Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

For an issue gaining much media attention and public discourse, I welcomed the opportunity to consult with my electorate concerning their insights into, and opinion on, this particular issue. Proponents for the legislation for same-sex marriage argue that it is simply a change of wording in the Marriage Act, citing that it currently discriminates. I fully support the government's reform over the last few years which has seen the removal of all forms of discrimination against same-sex couples. As a result amendments have been made to 85 pieces of Commonwealth legislation, now ensuring that partners of same-sex relationships are not legally discriminated against. However, changing the Marriage Act in my view violates the sanctity of marriage and allows same-sex marriage to, in fact, redefine the meaning of marriage itself.

Prior to the 2005 by-election, when I was elected, I used to lay down a series of markers for the electorate as to who Chris Hayes was and what he stood for, irrespective of party politics. I felt it was important for the community to be able to gauge who I am as a person. I advised that I did have a union background. I advised also that I ran a small business. I spoke of my then 29-year marriage to Bernadette, about raising a family locally and boasted proud of being a grandfather. Importantly, I also advised the community that I personally hold religious beliefs as I am a practising Catholic, and I shared this information with people so they could sense who Chris Hayes was as a person. Clearly, a person's background has a measure of influence in terms of their views into the future. Having said this, I in no way believe that my personal views on an issue such as same-sex marriage overshadow the views of my constituents. In fact, I strongly believe that I was elected to the parliament to reflect the views and values of the residents of Fowler.

With this in mind I report the results of my consultation with the local community. I liaised with the members of my local electorate directly, both formally and in street meetings. I certainly received extensive correspondence on the matter. I received four petitions and I conducted an online survey. The feedback that I received was overwhelmingly in opposition to same-sex marriage. In the survey that I conducted on my website I invited people who visit the website to answer the question, 'Should the federal government legislate to recognise same-sex marriage?' Of the 395 votes cast, over 90 per cent said no. I received three petitions which contained over 350 signatures and a fourth containing 150 signatures. Furthermore, I have received over 400 personal letters from constituents stating their wish for the preservation of the traditional definition of marriage and have requested I highlight the importance of the stability it provides, not only for children but for society at large.

The overwhelming majority of emails received in support of same-sex marriage, from people involved in the marriage equality campaign, were in fact sent from outside of my electorate. Irrespective of my opinion on this matter, I say that I acted impartially in my liaison with constituents. At one request for a personal meeting I met with Jessica. Jessica is a lesbian who is in a long-term relationship with her partner. Enabled by the fact that she is transsexual, Jessica and her partner are planning to have children in the future. I came away from the meeting thinking that she is a very open and honest young woman, very passionate about her beliefs and certainly genuine in her regard about family. I accept on good faith the reasons why she did not register her relationship: that she believes that a civil union differs greatly from the meaning of marriage. I say that on the basis that I was very impressed with her candour, notwithstanding the fact, as I indicated to her, that I could not personally support her position.

I note that this debate is highly controversial. However, everyone is entitled to their view. Following the expression of my view at the last New South Wales Labor conference I was written up as a vile, right-wing politician. I do not apologise for my beliefs and I certainly will not apologise for the overwhelming view taken by my electorate. I thank the House for the opportunity to participate in this debate and I thank the member for Melbourne for moving his motion and making it possible. (Time expired)

See this speech in context