James Paterson (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to rise to speak today on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. I approach this debate like I approach many others—through a prism of freedom. I have always believed and have long advocated that it is not the appropriate role for government to prevent two people who love each other from formalising that relationship in a ceremony in front of their family and friends and calling it a marriage. Government should not get in the way of that love. A government which outlaws that is a government which is too big for me. Denying gay couples the freedom to marry has always sat uncomfortably with me as a Liberal, which is why I am very proud that it is now coming to an end—and it's doing so on the Liberal Party's watch through a process which we put in place. It's why I voted 'yes' in the postal survey and why I have consistently argued that we should change the law to allow same-sex couples to marry since I was first publicly asked about it in June 2011. I warmly congratulate my colleague Senator Dean Smith for all the work that he has done to bring this bill to the Senate, as well as our colleagues in the other place Tim Wilson, Trevor Evans, Trent Zimmerman and Warren Entsch for putting this issue firmly on the agenda.

When I heard the results of the postal survey two weeks ago, like many Australians I was relieved. The wait will soon be over for all of those gay couples who have wanted to get married for so many years, and that is a wonderful thing. The strong turnout of just under 80 per cent and the clear margin of almost 62 per cent of Australians voting 'yes' leaves no room for doubt. The Australian people want the law to change to allow same-sex couples to marry. It is now our task, as parliamentarians, to deliver it. We must do so by carefully considering the issues at hand but without a moment of unnecessary delay. I believe the Senate can, and must, pass this bill this week. Between now and then, there is going to be a lot of debate about the detail. There should be. This is a substantial change and we must get it right. People of goodwill who want to see this change happen can legitimately disagree about how to do so. As long as I have advocated for same-sex marriage, I have also advocated for the freedoms of other Australians. I have never believed, as some have argued, that granting the freedom to marry to gay couples needs to come at the expense of anyone else's freedoms. I have always argued that we can do both.

The postal survey confirmed what we already knew: Australians fundamentally disagree about how we should define marriage. As much as it might be nice if we all shared the same view, part of living in a free society is accepting that we don't all agree, including on fundamental issues like marriage. Given that, our challenge is to find a way to harmoniously coexist, including on fundamental issues like marriage. The second step is putting in place a legal framework that allows us to live alongside each other amicably whilst holding these different views. I believe a framework based on freedom and individual liberty gives us the best chance of doing so. That means accepting that we should not use the power of the state to force our views about marriage on anyone else. We should absolutely try to persuade each other to our point of view. We should encourage those who disagree to reconsider their perspective, but we should not compel them to change their mind. If we do, we will turn what should be a great unifying moment in Australian history to one that is divisive and defined by recriminations, not love. We would be violating the individual conscience of our fellow citizens, something that no free society should ever do.

I am not here today to speak on behalf of the 4.9 million people who voted 'no'. Given that I voted 'yes', there are others who are better placed to do so. But I do want to remind senators that these are our fellow Australians. They are our neighbours and our colleagues and our friends. They have lost this political contest and they should not be able to stand in the way of this change. But nor should they and their concerns be totally disregarded. I'm here today to speak on behalf of the many Australians who voted 'yes' but who don't want to see this change come at the expense of anyone else's freedoms.

I believe many Australians voted 'yes' for the same reasons that I did: out of a very Australian live-and-let-live attitude. The simple act of allowing a gay couple to get married has no effect on my life, so why should I stand in the way of their love? There is some evidence to support my conclusion. Many polls conducted throughout the survey period which showed a clear majority of support for same-sex marriage also showed high levels of support for protecting freedoms at the same time. When asked in a Newspoll between 21 and 24 September whether parliament should provide guarantees in law for freedom of conscience, belief and religion, 62 per cent agreed. A Guardian Essential poll last week found that 63 per cent of Australians supported allowing both ministers of religion and civil celebrants the right to refuse to solemnise a same-sex wedding. A Lonergan poll reported in The Guardian early in November found that 49 per cent of Australians supported granting commercial service providers the same protection, with 35 per cent opposed. It mirrored findings from University of Sydney's US Studies Centre which showed 43 per cent in favour of the same provision and 39 per cent opposed.

