Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017

Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017
Title	Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017
Enacted by	Parliament of Australia
Long title	An Act to amend the definition of marriage and to clarify protections for religious freedoms
Citation	2017 Cth No. XX
Introduced by	Malcolm Turnbull (Prime Minister)
Royal assent	2017
Status	Current

Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017

The Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017 is Commonwealth legislation that altered the legal definition of marriage in Australian law and added provisions addressing claims of religious conscience and institutional protections. The Act followed a national postal survey and amendments to the Marriage Act 1961 and engaged numerous legal, political, and civil society actors including parliamentarians, advocacy groups, and judicial institutions.

Background and legislative history

The legislative genesis intersected with actions by prominent figures and institutions: Malcolm Turnbull, Julia Gillard’s earlier tenure, debates involving Tony Abbott, and advocacy from organisations such as Australian Marriage Equality, Liberal Party of Australia, Labor Party (Australia), Nick Xenophon Team, and Australian Christian Lobby. The catalyst included the 2017 Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey, which followed a private member's bill by Senator Dean Smith and government responses shaped by cabinet discussions with Julie Bishop and Scott Morrison. The process engaged constitutional considerations raised by legal scholars at University of Sydney, Australian National University, Monash University, and submissions to committees including the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs. International comparisons invoked statutes and decisions from United Kingdom, United States Supreme Court, Obergefell v. Hodges, Canada, Civil Marriage Act (Canada), and the European Court of Human Rights. The Act’s text was influenced by drafting advice from the Attorney-General's Department (Australia) and precedents in family law adjudicated by the High Court of Australia.

Provisions of the Act

Key provisions amended the Marriage Act 1961 by replacing the definition to encompass marriage between "two people", thereby aligning with legislative language used in rulings such as Obergefell v. Hodges and statutes like the Civil Marriage Act (Canada). The Act included clauses addressing protections for clergy and religious bodies, striking balances reminiscent of exemptions in laws debated in the European Union and cited by advocates such as Equality Australia and critics including the Australian Christian Lobby. Specific sections provided guidance for authorized celebrants, celebrant registration administered by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Department of Home Affairs, and exemptions for religious educational institutions such as University of Notre Dame Australia and denominational bodies including Uniting Church in Australia, Anglican Church of Australia, Roman Catholic Church in Australia, and Salvation Army. The Act referenced administrative instruments used by the Commonwealth Attorney-General's Department and compliance mechanisms interfacing with the Family Court of Australia and state registries like the Victorian Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages.

Parliamentary debate and passage

Debate spanned both chambers of the Parliament of Australia and involved crossbench negotiations with figures such as Senator Pauline Hanson, Senator David Leyonhjelm, and Senator Penny Wong. Filers of amendments included Senator Dean Smith and members of the House of Representatives such as Bill Shorten and Tony Abbott in earlier debates. The passage followed votes in the Senate of Australia and the House of Representatives with input from party conferences of the Liberal Party of Australia and Australian Labor Party. Parliamentary committee hearings attracted testimony from organisations including Australian Human Rights Commission, Australian Law Reform Commission, ACLU (Australia equivalent discussions), Law Council of Australia, Australian Council of Social Service, and academic experts from Griffith University and University of Melbourne. Media coverage by outlets such as Australian Broadcasting Corporation, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian, and The Guardian framed the political dynamics that culminated in royal assent by the Governor-General of Australia.

Legal and constitutional implications

The Act generated litigation risk narratives referencing the Constitution of Australia and precedents from the High Court of Australia including cases on statutory interpretation and anti-discrimination law. Commentary by barristers from chambers associated with Queen's Counsel (Australia) and submissions to courts invoked instruments such as the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 and state anti-discrimination statutes like the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act 2010. Questions arose about freedom of religion protections under common law and statutory carve-outs analogous to exemptions found in the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence and comparative constitutional decisions from the United States Supreme Court. The Act’s interaction with administrative law reviewed by the Federal Court of Australia and appellate mechanisms in the Full Court of the Family Court were subjects for potential judicial review.

Implementation and administrative changes

Implementation required updates across federal and state registries, training for authorized celebrants administered by bodies such as the Australian Marriage Celebrant Association, and procedural adjustments in the Department of Human Services and Australian Taxation Office where marital status affects entitlements. Government agencies issued guidance documents coordinated by the Attorney-General's Department (Australia) and the Department of Social Services; state registrars in New South Wales Registry of Births Deaths & Marriages, Queensland Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages, and Western Australia Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages instituted forms changes. Religious organisations and educational institutions revised governance policies and employment contracts, prompting unions such as the Australian Council of Trade Unions to offer advice.

Reactions and public response

Reactions encompassed endorsements from advocacy groups like Australian Marriage Equality, civil society organisations including GetUp! and legal bodies such as the Human Rights Law Centre, alongside criticisms from faith-based groups including the Australian Christian Lobby and segments of the Religious Right represented by congregations within the Pentecostal movement in Australia. Polling by firms such as Newspoll and Roy Morgan Research documented public opinion shifts. International observers, including delegations from United Nations Human Rights Council sessions and human rights NGOs, cited the Act in broader dialogues about LGBT rights. Cultural responses appeared in arts and media through festivals like Mardi Gras (Sydney) and coverage by broadcasters such as SBS and Channel Nine.

Category:2017 in Australian law Category:Australian federal legislation