Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for allowing that. We've tabled a document which obviously outlines in detail some of the amendments.

Again in response to my good friend the member for Brisbane: we are specifically, in this case, making a change that is not trifling, in its very intention, and a range of amendments that we'll see today are actually intended to ensure that the perverse outcomes that occur under state antidiscrimination laws—such as the Archbishop of Hobart being dragged in front of an antidiscrimination tribunal for circulating a booklet that just talked about a Catholic teaching of marriage—can't occur. That is precisely what we are seeking to do. These changes, which say that conscientiously held secular beliefs should not be inferior to conscientiously held religious beliefs, are anchored by our obligations under article 18. It has been accepted by this House, by each of the major parties and the minor parties, that you cannot provide primacy to one without the other. This is a very minor amendment.

Can I just in a broader sense say that we're in no way trying to frustrate in essence what the Australian people have said, and that, overwhelmingly, is that they want same-sex couples to marry. Liberals and Nationals have a conscience vote on this—unlike the Labor Party, who have bound themselves to not supporting any amendments—so we have to defend these fundamental freedoms. To the extent that we can simultaneously ensure we're meeting the requirements of the postal survey and protecting those things we hold dear, we should do so. These changes are anchored in our obligations under article 18, and both sides of the House and the minor parties have agreed that you cannot give primacy to one without the other. It would be a very sad day if this House were now saying that, if you're a civil celebrant with a secular conscientiously held belief in traditional marriage, you're done. I would expect that from the member for Melbourne, and I would expect that from some parts of the Labor Party, but I certainly wouldn't expect that from our side of politics.

See this speech in context