Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Hansard source

It was 40 years ago this year that my father-in-law, the Hon. Tom Hughes QC, as Attorney-General, spoke to the Australian Council of Social Service on the subject of homosexual law reform. This was an age when a homosexual act was illegal. Homosexual men who engaged in homosexual activities were at risk of prosecution and imprisonment. It seems like a completely different world, but it was only 40 years ago. Tom Hughes said in that speech:

It is one thing to disapprove on moral grounds of homosexual connection in a private place between consenting adults. It is another thing to permit such disapproval to drive one to the conclusion that conduct of that description should be classified as criminal. In a pluralist society it is no part of the function of the law to uphold and preserve the Judaeo-Christian ethic simply because that ethic exists.

Tom Hughes was widely criticised at the time by many people across the board, but in the years that followed he was not the only member of the coalition to speak out in defence of equal rights for homosexual people. Shortly after his speech, the Liberal and Country League member Murray Hill introduced a private member’s bill into the South Australian legislative council to decriminalise homosexuality, and that occurred in 1975. In 1973 the former Liberal Prime Minister John Gorton sponsored a motion here in the federal parliament supporting homosexual law reform. That was passed by the House of Representatives, decriminalising homosexual acts in the territories.

As the former Attorney-General, the member for Berowra, noted earlier in this debate, in 2004 the Howard government made changes to superannuation law that introduced the concept of interdependency, giving same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. And in 2007 I announced on behalf of the government that death benefits would be extended to same-sex couples under the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme. So our side of politics has long supported a reasoned debate on this very important issue and has supported changes to the law in line with changes to community attitudes. We strongly supported the HREOC reforms that were passed by this parliament in 2008, and they were a watershed in terms of rights for same-sex couples, because they fairly comprehensively eliminated discrimination under federal law. The member for Leichhardt has quite fairly described some other matters of continuing discrimination and they should undoubtedly be addressed. His call for a friendship group for LGBTI issues and citizens is a very good one and I certainly join with him in encouraging honourable members to support that group.

I have for many years taken the view that, while advocating strongly for equal rights and the elimination of all discrimination for same-sex couples, nonetheless marriage is a permanent union between a man and a woman. That is the traditional view. The argument is put that tradition is not in and of itself a justification for discrimination, because plainly there are many traditions, particularly in the area of the rights of men and women, that have long passed quite rightly into history. It was not so long ago, as I have discussed, that homosexual acts were criminal in and of themselves. To go back a little further, to the 19th century, married women were not allowed to inherit property. So there have been many changes. I believe it is important for us always to remain in touch with our constituents on this issue, to be aware of changing attitudes, to recognise changes in our community and, at the same time as we support equal rights for all Australians, to listen carefully to our constituents. Having said that, this motion is, in the words of my father-in-law, with whom I began these remarks, ‘a penetrating glimpse of the obvious’. A motion calling on members of parliament to talk to their constituents is no more than asking us to do our jobs, and we do not need a motion to do that. (Time expired)

See this speech in context