Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1)

recognise and honour marriage as an exclusive union between a man and a woman;

(2)

celebrate the importance of marriage as an indispensable institution in Australian society; and

(3)

encourage the Australian Government to enact policies that promote and strengthen marriage in our society.

I am delighted to speak on this motion. In 2004 some 111,000 marriages were registered in Australia. This compares with 106,400 marriages registered in 2003, and some 108,700 marriages registered in 1984. The number of marriages registered has consistently increased since the 2001 low of 103,000. In 2004 the Howard government sponsored an amendment to the Marriage Act which inserted a formal definition of marriage, that definition being that ‘marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’. I spoke in this House at the time of that amendment of my very strong support for this definition and of marriage in general.

Again today in the parliament, in the House of Representatives as the federal member for Ryan, I want to place on record once again my firm position on this matter. I believe that marriage must be the legal and emotional union between a man and a woman, entered into freely and voluntarily, to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, the efforts of the ACT government to undermine the institution of marriage by seeking to pass its own bill were a cause of grave alarm. Last week, the Executive Council advised the Governor-General, Michael Jeffrey, to issue a disallowance motion of the ACT’s Civil Unions Act 2006, in accordance with section 35 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988. In the government’s view, the ACT’s Civil Unions Act represented a serious affront to the institution of marriage.

I strongly share these views of the federal government. In my opinion, if a civil union is to be treated under the law for all intents and purposes the same as a marriage, and is afforded the same practical elements, then it is essentially a marriage. The ACT Civil Unions Act not only gave civil unions the same legal and practical rights as marriage, but in the same breath failed to give same-sex couples the same responsibilities as married couples. But whereas marriage is a lifelong union, not easily broken, civil unions under the ACT act could be broken simply by sending a letter to the Registrar-General and not withdrawing it within a mere one month. This is an absurd position to take. It highlights the conceptual flaws and inconsistencies within the ACT bill.

There is absolutely no question in my mind that marriage must be promoted and protected by society and governments alike. Marriage is one of society’s most fundamental institutions. Marriage is a bedrock institution. I view marriage as an institution on which the very continuity, strength and stability of our society rests. This is because marriage is connected to the procreation of children and the raising of families. Children come from marriage, and families stem from marriage. Damage the institution of marriage and you damage society at large. Diminish the institution of marriage and you diminish society at large. Undermine the institution of marriage and you undermine the foundations of family life. International evidence, such as the experience of Spain, has shown us that once same-sex marriage is allowed the institution of marriage is significantly eroded to the point where a child raised in a household with a mother and father becomes the exception rather than the norm. Assault the institution of marriage and you assault the fabric of our community and our society as we know it today. We do not want the Spanish experience exported to Australian shores.

It follows that, if marriage is an unchallenged expression of commitment, trust, loyalty and love in a union between a man and a woman, marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples. Moves by this government to protect marriage as a fundamental institution of Australian society should not be viewed as in any way discriminating against the gay and lesbian community. In fact, the Howard government has been a strong supporter of removing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation from within the law and in the workplace.

One of the very sad things about our modern world is that many marriages break down and couples feel they need to leave each other and carve out separate lives. We can all think of the many reasons that contribute to the breakdown of marriages. If marriage breakdown is not sad and regrettable of itself, then certainly one of the terrible consequences of marriage breakdowns is that where there are children involved it is invariably the children who suffer all kinds of losses and hurts. Many single parents who raise their children do an amazing job and they should receive our admiration and help. But given the facts that marriages break down and that most single parents do a wonderful job rearing their children, surely we must all agree that the best environment for the rearing of children is one that has both a mother and a father.

I repeat that society and governments must do all they can to promote such an environment where a mother and a father can raise a family with all the support that they need. I want to thank the Howard government for all its measures to strengthen marriage. I will continue to encourage it to make the protection and preservation of marriage a high priority. This would certainly receive the widespread support of the majority of the Australian community. As the federal member for Ryan, I know it would certainly receive the overwhelming support of my electorate.

See this speech in context