Macindoe Tim: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Macindoe Tim: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:9047. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I would like to begin by acknowledging my friend Chester Borrows and that fine contribution on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. I also particularly acknowledge Su’a William Sio who spoke a short time ago and indeed earlier this evening in a previous call. I think that all members of this House have had particular challenges in dealing with this issue regardless of what side we are on but I particularly want to acknowledge Mr Sio who has I think faced unique challenges in dealing with the issue and has in my view conducted himself with great integrity and conviction. I wish to acknowledge that and put it on the record and to wish him well with his Supplementary Order Paper 202 which I think in many respects is very similar to mine but there are some differences that I will come to in a minute. 
When I was interrupted in a previous call I was just making the point that none of my constituents with the exception of the few who had attended a meeting of the gay lesbian bisexual and transgender community just before the election had had any way of ascertaining what my views were on this issue so that in casting their votes for a potential MP for Hamilton West that cannot have been something that they were taking into account. That is one of the reasons why I felt that I should consider the call for a referendum on this issue because I have been criticised as many in this Chamber will know for allowing my faith to influence my conscience vote on this matter. I have to say that for any person of faith what could be more important than faith as a foundation for determining our view on a conscience vote? Others have different beliefs from mine of course and I respect that but my faith and my values and my beliefs are the foundation the cornerstone for my conscience vote. So I cast my vote in the first and second readings of this debate according to my conscience. But because I acknowledge that many voters in Hamilton West and of course elsewhere in the country may disagree with me—in fact of course many do—I also decided to support the call for a referendum. Immediately some of the same people who had attacked me for voting according to my conscience rather than trying to reflect theirs then accused me of cowardice of all things for wanting to let the public have their say. Well I say to those people that you cannot have it both ways. I will vote for a referendum again tonight not so much because I think it is the best way to decide the outcome but because that way I can exercise my conscience while also enabling as many electors in Hamilton West as possible who wish to do so to exercise theirs as well. That seems a pretty reasonable compromise. 
I want to turn back now to outline more of my thinking behind the Supplementary Order Paper that I have tabled Supplementary Order Paper 203. At the outset I want to acknowledge my friend Mark Mitchell who has this evening tabled an amendment to my Supplementary Order Paper and to say to members that I fully support Mark’s thinking. I urge members to support his amendment as well as my Supplementary Order Paper. I thank Mark for the work that he has done on this issue. I think he has improved and clarified my Supplementary Order Paper. 
When I was present for discussions in the Government Administration Committee and that was on two occasions there was considerable focus on whether those who on the grounds of conscience would not feel able to participate in a formal or professional capacity in a same-sex marriage would be respected and protected in that view. The majority of the committee of course said that they would be and the bill’s sponsor who I acknowledge has conducted herself with decency and a real sense of determination in this matter has also always promised that they will be protected. But the important thing is that legal opinion on this matter is deeply divided. So my Supplementary Order Paper seeks to guarantee the assurances that Louisa Wall and the Government Administration Committee say they support. I urge all MPs whether in favour or opposed to the substantive bill to support my amendment. 
I want to read to you just some of the wording from Mark Mitchell’s amendment: “no marriage celebrant is obliged to solemnize a marriage if solemnizing that marriage would conflict with the religious or philosophical beliefs of the individual or of the religious body or approved organisation (if any) to which he or she belongs;”. So it is designed to be comprehensive and fair and to give in clear language the assurances that the sponsor of the bill and many others have claimed should be there for those who have as a matter of conscience a different opinion on this issue. It is not therefore about re-legalising discrimination which has been alleged by quite a number of people who have spoken this evening or who have written. Those who claim that that would re-legalise discrimination are surely throwing open to real risk including legal challenge those who might wish through reasons of good faith and conscience to stand by their convictions. It is therefore about protecting churches celebrants and others from being forced to act contrary—