A parliamentary committee has outlined its support for the human rights goals in a private members bill to legalise same-sex marriage, but some of its members have penned a dissenting view.

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights examines human rights issues in pieces of legislation.

Its wide-ranging report, released on Tuesday, did not endorse a bill put forward by Liberal National MP Warren Entsch to legalise same-sex marriage, but did find it would work to promote equality and end discrimination under the Marriage Act.

• MPs switch sides on same sex marriage
• Julie Bishop backs same-sex marriage
• No same-sex marriage law until at least 2016

The report also noted the legislation would likely promote the right to respect for the family by “extending the availability of marriage to same-sex couples”, and that the bill “does not limit, and may promote, the obligation to consider the best interests of the child”.

But it is rights to freedom of religion that led three members of the committee to present a different view.

Nationals senator Matt Canavan, Nationals MP David Gillespie and Liberal MP Michael Sukkar said the bill would breach the human rights of civil marriage celebrants.

“It’s important to recognise this report is about the human rights implications of the bill, not whether any individual members or senators support the bill,” Senator Canavan said.

“We have concerns that the bill as drafted does not protect peoples’ freedom of religion and belief.

“Those rights are held with individuals, not with the Catholic Church, or Islam, or a Buddhist Temple.”

Senator Canavan said the bill was not in line with key United Nations conventions.

“The way the bill is drafted, only ministers of religion are exempt, not celebrants, and not even ministers of religion who may have a different view to the religious practice that they’re accredited under,” he said.

“Any change to our marriage laws should ensure that every Australian has the right not to solemnise same-sex marriages, if they’re in the game of being a celebrant and solemnising marriages.

“There are other bills drafted in the Parliament that extend an exemption to celebrants, not just ministers of religion, and we think the bill would be much more in accord with our international human rights obligations if it took that path.”

The trio’s concerns went further than just rights to religious freedom, arguing that it breaches rights in regards to families and children.

-ABC