George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I ask that general business notice of motion No. 570, standing in the name of Senator Smith and eight other senators, relating to the introduction of the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 and related procedural motions be taken as a formal motion.

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is no objection.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The effect of this motion will be to bring on for debate the private senator's bill put forward by Senator Smith to enable the parliament to give effect to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the Australian people to change the law to allow same-sex couples to marry. This delivers on the Prime Minister's promise to facilitate such a debate in the event of a yes vote. The debate will now proceed in the usual manner for dealing with a private senator's bill, subject to the timetable provided for by the motion. The debate on the second reading will begin tomorrow. It is the government's intention that the debate will continue until the bill, with whatever amendments the Senate may agree to at the committee stage, is finally disposed of. I envisage that that is likely to be by the end of next Senate sitting week.

The Prime Minister and I and other members of the government have always said that there should be strong protections for religious freedom and freedom of conscience. Different senators will have their own views about whether the protections in Senator Smith's bill go far enough. I myself would prefer to see them go further, so I foreshadow that in the committee stage of the debate I will move an amendment to extend the right of conscientious objection to performing a ceremony of marriage from ministers of religion to include civil marriage celebrants as well. That is not a government position—there is no government position on a private senator's bill—but my own private view. Nothing in this bill inhibits the right of churches or of people of religious faith generally to continue to adhere to the doctrines and teachings of their church when it comes to marriage and to speak freely of those teachings, and to bring up their children in accordance with the tenets of their faith. Some have suggested incorrectly that the effect of the bill may be to limit that right. To put the matter beyond doubt, I will also move an amendment to make it clear that nothing in the bill makes it unlawful for people to hold and to express the views of their own religion on the subject of marriage. Such an amendment would not in any way derogate from the primary purpose of the bill, to enable same-sex couples to marry, but would make it clear that, as the Prime Minister and I have always said, that reform and the protection of religious freedom are not inconsistent. I thank the Senate.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for one minute.

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I stand representing quite a body of colleagues here on this side of the Senate and, I suspect, in some other parts of the Senate. I'm very heartened to hear the Attorney indicate his intention to move the amendments that he's articulated in his statement. The point I want to make today—and this will be an historic day—is that there are five million Australians who are cautious about this process. I'm simply calling on all colleagues over the next week or so to have a respectful debate and to go carefully and cautiously, in a timely fashion. I, too, share the view that we, as a government, and we, as a parliament, need to have this matter resolved. There is an inevitability about the passage of this bill, but I want to be certain that people out there who want the protections to which they're entitled know that they have strong voices still within this due process. We will debate it and bring amendments respectfully because, I think, we all share one view: we want to create legislation here that brings a nation together and doesn't leave the potential for a nation to be divided.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a short statement.

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for one minute.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the Senate. I'll be very brief. I'll just make a few comments. The first is in relation to the context in which this bill is being brought forward by a number of colleagues from around the chamber, and I thank all of them for their co-sponsorship of it. Australians have done their part and it is now time for the Senate to do its part. Australians have voted very clearly to change the law and it's time for the parliament to reflect that perspective. I make this point: in relation to the time frame, Senator Brandis envisages that this bill will be finalised by Thursday of the next sitting week. That is, in fact, what the procedure set out in the motion provides for. This will be a debate which will conclude at the conclusion of the next sitting week, for the Senate's part.

In relation to the amendments, and in the spirit of the respectful way in which others have contributed to this debate, I won't go into a long debate about this. We do have the view that the Australian people voted to lessen discrimination and not to extend it. That is our view. We also take the view that the Senate committee bill doesn't change or take away any existing protections for religious freedom. I trust that the Senate will bear in mind the nature of the vote that has been reported today as we proceed to debate this bill.

I will also make a point about the management of debate. There's obviously a free vote amongst the major parties on the substantive issue. There will be the need to ensure that there is time for consideration within groups of amendments, and I would encourage senators who are seeking to put amendments to try to ensure that those are provided early to enable various groupings around the chamber to consider them carefully. In closing, I simply say this: I believe the Australian people voted to remove discrimination and I trust the bill will reflect that.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to make a brief statement.

Scott Ryan (President, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Leave is granted for one minute.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be brief. Today, Australia spoke resoundingly in support of marriage equality and in support of ending discrimination—not extending it, not entrenching it. The Greens have had a longstanding position in this place through my predecessors senators Bob Brown and Christine Milne. Indeed, every MP who has represented the Greens has been a strong supporter of marriage equality. I do want to make a point though about amendments. There was an opportunity for all supporters of marriage equality to discuss this issue through the very extensive cross-party committee process that was engaged in several months ago. It was through that process that the issue of potential amendments was raised, and significant ground was given on all sides. Let me make it very clear: the Greens made significant concessions in ensuring that a cross-party bill that got widespread support would be able to be presented to this chamber. We engaged in that committee process in good faith, knowing that we would have to give some ground if this parliament was to support it. This bill is not the bill the Greens would have introduced if we were proposing legislation ourselves.

I just say to people, particularly those people in support of marriage equality: we have already made our position very, very clear when it comes to amendments. The consensus position that we arrived at through that cross-party bill was the position that the Greens support and that we would not be entering into discussions about further extending discrimination in law. I would just say to every person who supports ending discrimination in this place: think very, very carefully about entrenching discrimination in order to appease your colleagues, rather than listening to the Australian people who spoke loudly and clearly today.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, and also on behalf of senators Reynolds, Wong, Pratt, Di Natale, Rice, Kakoschke-Moore, Hinch and Hume, move:

That—

(1) The following bill be introduced immediately: A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to the definition of marriage and protect religious freedoms, and for related purposes. [Short title: Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017].

(2) On Thursday, 16 November 2017, the second reading debate on the bill shall have precedence over all general business until not later than 6 pm.

(3) In the week commencing 27 November 2017, the bill shall have precedence over all government and general business and, until proceedings on the bill are concluded, the hours of meeting and routine of business shall be varied as follows:

(a) proposals under standing order 75 not be proceeded with;

(b) on Tuesday, 28 November 2017:

  (i) the hours of meeting shall be 12.30 pm to 11 pm,

  (ii) the routine of business from not later than 7.20 pm shall be consideration of the bill only, and

  (iii) the Senate shall adjourn without debate at 11 pm; and

(c) on Thursday, 30 November 2017:

  (i) the hours of meeting shall be 9.30 am to adjournment,

  (ii) the routine of business from not later than 4.30 pm shall be consideration of the bill only,

  (iii) divisions may take place after 4.30 pm, and

  (iv) the Senate shall adjourn without debate after proceedings on the bill are concluded.

Question agreed to.

I present the bill and move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.