Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment Bill 2017. I have spoken on marriage equality in this place on, what I would say, too many occasions, but today, hopefully, will be one of the last. Finally, this week, we will do our part to change the law. We will allow any two adults to choose to enter into a marriage and make a public affirmation of their love and commitment to each other. I believe that this change will strengthen the institution of marriage, it will strengthen families and it will strengthen communities.

For me, the ideal bill before us this week would be one that simply removes the gender-specific language that has plagued the Marriage Act since 2004—that is, that we go from defining a marriage as a union of a man and a woman, back to simply, a union of two people. But I'm willing to compromise, and I'm willing to accept the further amendments included this bill. Aside from the creation of religious civil celebrants, the majority of the amendments clarify the existing circumstances. I'm not convinced of the need to further water down this historic bill with any other amendments. I'm not prepared to see this bill fail through attempts from either side to create a bill that those in the middle cannot support. What we're doing here this week is recognising that love is love, that commitment and family are the bedrocks of our society and that more love, commitment and strong families can only make our communities better.

Getting to this place today has been a long, long road. I congratulate the LGBTIQ Australians and their allies for their hard work and patience. It has been a decades-long campaign: first to decriminalise homosexuality and then to end all forms of discrimination within our laws. I also congratulate the millions of Australians who have changed their mindsets about LGBTIQ relationships and LGBTIQ families. While prejudice breeds prejudice, we each have our own moral code, and, with every conversation and every story of love and commitment, mindsets are changed and tolerance increases as people realise that public declarations of love between two others are not going to impact on their lives in any way.

This week is the culmination of the years of hard campaigning, of deeply personal campaigning, where LGBTIQ Australians have been forced to campaign for equal rights, have been forced to put their relationships up for judgement—indeed, have been forced to put their very identities up for judgement—and have been forced to endure some of the worst, most hateful and most disgusting comments from people who, quite frankly, should know better. This cruel campaigning was amplified during the recent postal survey, a postal survey that was voluntary for Australians to participate in and non-binding on this parliament. This survey and the plebiscite proposal before it were the absolute worst way to bring this issue to a head. Instead of recognising what we all knew to be the case—that the opinions and views of Australians had changed, that the people had moved—the weakest Prime Minister we have seen caved into the extreme conservatives in his party and their attempt to delay a parliamentary debate.

The result from the simple question that this government asked the Australian people was overwhelming. It was the opponents of marriage equality who wanted a plebiscite. It was the opponents of marriage equality who proposed the postal survey. It was this government that set the question. And even with the near two-to-one result in favour of marriage equality and with the concessions around religious freedom already made in drafting this bill, many of those opposed to marriage equality want more concessions, more delays and more watering down. I say to the opponents of marriage equality: enough is enough.

This nation is proudly a secular state. We tolerate and accept people of all religions. We also tolerate and accept people who choose not to adhere to formal religion. Despite the constant harping from those who will do anything and everything to frustrate change, there is no absolute, universal, historical definition of marriage. There are people of all faiths and people who choose not to follow a formal faith who believe that any two adults should be allowed to marry. So, when opponents say that, beyond the compromises included in this bill, we need sweeping changes to, quite frankly, allow for people to discriminate against LGBTIQ people, it needs to be called out for what it is: perpetuating discrimination.

This bill actually provides more significant religious freedoms than many people are comfortable with. While it is already the case that a minister of religion may refuse to solemnise a marriage for any reason, this bill extends the provisions for religious protection not just to ministers of religion but also to civil celebrants who register as religious celebrants. It also formally extends religious protection in the Marriage Act such that all bodies established for religious purposes can refuse to host a wedding ceremony if the marriage is against their religion's doctrine, tenets or beliefs or it is necessary to avoid injury to the feelings of their religious community. This is a big change, and the bill also amends the Sex Discrimination Act to give effect to these religious protections.

These protections are surely enough. These protections are landmark reforms in themselves. No longer is the right to refuse limited just to ministers of religion, with registered religious celebrants also eligible to refuse to marry a couple on whatever grounds. The formal protections afforded to religious bodies to refuse to provide any goods or services for the purposes reasonably incidental to the solemnisation of a marriage is a big concession. 'Reasonably incidental' is not defined. 'Religious bodies' is not defined. These are very strong religious protections that are not afforded to anyone else, and they operate in one direction—the right to refuse LGBTIQ people. As I just said, there are many people of faith, including ministers, who support marriage equality, and the current Marriage Act clearly limits their freedoms to marry, to be married and to support friends and family as a witness at a wedding.

One issue that this bill does not address that I hope religious bodies can resolve within their own walls is disputes between a local congregation that is in support of marriage equality and a central administration that is opposed. Quite clearly, while it is important to allow religious bodies protection from solemnising certain marriages to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of their congregation, on the opposite note it is equally important that religious bodies ensure their actions avoid injury to those members of their congregation who see nothing within the religion's doctrines, tenets or beliefs that should prevent a marriage between two consenting adults. And, as I've just said, the best place for these discussions is within each religious body; these things should not be prescribed in this bill.

