Trevor Evans (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'll be opposing these amendments and I make these remarks on behalf of a number of my coalition colleagues in order that this consideration in detail be as time efficient as possible. There are two main elements to these amendments that I'll touch on. The first relates to the definition of marriage, and the second relates to civil celebrants.

To best understand why these amendments are ill-considered, let's remember how this bill formed its current positions with respect to the definition of both marriage and celebrants. This started as a government bill, an exposure draft prepared by our Attorney-General. It subsequently went through a Senate committee, a comprehensive process where there was extensive consultation with many of Australia's religious organisations and other community leaders and organisations. There were 400 submissions, 40-something witnesses and significant scrutiny by all of those senators, and that consultation led to a unanimous set of findings—that is, unanimous agreement by senators across the political spectrum, including government senators. What is proposed in these amendments goes against the informed and unanimous findings of senators from right across the political spectrum. Given these amendments are essentially the same as those defeated recently in the Senate, they should be rejected again here for similar reasons.

On the detail of these amendments, let me start with civil celebrants. To be clear, the bill in front of us protects civil celebrants. The bill allows existing civil celebrants who have strong religious beliefs against same-sex marriage to identify as religious marriage celebrants, which then gives them the right to refuse to solemnise same-sex weddings. What the amendments propose to do, on the other hand, is create a carve-out that would be ongoing and would allow not just religious objections to same-sex marriage but non-religious objections as well. To be clear, that approach has been strongly rejected by the associations representing civil celebrants. I have taken the time to meet with some of them to confirm this. The civil celebrants associations do not want this. The Senate committee specifically considered this amendment and rejected it too. To quote the committee: 'Consideration should be given to affording a pathway for current'—current—'civil celebrants to elect to transfer to religious marriage celebrants, allowing these celebrants the benefit of the protections afforded to ministers of religion.'

Now on to the definition of marriage. The bill proposes to amend the definition of marriage from 'a man and a woman' to 'two people'. That's what senators from right across the political spectrum recommended, following their extensive consultation. They said, 'The use of "two people" is the appropriate definition to broaden access to marriage for all Australian adults'. What these amendments propose to do, on the other hand, is create two definitions—marriage A and marriage B. Marriage A would be the union of 'a man and a woman', and marriage B would be the union of 'two people'.

There's a key question here that a member would need to be able to answer before supporting these amendments: are marriage A and marriage B different or are they the same? Is the distinction legally significant or is it symbolic? I was surprised to hear the first honourable member speaking in favour of these amendments, because his contribution said that the change was 'symbolic'. He used that word. Whereas subsequent speakers in favour of the amendments, I think, broadly seemed to say that they aren't symbolic but serious and material amendments.

If there is not a significant difference between proposed marriage A and marriage B, if this is symbolic, then this is a pointless, unnecessary amendment with no legal effect and there's no justification to support it. Pointless regulation is illiberal regulation. This government is philosophically opposed to pointless red tape. Our statute books are not the place for symbolism and gestures. We have Sky News for that. Yet, if there is a significant difference between proposed marriage A and proposed marriage B then I can tell you right now that that is contrary to the equality that the overwhelming majority of Australians just voted for. The people listening to this debate could well be forgiven for thinking that we are going close now to replaying the postal survey campaign with this amendment.

Members supporting these amendments have to decide: Are they merely symbolic? Are we supporting red tape? Or do they create a real legal difference and, in doing so, potentially undermine the overwhelming decision of the Australian people? Either way, the proposed amendments should be rejected. This bill is already a compromise; it strikes the right balance. That's why this bill has the blessing of both religious leaders and gay rights advocates. The proposed amendments do not have that broad support.

See this speech in context