I commend these amendments to the House.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Abbott</p><p>I'm very happy to support the amendment that's been moved by the member for Corangamite—very happy indeed. I thank her and congratulate her for bringing an amendment in such clear terms to the House.</p><p>Perhaps for the benefit of everyone in this chamber, including in the galleries, I might read the relevant protection of religious freedom very slowly, because what this amendment proposes is that nothing in this act should limit or derogate from the right of any person to manifest in a lawful manner his or her religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.</p><p>I put it to everyone in this chamber this evening: is there anyone at all here who does not believe in the right of people to manifest their religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching? And if, as I am confident, every single person in this wonderful parliament tonight believes that it's right that people should have this fundamental protection, well, what possible objection could there be to including this in the bill before us? We have heard today contributor after contributor to these debates say that nothing in this bill will impinge on freedom of religion. Well, supporting this amendment is an opportunity to demonstrate absolute fair dinkumness when it comes to those statements. It's an opportunity to show that all the things that we've said—all the people who've objected to earlier amendments and everything they said about their desire not to impinge in any way on faith, on freedom, on religion—are fair dinkum.</p><p>Yes, it's true that if we pass this amendment that the bill, as amended, would then have to go back to the Senate, and there may be an hour or so of toing and froing before it came back. And I know there are many people in the galleries this evening who are yearning for the completion of this debate, but I am quite confident that you would enjoy the hospitality of this House. We could provide some hospitality here in this House. There are many members who would be only too happy to open the bar for you, and then we could all come back and do this, but do it in the right way—in a way that doesn't just respect the eight million people who voted yes but respects the anxieties, the concerns and the beliefs of the five million people who voted no. Then we would truly have a wonderfully unifying moment for our whole country.</p> <p class="speaker">Trent Zimmerman</p><p>I should start by acknowledging the member for Warringah's kind offer to pay for the entire celebration party tonight! That might be worth the extra hour delay!</p><p>This is similar in some respects to amendments that we've considered earlier during today's proceedings. I particularly wanted to focus on one aspect, and that's extending a conscientious objection to all celebrants. This is a principle that I understand opinions are legitimately divided on, but it's not one that I concur with. As I said earlier today, the role of the celebrant is to be an agent of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth's laws. They are not ministers of religion. I note, for example, that these amendments don't seek to extend the same protections to, say, state registrars at births, deaths and marriages, who also conduct marriages under the law.</p><p>So, we do have a divide, quite sensibly, between those that are conducting marriages under religious rites, and those that are conducting marriages under the law. That's why I don't support extending any exemptions to celebrants, other than those already contained in this bill, and that's why I won't be supporting it.</p><p>This is the last occasion on which I intend to rise during the course of this week's long debate. Before I sit down, I did want to say a few other things. Firstly, I want to sincerely thank all my parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the chamber for what I think has been an outstanding debate. But I also wanted to acknowledge those in this corner who have worked so hard on this issue for such a long time. Of course, I refer to the member for Brisbane, Trevor Evans, and the member for Goldstein—Tim Wilson-Bolger!—and the member for Leichhardt, who is temporarily absent, so I'll say while he's absent that earlier today we had a photo of all the LGBTI members of the parliament, and everyone said, 'Where's Warren?' We had to remind ourselves that he's not actually gay! But I think we can make him an honorary gay. His leadership has been outstanding. I also want to again thank, in front of this gallery, those in the Equality Campaign, led so ably by Alex Greenwich, Tom Snow, Janine Middleton—who I saw up there before looking very Mosman!—Tiernan Brady and of course the incredible Anna Brown and that whole team that did so much.</p><p>Two years ago this week the voters of North Sydney sent to this chamber the first openly gay member of the House of Representatives. At the time, I was the first openly gay member—though I suspect that I probably wasn't the first gay in the village over the parliament's 116 years! But, nonetheless, I raise that because, in the lead-up to that election, many people wondered whether the community, in a lower house election, would embrace an openly gay candidate. And, of course, they did, because, as they should have, they judged me on my merits.</p><p>Two years later, people wondered whether Australians would embrace the relationships of their fellow gay and lesbian sisters and brothers, and, of course, we know they did, so resoundingly. What they said was that they understood that a same-sex relationship was no less committed, no less loving, no less difficult, no less beautiful and wonderful than any other relationship. Today we fulfil the wishes of the Australian people, and, in so doing, we leave this parliament making Australia, I think, a far better place.</p><p>During the course of campaigns there are often slogans—often some great slogans. Who will forget 'Jobs and growth', which was a great slogan! But I want to conclude by saying that there are three words this year that have touched the hearts and minds of all Australians: 'Love is love'. And, as we celebrate the Christmas spirit, I'm sure that's something that we can all agree on.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>
|