Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Hansard source

On 17 June 2004 I spoke in this parliament in support of the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2004, which made changes to the Marriage Act 1961. As I said in my speech of 17 June:

A marriage is and should be between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. The amendments in the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 include those marriages entered into in other jurisdictions and overseas, measures which are important to ensure legal loopholes are not used to introduce social changes which go against the will of the people. Far be it from me to criticise the courts, but where there is a lawyer and there is a loophole, there is a possibility for social change. The other amendments to the Marriage Act will spell out that overseas adoptions cannot be undertaken by persons not in a marriage which is recognised in Australia. These are consistent amendments, consistent both with the social expectations of the people of Australia and the legal definition of marriage.

I will not delay the House further by restating all I had to say at that time.

I acknowledge that there has been a concentrated campaign to change the definition contained in the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry. I respect their campaign and, in particular, the right they have in a free and democratic society to pursue their agenda without the personal persecution that may happen in other countries and societies.

There are two bills aimed towards changing the act to allow same-sex marriage currently before our House. However, I am extremely disappointed at the tone of the argument made by certain individuals and groups alike who are pro-same-sex marriage, making me a target, stating that I am homophobic for not supporting the change. I can assure this House that that is not the case. Whilst I understand the highly charged emotion attached to their argument, I do not agree with the tone from some—and, thankfully, not all.

I do not discriminate against any individual on the basis of gender or sexuality. I choose and always have chosen my employees on the basis of their ability to deliver the outcomes required. I choose my circle of friends on the basis of common interest; sexuality and gender do not come into the argument. I am not going to name names, but I have had in the past, currently have and probably will in the future have employees who are homosexual. But they work for me because they have the capacity to do the job and to deliver the outcomes required. I have a number of genuine friends who are homosexual, both male and female, because we share a common interest across a broad selection of topics. As I said, and I want to restate to the House, I am not homophobic. For those who say I am not reflecting my electorate of Paterson, I also say that is not the case. In my office, we keep an electorate database of all contacts from my constituents. Of all of the emails, phone calls, letters and meetings with my constituents of Paterson in relation to the issue of same-sex marriage, as of last Friday 92 per cent were against same-sex marriage. Only eight per cent were for it. For those who said I should have spent money surveying the whole of my electorate, the feedback from those both for and against has been resounding enough not to warrant further expenditure. I have said to them they are welcome to do a whole-of-electorate survey and provide me with the results, along with details of how the polling was done. Nothing has transpired.

I say to those who have condemned me for my stance that I am representing the majority view of my electorate of Paterson, which also happens to align with my personal view, based on my strong faith values. I recognise and acknowledge the right of any individual to campaign on any issue. I recognise the rights of the individuals to have their own views and their own opinions. But it also should be said that they should respect me and allow me to have my views and my values. They are based on a Christian faith and fortunately, in this situation, they are reflected by the broader consensus of my electorate. Therefore I will be opposing this bill in its entirety.

See this speech in context