Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

He did! As my colleague notes, Edmund Burke ascribed to great principles but he lasted just two terms in the House of Commons. Perhaps that is a lesson for us all. This is an issue which a minority in the electorate feel very passionately about. To all those who lobbied me—or wrote to me, emailed me or stopped me in the street and had street-corner meetings, sometimes appearing at the same time and arguing opposite opinions—I would like to thank you, for being part of the democratic process. MPs are, of course, swayed by their constituents' opinions, even if we are, as Edmund Burke said, exercising our own judgement.

There are two broad views reflective of public debate and they have been made in this House a number of times. I do not intend to go into them in great detail. Principally, there were the advocates of change under a campaign of equal love. They argued, I think, for an expansion of liberty, for the expansion of the right to marry and the recognition of this right by the state. Others have gone into that argument in some detail, so I will not bother the House with it.

Against this, there were those who basically argued for the status quo: for traditional marriage and for the traditional family to be the bedrock of the formation of our society. Many of those people argued with some vigour and passion for tradition and stability. They were of course in the main religious people, people of strong religious faith. I respect their views. I do have a great deal of sympathy for tradition and of course for the value of the status quo. I think in all of these debates, there does tend to be an undervaluing of the status quo, of the virtues of what we have already. Perhaps that is a slightly conservative view, but it is one that I would normally hold. Both sides argued their cases strongly and politely, and I certainly respect their views. I think the broad area of public opinion lies somewhere in between. Most people are not ambivalent about it, but it is not the first question in their mind when they approach their politician.

But for me, this debate does have a personal aspect. It is not just a theoretical debate but in some degree a personal one. That is because my sister Simone is a lesbian. I do not know if love is equal. I suspect it finds no such equilibrium, but love, if it is to survive, does have to be practical. I must say, I find it impossible to deny my sister the right to marriage. I have wrestled with this question. I, frankly, would have preferred to avoid debating it and talking about it, but when it comes right down to it, no matter what my sympathies are for the status quo and for tradition, I find it impossible to deny my sister the same right that I have. Just as I would like to have her at my marriage, I would like to be present at hers. That is why I will vote in favour of this bill.

See this speech in context