Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I spoke when the original motion was brought forward by my colleague the member for Melbourne and put forward some thoughts which I must say were catalytic in receiving many other thoughts in response to my contribution. It is quite clear to me that there is a strongly held, but very divergent, set of views about this topic in the community that I represent, and might I say all sides of the argument have been quite vigorous in advocating their position.

I said at that time and I still hold the view that it is entirely appropriate and reasonable for same-sex couples to declare their commitment and devotion to each other in a public ceremony before friends and family in a way that is recognised by the broader community and the state. I hold that view. I advocated that the parliament turn its mind to civil union legislation to achieve that outcome that would capture the durability, the very particular commitment to each other, the public celebration and declaration and the formal recognition of the relationship. Many people thought my speech was measured. A number thought it was far short of what they were looking for and yet others were saying it was the start of a slippery slope. There were even more strongly and stridently held views that I cannot fathom or factor into a reasonable way forward that would have the broad community support that I think people would be looking for.

What I have learnt is that there is no straightforward answer here. What I have learnt is that the definition of a relationship as a marriage matters profoundly to many people. It is an ambition that is profoundly significant to same-sex couples seeking to have that term used to characterise their relationship. For those that are in what is more traditionally recognised as a marriage, and what the statutes of Australia capture as a marriage, they are profoundly committed to that being the appropriate description of their relationship, so clearly the term matters. The concept of marriage matters greatly and the power of that word matters a great deal to many people.

What is clear to me, though, is forcing a group that have long held the view that that characterises their relationship to expand the kinds of relationships to also be captured by that term is no way of taking people with you. To say that in the spirit of tolerance we should reject the strongly held views of one group about their passion and their sense of connection with the term 'marriage' and they should suck up the fact that others would like to use that term and they should just come to terms with it is not my idea of tolerance. That is a 'it will be this way or no way approach' and I can understand why people would be aggrieved by that. Where that takes me is back to where I started. For those that have entered into a marriage, and the statutes of Australia characterise that, there is a significant proportion of the community that I represent that would like their relationship to continue to be characterised that way and the nature of the relationship which that term conveys to the broader public they connect with, they have a very strong sense of association with and they do not like to see that changed.

For those in same-sex relationships wanting a formal public recognition of the durability, the deep personal commitment to each other, we need to find a better vehicle for that, but I do not believe expanding the term 'marriage' to incorporate those relationships will take the community with everybody.

It was put to me that no-one in a moment of great romance and hope for the future walks up to someone and says, 'Hey would you be in a civil union with me?' I accept the fact that there is no music in the term 'civil union'. I accept the fact that there is no queuing of music and of hopes and ambitions in the future when people talk about a civil union. I think we can find a better characterisation. I would like to see the parliament turn its mind to something along the lines of a committed life partnership that shows the durability, passion and nature of the relationship, that it is about the existence and their being and that it is a partnership that lasts into the future. We need take all views with us as best we can into the future. (Time expired)

See this speech in context