John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, I was saddened to get a text message this week from former Labor senator Ursula Stephens about the loss of our mate former Senator Hutchins—a good mate of yours and a good mate of mine. I'm sure more will be said about that in the Senate as time goes on.

For the whip's sake, I won't be taking the full 20 minutes. I just want to put a few things on the record. I was alarmed to hear my good friend Senator Fawcett say that principals in South Australia have already been directed by the education department to help transition students if they wish to change their gender, without consulting the parents or with the parents having no say in that. That is very concerning. I'm a 'no' voter. There is no secret about that. I have made the point clear for many, many years that I believe marriage is a Christian sacrament, the sacrament of matrimony, between a man and a woman—not that I will be following in the footsteps of Mary MacKillop. I can assure you of that, Mr Acting Deputy President. You can bet your house on that!

I congratulate the 'yes' vote. It is no surprise to me that the 'yes' vote got up. There was a bit of a betting ring going on here, in the parliament, about who was going to win and by how much. I invested two $5 and I had both of them on the 'yes' vote. So it's no surprise to me. I thought the 'yes' vote would get up. Mr Acting Deputy President, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 will pass both houses of parliament, you can rest assured of that.

However, I have concerns. In my 9½ years in this place, I've done a lot of work with banks and people in financial trouble, and my advice to them has always been: 'Stay out of the courtrooms'. I hope what is happening here with the legislation is that it does not promote a feast for solicitors and people going to court. I welcome the arrival of Senator Paterson into the chamber. I just wish that Senator Smith and Senator Paterson had worked more closely together on this private member's bill so that people will not be sued. I believe the legislation will exclude, for example, a situation where a Catholic priest or an Anglican bishop says to a same-sex couple, 'No, I will not marry you in our church.' They will be protected. What if the couple says, 'Well, you're not going to marry us in the church, but we're still going to hold the ceremony in your church'? Are they protected then? That worries me.

Senator Rice interjecting—

I'm getting an interjection from Senator Rice; yes, it is. But as we get into the committee stage of amendments, these will be questions we can ask, Senator Rice, to see that they are protected. It's all right to get yes from one side, but I want it in black and white and to be guaranteed that we're not seeing people—

Senator Steele-John interjecting—