Many Australians who voted 'yes' were reassured by the promises from across the political spectrum that no-one else's freedom would suffer as a result of changing the law. On 15 September, the Prime Minister said:

I just want to reassure Australians that as strongly as I believe in the right of same-sex couples to marry, as strongly as I believe in that, even more strongly, if you like, do I believe in religious freedom.

On the same day, the Leader of the Opposition argued:

I am a supporter of marriage equality, but I also have been raised to be a person of faith. I can give this guarantee to the Australian people: I and Labor will not support legislation which impinges on religious freedoms in this country.

Others, myself included, made similar promises. We must now deliver on that promise. In my view, we must do so within this bill, and I want to take a few moments to explain why.

Whilst I very much welcome the Prime Minister's initiative to ask Phillip Ruddock to conduct a review into the adequacy of protections for religious freedoms in Australia, it is not a substitute for incorporating sufficient protections into this bill. As senators are aware, I recently released my own draft bill to legalise same-sex marriage. It contained broader protections for freedom of speech, religion and conscience than are provided for in this bill, but it did so in a narrow and targeted way, only relating to marriage. It did so because we recognise that beliefs that people hold about marriage are stronger than the beliefs they hold about other issues. For many people, it is integral to their faith. My bill did not attempt or pretend to offer wider protections for religious freedom. This was deliberate. The problem it sought to solve was a practical and immediate one: our disagreement over the definition of marriage, not a theoretical or future problem on how religious freedom interacts with other important rights. That is a worthy topic to discuss, but it will not be a short or straightforward conversation. It has the potential to go on for some time and to stray into other unrelated areas. Our prospects of achieving consensus in this area are remote in my view.

My bill will not be introduced to the Senate, but key elements of it will be introduced as amendments to this bill. They will seek to cover the issues my bill sought to address except for one major element, which was to extend to commercial service providers the right to conscientiously object to participating in a same-sex wedding. I have heard the concerns of many Australians that to do so would be to extend discrimination. That was not my intent. My objective was to protect freedom of religion and conscience, and to avoid people resolving their different views about marriage by suing each other. Although I'll not be seeking to incorporate this provision as an amendment, I remain concerned that in the absence of it we will see divisive court cases that attempt to force people to participate in weddings that are inconsistent with their values. Most gay couples just want to get married and most wedding service providers will be delighted to have the extra business, but I do fear that activists will seek out those few conscientious objectors to use them as test cases for the law. I hope that I'm wrong.

The remaining amendments from my bill are much less contentious. Senator Fawcett, who is co-sponsoring them, has already outlined them in his contribution to this debate, so I won't go over them in detail. But, in broad terms, they seek to better protect the freedoms of civil celebrants, parents, charities and freedom of speech. I look forward to discussing them in more detail in the committee stage. The strongest argument that I have seen against these less contentious protections is that they may not be necessary. We are assured by many advocates of the bill in its current form that it has no impact on these freedoms and that we need not worry about explicitly protecting them. I do not have the same confidence. Even if I did, what harm would be done by reassuring all Australians with these protections?

Although my bill will not be legislated, I am proud to have released it. Doing so sparked the biggest debate about freedoms that we've had in this country for many years. It has led to a number of amendments being proposed, and I hope it will contribute to a better bill with stronger protections passing this chamber than otherwise would have. And we now have a holistic review of religious freedoms in the Ruddock committee.

As senators may know, I am not religious myself—I am agnostic—but I recognise the vitally important role that religious liberty has played in producing one of history's most tolerant, diverse and pluralistic societies that we all enjoy living in today. Equally, freedom of conscience and free speech are among our most important liberties. Without them, we can never truly be free or democratic. Standing up for them does not always win you universal acclaim, particularly when you do so on behalf of people who hold unpopular views—even when you don't share those views yourself. But when I came to this place I promised that I would be a strong voice for classical liberal values. I would not be true to that promise, or my own conscience, if I didn't fight hard for these freedoms. I hope that all the amendments that I propose and support this week are successful. But if they're not, at least I will know that I have done everything I can to protect the freedoms of all Australians and this will allow me to do something that I have always hoped that I could—to vote for a bill to extend a freedom to gay couples that they should have enjoyed years ago: the freedom to marry.