Barry Haase (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to fiercely defend the status quo in relation to this bill. Change for the sake of change is simply a waste of human endeavour. All of us are constrained in society by the mores of that society popular at the time, and any change that is sustainable is change that is well thought through and necessary. None of the aforementioned are required for change to the Marriage Act. The Marriage Act clearly states, as you are all aware and as has been heard ad nauseam, marriage is between a man and a woman for life to the exclusion of all others. It is the perfect world. Of course, it is the perfect environment for the propagation, raising and teaching of children to sustain the society that we have and enjoy today and that some of us fiercely defend.

There are others in the community, sadly, who would have change ad nauseam. The slightest suggestion by one minority group in society that tomorrow ought be different from today is listened to, splinter groups are formed, lobby groups are formed and suddenly we, who maintain the status quo, are encouraged to feel as though we are second-rate citizens because we do not believe in the particular popular 'ism' of the day.

I am proud to be a stick-in-the-mud if that is what I am to be categorised as. I have no hesitation in accepting that couples, multiples or whatever may live together and choose whichever particular sexuality they desire, but at the end of the day any domestic relationship is just that. It is enjoyed by members of our society in a free society. What they do not have the opportunity to enjoy is declaring themselves equal in every respect to a couple that is a man and a woman living together to the exclusion of all others for life; therefore, they are not married. If couples wish to lament the fact that they cannot be married because they are a same-sex couple or living in a polygamous arrangement, so be it; such are the constraints at law in our society today and so they ought to be. I was much heartened to hear a member of the government today express so much good sense when the member for Robinson came into this place and expressed her point of view, firmly espousing that she would not be changing her point of view, because she thought it was right. I too believe that my point of view is right and that the definition of marriage ought remain.

There are many other definitions of relationships. I have some here. We have polygamy, and most of us know about it. It encompasses both a man with multiple wives in polygamy and also polyandry, which is one wife with multiple husbands living in a domestic relationship. We have polyamory, a de facto type of marriage where both partners have more than one partner. And then we have polyfidelity, which is an expanded monogamy. All of these arrangements exist in our society today and no-one loses a great deal of sleep over that. But none of those aforementioned relationships can consider themselves to be married. For the sake of those couples who do live as man and wife, a male and a female, to raise children in an environment which is most popular and stable in our community today, they ought not to be shown disrespect or denigrated by giving the same legal definition to all of those other domestic arrangements.

I state my case. I firmly believe in maintaining the status quo and that any debate in regard to changing the Marriage Act is such a waste of time in this place because there are so many other vitally important issues to be debated.

See this speech in context