Trent Zimmerman (North Sydney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for moving these amendments on behalf of the Australian Greens. I want to indicate that I will be opposing this amendment, as I will other amendments being considered during the committee stage of this debate. I want to start by saying that we have a bill that has been endorsed by the Senate. I think there is a strong desire to have this bill considered and resolved before Christmas. The last thing I want to see out of this process today is some kind of Mexican stand-off with the Senate that potentially threatens or delays that.

I wanted to comment on the merits of the amendment that has been moved in two respects. Firstly, the bill that we have, as the honourable member has recognised, is essentially a compromise that was developed through the Senate select committee process. There are matters in that report and in this bill that did involve some give and take by all parties involved in that process. I particularly want to comment in relation to the proposal that the right of individual ministers to refuse to solemnise marriages should be removed from the bill. I want to argue against that on principle.

An important part of our bill is recognising certain aspects of religious freedom, particularly in relation to the solemnisation of marriages. That includes recognising that religious organisations and their practitioners should have the right to act in accordance with the tenets of their faith and with their own individual religious beliefs. This amendment would potentially remove the right of a minister of any faith to exercise their own religious beliefs in relation to marriage. If we accept that principle in relation to marriages conducted according to religious doctrine—there's a right to religious freedom—that has to extend beyond an organisation and to an individual practitioner. It is entirely possible you could have situation where a particular church—the Uniting Church of Australia to name one as an example—changes its position in relation to same-sex marriage and allows ministers to conduct same-sex marriages, but an individual minister does not agree or concur with that view and wants to exercise their own faith.

The second thing I wanted to comment on was in relation to celebrants. This amendment effectively removes the capacity of existing celebrants to exempt themselves in the same way that ministers can. This is one of the areas that was a compromise. I start from the position that celebrants are effectively acting as agents of the Commonwealth and have an obligation to uphold Commonwealth law. In an ideal world, I accept the point the Australian Greens have made. However, what I would say is that, in the spirit of compromise, we created a pathway for existing celebrants to register themselves as religious marriage celebrants and be afforded the same protections as ministers. That is a compromise, but it does reflect the fact that existing celebrants became celebrants when the law was different, whereas under this bill future celebrants will have to uphold the law of the land. For these reasons, I urge the chamber to vote against this amendment.

See this speech in context