Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

This is the third free vote debate that I have had the opportunity to contribute to since I've been in this place. Previously we have had the issue of who should determine the safety and efficacy of RU486—should that be a minister or the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Previously we've had come before this place whether embryonic stem cell research should be legal. On both occasions this chamber saw the best of our colleagues in the manner in which each contributed, often with different views but universally they were presented respectfully. I think on those occasions this place operated in the way that Australians would hope and like to believe that the Australian parliament operates. What I've seen unfold so far in this debate on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 is a similar debate and I hope that that does continue.

What has brought us to this point today really is two things: firstly, the fulfilment of a government election commitment; and, secondly, a change in community views. In terms of fulfilment of a government election commitment, colleagues will recall that before the last election the coalition said that, if re-elected, it was going to provide the Australian people with the opportunity to express their views in relation to a change to the marriage law. What we put before the Australian people was that there would be a compulsory-attendance plebiscite. Despite endeavouring to give effect to that election commitment through this place, the Senate was otherwise minded. The government then set about looking for an alternative mechanism to give effect to its election commitment, and what the government put forward was a postal survey. I think all colleagues, regardless of their view about having a postal survey, would now recognise and accept that it was a very successful exercise. There was high attendance and there was a very clear result. That has had the benefit that the nation, as a whole, has embraced the path that this parliament has embarked upon and I think it gives great community acceptance to what will ultimately occur.

The second thing that has brought us to this point, as I mentioned, is a change in community views. For those colleagues who were here, or can remember, it wasn't that long ago that during the Howard government legislation was introduced into this place to make specific reference to marriage being between a man and a woman. It wasn't that long ago and, at that time, that vote had the support of the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Australian Labor Party. But, clearly, views in the community and in this place have changed since that time. For that reason, no-one should be criticised for having changed their own point of view since then. Likewise, no colleague should be criticised for maintaining the view that they had at that time.

I am one of those people whose views have changed over time. I historically had a view that supported the maintenance of the status quo when it came to the definition of marriage. I always, I must admit, had a bit of a tension between that view and the libertarian in me that believed that, fundamentally, individuals should be able to contract with each other in the way that suits them. Ultimately, it is that latter view within myself that won out over time.

In terms of the recent public debate and discussion, the way that that was given effect to was twofold. Firstly, I voted yes in the postal survey. Secondly, I lent my name to the Libs and Nats for the 'yes' campaign in the form of an advertisement in the newspaper. I must say, I didn't partake in any other campaign activities, for the reason that I thought and believed that Australians were well capable of forming their own views on these matters without the benefit of extensive campaigns on either side. But, nevertheless, I thought it appropriate as a public figure to lend my name to that advertisement to indicate what my view was and what my disposition was.

We will shortly be coming to the end of this second reading debate. We will then be moving to debate amendments. I am, to some extent, satisfied by the protections for conscience and religious belief which are contained in Senator Smith's bill. I do, however, recognise that there are some cogent arguments for additional protections. I am going to follow the debate closely in the committee stage, and there may well be some additional protections that I will support in the committee stage. But it's also important, I think, to recognise that we do also have the Ruddock process which is looking at the broader issue of religious freedoms and protections in the community beyond those which relate directly to this marriage debate. There are a number of amendments that, I believe, would be better not supported so that the Ruddock committee can undertake its work. But there will be some additional protections in the context of this bill that I will be entertaining.

I started by saying that this is the third free vote and debate that I have taken part in in this place. They have, thus far, all been characterised by respect and by good dealings throughout the chamber. It's my hope and belief that that will continue to be the case here. I look forward, shortly, to supporting the second reading of the bill.