Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I take this opportunity to also report back to the House on the views of the constituents of the seat of Robertson regarding the issue of marriage and calls for a change to that definition to allow for same-sex marriage.

There are so many issues on which my office received serious and careful representation. The matter for discussion today is one on which I have received a considerable number of emails and letters, telephone calls and conversations. I can assert that, since my election, this is not the issue about which I have received the most emails or letters, but it is very clearly an issue on which there are very different and strongly held views. Where people have contacted me on this matter, I have responded to their correspondence with a letter or email in which I have articulated my personal view, which, for the record, is in line with the Labor Party policy and the position articulated by the Prime Minister—that is, that marriage is, as it is defined in Australian law, a union between a man and a woman. With no disrespect to those who hold a differing view either in this place or in the broader community, it is the view that I retain here today.

In my electorate, I received 560 communications on this matter from identifiable constituents. Seventy per cent were for retaining the current definition. I want to acknowledge the 30 per cent who hold a different view and took the opportunity to participate in this debate and to communicate with me.

I spoke on this matter at the recent New South Wales state Labor conference. Part of my speech that day was reported in the Sydney Morning Herald. I received hundreds of emails and letters from right across Australia. They commented particularly on one part of my speech that was reported, because I believe it expresses one of the real challenges to all participants in this debate. I said then and I say again that it is too often the case in this debate about same-sex marriage that all people who oppose it are maligned as homophobic, intolerant, bigoted, brainwashed by religious indoctrination or intellectually inferior to those who support it. This is not the case.

I want to put on the record that such a view is of itself intolerant and other-phobic. It does not advance anyone's interest to silence the voice of others. I also want to put on the record how proud I am of the federal party for undertaking, following the election victory in 2007, a substantive program of change that saw more than 80 pieces of legislation amended to give LGTBI Australians the same practical rights as other Australians before the law.

With that as my position, what are the reasons for opposing what I call gay marriage and others here call marriage equality? I will attempt to get a couple of them on the record. Firstly, regardless of culture, time or place, the organic nature of the family unit that is the natural consequence of the union of a man and a woman is the key social unit on which a stable society is built. Marriage is almost universally viewed as a legal and social event that is life-generating and understood to be, much more often than not, linked to children. This is a commonly held position in the broad community. It is the position expressed by our Prime Minister and the position held by many people of faith. Many, but not all Catholic people—like me—Islamic people, Jewish people, secular humanists and Indigenous families think of marriage in this way. We prize it. We understand it very certainly as a union between a man and a woman. There is no intention, in holding that view, to slight the view of others. But the depth of belief in the notion of marriage as a union between a man and a woman is not a matter that can be overturned by legislation. No matter how this matter advances or falls, legislation will not change what 70 per cent of the people in Robertson who have contacted me on this bill actually believe.

I want to read into the record the correspondence received from the Organisation of Rabbis of Australasia, who oppose any legislation to legitimise same-sex marriage. They say:

This is not intended to show any discrimination against the gay community, but simply to uphold the sanctity and purpose of marriage, which is the union of a man and a woman in not only expressing their love for one another, but in also bringing future generations into this world.

Ms Gabrielle Tesoriero from my electorate wrote me a single sentence which summed up the views of so many:

It's important that the definition of marriage remains the union of a man and a woman.

This brings me to my final point. The claim that is made here today that the community is already in support of a change to gay marriages is overstated and that community opposition to such a change—as it is in my seat—is understated. As a teacher for many years, I supported all kinds of families. I always knew that was my responsibility as a human being, let alone as a teacher. Yet I hold for myself, and for 70 per cent of the people in Robertson, the right to hold firmly to the view that marriage is that union between a man and a woman. (Time expired)

See this speech in context