Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in relation to the responses I have received regarding the altering of the definition of 'marriage' to cover same-sex couples. Regrettably, the request for statements to be made by members of this House in relation to this particular issue are an instructive illustration of how this parliament, under this government, continues to lurch further and further away from taking time to address the concerns affecting the majority of Australians.

I have been receiving calls daily in my electorate and parliamentary offices from constituents concerned about the introduction of a carbon tax and the Gillard Greens government's march backwards towards a controlled economy. They are also concerned about matters closer to home, such as families and seniors in the electorate of Hume who are struggling to keep up with the increase in the cost of living to feed, clothe and keep themselves warm. Rather than the democratically elected government of the day focusing on the issues that affect the majority of Australians, we are here to indulge the fantasies of the inner-city elites. This is not a bill before parliament but a motion instructing members such as me to go out and listen to our constituents on a particular issue. After 23 years in state and federal politics and a stint in local government, I am deeply offended at being told by the recently elected member for Melbourne how to do my job. I am not sure what the Greens member for Melbourne does, but apparently he was not aware that as a member of the House of Representatives our role is to represent, advocate and listen to the concerns of our electorate every single day. It is not beneath me to return the favour. Might I suggest to the new member for Melbourne that he spend less time fantasising about neo-Trotskyist social engineering projects and more time in his electorate amongst his constituents.

As I said back in 2004, when I was part of the initiative by the Howard government to amend the Marriage Act to cement the definition of 'marriage' as being a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, I will not be intimidated by individuals in this place or by individuals or groups out in the electorate into moving away from the things that I grew up with—the things my father and my mother taught me about honesty, integrity, principles and my Christian beliefs, which I hold very dear.

Despite this motion's appalling inference that we as members need to be instructed to take on board the views of constituents to extend the definition of 'marriage' to cover same-sex relationships I am on this occasion willing to oblige. From the date this motion was passed by the House, in the electorate of Hume I have had 46 verifiable constituents contact me either by phone, letter, petition or email to express their support for the definition of 'marriage' to include same-sex couples. I thank them for taking the time to share their views with me. By contrast, I have had 636 verifiable constituents contacting me, expressing their desire to see the Howard government's definition remain in place, unaltered. I take from these results that the overwhelming majority of people who are concerned with this issue and who have taken the time to contact me are in favour of maintaining the current definition of 'marriage'. Their view is concurrent with my own.

I represent the majority of my constituents knowing and adhering to the reality that marriage is an accepted bond between a man and a woman. Marriage is a bedrock institution worthy of protection under law. There should be no doubt about what the word 'marriage' means. However, there is a growing evidence to suggest that the commonly accepted definition of the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others is under threat.

Traditional mainstream marriage is an enduring social institution that benefits family members and provides for stability in society. More specifically, it benefits children by ensuring their welfare not only is maximised but is paramount. It is my belief that moving away from the traditional definition of 'marriage' would be to the detriment of our society. Marriage provides stability and a solidly built roof under which children can grow and be nurtured. Quite obviously, we as Australians still hold dear the traditional family values that marriage implies and would like to see those values maintained and protected well into the future.

In conclusion, some homosexual friends of mine for over 30 years agree with my concurrence, and do not agree with what is being proposed by the member for Melbourne.

See this speech in context