Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak here in the Parliament of Australia about the consultation that I have been able to conduct in my own electorate of Bradfield regarding the question of marriage for same-sex couples and whether that ought to be permitted under Australian law. I might add that I certainly did not require a motion from the Greens to encourage me to consult with my electorate. Like every conscientious parliamentarian, I consult with my electorate regularly on a very wide range of issues and I am blessed with constituents who are articulate, engaged, interested and are always eager to consult with me. I absolutely welcome that.

One might wonder why the Greens chose to bring this issue forward. Obviously, one possibility is that they have a genuine desire to review the current legal position on its merits. Another possibility is that their overriding interest is to wedge the Labor Party by exposing tensions between the inner-city Left and the traditional working-class base and the right wing of the Australian Labor Party which has tended to represent them.

All that being said, I have certainly carried out significant consultation on this issue along, of course, with the many other issues which have been on the public policy agenda over recent months. I have met with a number of constituents on this question. I do note that almost all of those who have made the effort to make an appointment to come in to see me in my electorate office to speak to me about this issue have expressed the strong view that the current legal definition of marriage should be maintained.

I have received a substantial number of petitions from local church congregations in support of maintaining the current legal definition of marriage such as: the Parish of Corpus Christi, St Ives, with about 110 names on it; St John's Anglican Church, Asquith, with about 20 names; and Ku-Ring-Gai Chase Catholic Parish with about 250 names. I have also received a substantial number of letters and emails on the topic. My staff and I assess those as reflecting significant bodies of opinion from both those who are in favour of maintaining the current legal definition of marriage and those who wish to see it changed, but with the supporters of the status quo a little more strongly represented.

I do want to take this opportunity to thank all of my constituents who have made the effort to contact me to put their views on this very important issue. I have been struck by the sincerity and depth of feeling of those who have engaged with me on this issue regardless of which perspective they take. I think that perhaps may be because marriage and partnership are such critically important aspects of life and of personal identity.

The consultation I have conducted on this issue has fortified me in my views on a number of aspects of this issue. I am very pleased that in recent years Australia's laws have been changed to remove discrimination against homosexuals and same-sex couples. These include changes to laws in the areas of superannuation, taxation, social security, aged care and immigration.

The Howard government reformed the law in several areas in this respect and it was the Howard government that began the process that led to the 2008 legislation of the Rudd government that substantively removed discrimination for same-sex couples. These were all appropriate and necessary reforms. They have taken Australia in a very positive direction and, thankfully, a very long way away from the time when homosexual acts were criminalised.

However, the institution of marriage has a cultural and religious significance developed over many centuries. Traditionally, the institution is based on the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life. That is the definition set out in our law and it continues to be my view that this definition should remain.

This in no way seeks to diminish the committed and loving relationships, both heterosexual and same-sex, that exist outside of the institution of marriage. In reaching this view I have very much benefited from the perspectives of the people of the electorate of Bradfield, particularly of those who were sufficiently engaged by this issue to reach out to make contact with me on it. While this consultation does not constitute a statistically valid survey it has given me a useful qualitative sense as to the balance of opinion in Bradfield.

In my view, the Howard government accurately reflected the preponderance of community opinion in inserting into the Marriage Act the current definition of marriage and my consultation leads me to the view that this definition continues to reflect the preponderance of community opinion in Bradfield.

See this speech in context