Senate debates

Monday, 27 November 2017

Bills

Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017; Second Reading

5:22 pm

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President; you've said it perfectly. Thank you very much. It has been a respectful debate, even though it's very divisive amongst many people in this place and I'm sure in the other place as well. We have a right to disagree, to differentiate. That's our democratic right in this country, and I'll use that right now. I straightaway said congratulations to the people who support the 'yes' vote; I think that's being fair. And there was basically a 60-40 vote for it in the postal vote around Australia. But, as I said, I want to see people protected. What it's going to lead to in the future I don't know. Will it be a situation where schoolteachers cannot refer to 'boys' and 'girls' in their classrooms in primary schools? Will they have to refer to them as 'students'? Will students have to talk to the teacher of 'my parents' instead of 'my mum and dad'? I don't know, but I hope we don't become embroiled in things like that in the future. This is about changing the act so that same-sex couples can get married, and that is the situation. As I said, it will pass the parliament.

We've seen in America—and this is my concern, so I'll just harp on this a bit—when the court ruled to allow same-sex couples to be married there were lots of stories of people being sued in small business, disagreeing with whatever. That is what I hope does not happen here—that the legislation, when passed, secures and protects people who may have a different view, whether it be through personal beliefs, religious beliefs or whatever. We can't just pass legislation and leave people unprotected. And I want to thank Senator Paterson and Senator Fawcett for the good work they've done, along with my colleagues Senator O'Sullivan and others, to try to make it a change of legislation whereby people are protected and don't face having writs served on them and expensive, long, drawn-out court cases. If you go to court, it could be three years of hearing a case in a courtroom, and you'd probably wait another six months for the judge's decision. In South Australia you'd wait longer; the courts are jammed up down there. Then it might be an appeal—another two years—so you could be looking at five, 5½ or six years if court action were to eventuate, which is a lot of cost and a lot of stress on individuals. As I've said in the media and in other comments I've made: now that the legislation will be passing, let us do our best to see that people are not being sued and do not have to live with all that trauma, pressure and cost because of a decision we make in this place.

Once again, I congratulate the 'yes' vote. I will be voting no. With about 19 months left in this place, I have no intention of making a hypocrite of myself. The bill will pass; we all know that. That's the situation I find myself in as I live with my conscience, and I've said no all the way through. I strongly and firmly believe in equal rights for same-sex couples. I have friends who are gay, good friends, and I believe they should be treated equally, that they should have the same entitlements as my wife around separation, splitting of assets, superannuation or whatever. We've done so much work on it, and Mr Philip Ruddock did a lot of work on it many years ago, back in 2004 in the Howard government. I believe they should be treated equally, as I treat them equally. Every day in this place, I work with people of same-sex leaning, if I can put it that way.

I hope that the legislation does not open up a Pandora's box of legal fights, a field day for the lawyers. I hope we get it right. If we don't get it right the first time and amendments that have been proposed by the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, by Senator Paterson and by others are rejected—and I hope they're not—I hope that in time we can correct that legislation. Let's face it: we spend a lot of time in this place correcting legislation that hasn't worked as we planned it would work. I remember sitting over there in opposition alongside Senator Boswell, where Senator Rice is now. We were doing some amendments to some laws that went through in the Howard government era. I said to Senator Boswell, 'Bozzie, did you make a mess of this?' He said, 'We made a mess of it all right, and that's why we've got to correct it and fix it up.' That's not the first time, and it won't be the last time, that legislation has passed this place with consequences that could not be foreseen. So let's hope we get it right. If not, it means coming back here in with further debates and further inquiries, no doubt, and correcting any mistakes we make. So that's where I stand on it. I leave it for others to have their say.

Comments

No comments