(a) the nature and effect of proposed exemptions for ministers of religion, marriage celebrants and religious bodies and organisations, the extent to which those exemptions prevent encroachment upon religious freedoms, and the Commonwealth Government’s justification for the proposed exemption.
Recommendation 1: That Section 47A as proposed in the exposure draft not be included.
Rationale:
- The current Section 47 already grants all religious marriage celebrants the right to refuse to marry any couple and to add any additional requirements they so choose.
Two thirds of all authorised marriage celebrants are covered by this existing exemption - Subdivision A and Independent (22,880*) Religious Celebrants in Subdivision C (539*) - Any marrying couple, who meet the criteria for valid marriage, have the right to expect they would not be refused that service on the basis of a personal objection from a professional civil marriage celebrant, whether Commonwealth or State registered, who is authorised by the government to implement the Marriage legislation.
State and Territory officers (Subdivision B) provide civil ceremonies. Currently Division 2—Marriages by authorised celebrants of the Act containing Section 47, Part VII—Offences and Part IX—Miscellaneous Sections 111 to 114 do not distinguish between Subdivision B and C authorised marriage celebrants offering civil ceremonies.
This draft Bill removed the word “authorised celebrant” from the current Section 47 and replaced the term with “marriage celebrant” (which by definition refers to Subdivision C celebrants only).
If Section 47A is implemented, then less than 1% (293 State and Territory officers*) of all authorised marriage celebrants (31752*), and only 3.5% of all authorised celebrants providing civil marriage ceremonies must apply the legal definition of the law that this Bill proposes to change. - The purpose of legislative changes under consideration is to remove discrimination against same-sex couples in the Australian Marriage Act.
If the right to discriminate is extended to the remaining one third (8040*) of marriage celebrants and State and Territory officers (293*) then 100% of all marriage celebrants will be able to perpetuate discrimination against same-sex couples and thus not be required to apply the definition of the legal service (in this case valid marriage) that this legislation is designed to provide. - From a same-sex couple’s perspective, there would be no transparent way of knowing who of the 8040* independent professional (Subdivision C) civil marriage celebrants have a “conscientious objection” to the civil law definition of marriage; nor a transparent way of knowing who of the 539* independent religious (Subdivision C) marriage celebrants have a “conscientious objection” to the civil law definition of marriage.
A blanket exemption as proposed by this Bill would waste same-sex couples’ time in trying to determine which celebrants would be willing to marry them and increase the possibility of further distress to these couples.
* Figures at 04-01-2017