Likewise, amendments that only promote the beliefs of opponents of marriage equality do nothing to improve this bill, do nothing to improve the community debate and do nothing to bring people together. It was prudent that last week in the face of the barrage of opposition from within his own government, the Prime Minister announced the creation of a panel to review protections for religious freedom in Australia. It was, however, ironic that the Prime Minister chose Philip Ruddock as the chair of this panel. Mr Ruddock as Attorney-General in 2004 introduced the change to the Marriage Act to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Mr Ruddock's record on LGBTIQ rights as Attorney-General includes lowlights such as denying a gay World War II veteran's partner a spousal pension and refusing to provide a gay man with a certificate of no impediment to marriage. With all respect to the high-calibre Australians who have been appointed to the panel, the Prime Minister has failed to include an LGBTIQ Australian. Why? There are many impartial esteemed LGBTIQ Australian lawyers who could fill an important role on this panel. I implore the Prime Minister to revisit the creation of this panel and include an LGBTIQ Australian. Despite this criticism, the creation of this panel is a good step for public debate and ensuring marriage equality passes the parliament this year.

During the postal survey campaign, the principal of a local independent school in north-west Tasmania wrote to me with concerns about the school community's freedoms in the event marriage equality passes the parliament. I responded that I personally believe that such protections are not needed but that a national conversation is needed after the Marriage Act is amended. I said that with respect to religious freedom I would expect that even at present a religious institution would provide impartial pastoral care based on modern psychological best practice to a student who was questioning their sexuality or who needed help in coming out to their friends, family and community. I would expect that religious institutions are currently able to counsel students in a professional way that supports the students to be comfortable, confident and proud with their sexuality. Where it is appropriate to draw on guidance from the Bible then that is legitimate, but if a specific interpretation of the Bible may cause psychological harm to a child then surely that is best left unsaid. I believe it is important to balance the rights of parents to educate their children in a certain manner with the child's rights to receive impartial pastoral care.

It is also vital that we look at the experience of legislating for marriage equality around the world and examine how other jurisdictions protect religious freedoms while also protecting LGBTIQ people. I note that there is currently an inquiry before the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. Members and senators participating in the inquiry, and indeed all senators listening today, will be interested to read a recent comparative analysis from University of Tasmania law academics Dr Gogarty and Ms Hilkemeijer published on The Conversation website yesterday. The article titled 'Conservative amendments to same-sex marriage bill would make Australia’s laws the world’s weakest' found that the amendments proposed in Senator Paterson's bill would see Australia become the only country in the world to wind back laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination, after legislating to protect them. Whilst Senator Paterson has withdrawn his bill, the spirit of some of his amendments live on in the public comments and proposed amendments of some in this place.

The University of Tasmania academics found that, of the jurisdictions that allow LGBTIQ couples to marry, only Portugal, South Africa and the US state of North Carolina allow civil celebrants to refuse to solemnise a marriage, that only a handful of states in the United States allow service refusal—and that's around bakers and florists—and that only the US states of Florida and New Hampshire allow parents to withdraw their children from classes on the ground of gender preference education. I trust that we do not want to see Australia legislate for marriage equality only for it to become the least equal of all countries in the world with respect to rights for LGBTIQ people. I trust that opponents of marriage equality will respect the Prime Minister's decision to push the religious freedoms matter off to the Ruddock-led panel and that we will see the bill moved quickly through this place this week.

I would also like to touch on my home state of Tasmania. First, congratulations to everyone who campaigned so hard for this change. Legislating for marriage equality is one of the final steps in ensuring equality for LGBTIQ people, and it comes just 20 years after we decriminalised homosexual relations between two men. Despite this shameful past, LGBTIQ Tasmanians and their allies have campaigned respectfully and tirelessly for change. They have worked across all sides of politics and in the city and in all of our country towns to convince Tasmanians of the need to respect LGBTIQ people and of the need for change. With every conversation and every story of love and commitment, mindsets are changed and tolerance increases as people realise that public declarations of love between two people are not going to impact on their life in any way.

I was always confident of the result of the postal survey, but I'm so proud to put on the record in this place that Tasmania recorded a 'yes' result of 63.6 per cent—two percentage points above the national average—and all five electorates recorded a 'yes' result. Tasmania was the first state in Australia to introduce a register of 'Significant Relationships' that was open to all couples. This step in 2003 ensured LGBTIQ Tasmanians had equal rights in superannuation, taxation, insurance, wills, health care and employment conditions. It was the forerunner to the reforms federal Labor made in 2008, which ended discrimination against LGBTIQ Australians in all but the Marriage Act. In 2012 and 2013, the Tasmanian parliament amended laws to allow for surrogacy, adoption and parenting rights. This year the Tasmanian parliament expunged historical gay sex convictions. But the major reform that is outstanding is marriage equality.

I believe that Labor made a mistake in 2004 in supporting John Howard and Philip Ruddock's amendment to introduce gender into the Marriage Act. It took years of effort by many committed activists within Rainbow Labor and across the broader union movement to see the party change its position. I will never forget the mood in the room at the Tasmanian Labor Party state conference in 2009 when we were the first state Labor Party branch to change our position to support marriage equality. We are again leading the nation. One by one, other states slowly followed. Finally, at our most recent national conference, the Labor Party committed to a national platform which would unequivocally change the Marriage Act.

In concluding my remarks today, I want to pay tribute to those people whose stories I have shared in this place: Sandra, Lee, Jenny, Jen, Peter, Martine, Maxine, Robbie, Matt and Lochsley. I implore colleagues to let this bill pass without amendments. All that will happen after this bill is passed is that more people will be able to get married. In no way does this bill lessen the value of or harm any existing marriage. In no way does this bill cause harm to any person or couple, and in no way are your precious freedoms restricted or impacted. This week we are saying that more publicly recognised committed partnerships will make our households stronger, which in turn will make our communities and our broader society stronger. We are saying to lesbian, gay, transgender, intersex, bisexual and queer Australians that your relationships are completely valid, that your relationships are special and important and that everyone has the freedom to marry whoever they want to. I commend this bill to the Senate.