Michael Sukkar calls for ‘no detriment’ clause to allow people to reject same-sex marriage in all walks of life

This article is more than 2 years old

This article is more than 2 years old

Turnbull government ministers have begun jockeying over which bill will be used to legislate marriage equality, with Michael Sukkar suggesting there could be “multiple private members bills” and calling for a “no detriment” clause to allow people to reject same-sex marriage in all walks of life.

The education minister, Simon Birmingham, said on Tuesday that the bill produced by the Liberal senator Dean Smith out of recommendations from a Senate committee inquiry is “the most logical starting point” and warned his colleagues not to unwind discrimination law protections.

The no campaign’s Coalition for Marriage has called for broad exemptions to discrimination law to allow service providers to refuse any weddings that send “a message with which they disagree”.

Marriage equality vote: ABS says 75% of eligible Australians have taken part Read more

Guardian Australia has confirmed that conservatives are working on an alternative marriage bill, although no details have been provided for fear of appearing defeatist before the result of the postal survey is declared on 15 November.

The Smith bill is co-signed by four pro same-sex marriage Liberal MPs and is supported by Labor, whose caucus has accepted it “strikes an acceptable compromise” between marriage equality and religious freedoms.

The bill allows religious ministers, celebrants and organisations to refuse to conduct weddings. On Monday the West Australian reported that conservatives wanted as many as 100 amendments to the bill.

On Tuesday Sukkar, the assistant minister to the treasurer, told Sky News it “doesn’t contain the full suite of protections that many of our voters would expect”.



Sukkar said that parliament will shape and amend whichever bill is used to legislate same-sex marriage, rather than the bill being negotiated through the party room.

“You’ve got to remember, there could be multiple numbers of private members bills,” he said.

Sukkar said that a “broad ranging anti-detriment provision” would “absolutely be required from my perspective”.

He said such a provision “basically says, not just for clergy ... if you’re somebody in the course of your life who expresses a view of traditional marriage, you shouldn’t suffer a detriment for that.”

Sukkar suggested people in corporations might lose their job and livelihood because of their beliefs in traditional marriage, despite the fact discrimination law prohibits people being sacked for political or religious opinion.

Sukkar also suggested that people on school boards should not suffer consequences if they “speak out about the insidious [anti-bullying program] Safe Schools”.

However, Sukkar accepted that people “can’t be prejudiced against same-sex couples”.

The Equality Campaign executive director, Tiernan Brady, said the postal survey asks “if people believe in equality and want to end discrimination in our laws”.

“If the vote is yes, it is an insult and disrespectful to do the opposite,” he said. “Any attempt to unravel existing discrimination laws, which have served the Australian people well, not just LGBTI people, would be a direct repudiation of the people’s will.”

Brady said a no-detriment clause was a “nonsense” and there was no detriment when two people of the same-sex were allowed to access civil marriage.

He questioned why same-sex couples would be subjected to a “no detriment clause” and whether it would apply to divorced people or others who had broken religious rules around marriage.

Birmingham told Sky News after a yes vote the government would facilitate debate of a private members bill and there would be a free vote on amendments, with the expectation marriage equality would be legislated by the end of the year.

Birmingham said that Smith’s bill was developed from the attorney general’s exposure draft based on the recommendations from the Senate inquiry.

Marriage equality opponents call for broad right to discriminate Read more

“Of all of the different proposals over the years that have been brought to the parliament, it is the most developed, considered, explored bill that’s been brought forward,” he said. “With that in mind I think it is the most logical starting point for a debate.”

Members or senators could then propose amendments, Birmingham said, adding “in no way should that prevent it being considered ... in the available sittings left for the year”, rejecting suggestions by Cory Bernardi that the process be delayed.

Birmingham noted existing protections for religious freedom, such as exemptions for religious institutions and schools in the sex discrimination act.

“Any amendments that are put forward people will need to demonstrate the detriment that might be caused that they’re seeking to prevent and that existing protections, particularly anti-discrimination protections, won’t in any way be unwound by steps they might be seeking to put in place,” he said.

On Tuesday the Australian Bureau of Statistics provided an update that as of Friday 77% of eligible voters, or 12.3m had voted in the marriage law postal survey. Forms have to be received by the ABS by 7 November.