Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

This is a very difficult issue, but I rise to speak in favour of the member for Throsby's bill. I very much thank him for putting it before the House. This is the first conscience vote debate in which I have participated as a member of parliament. In participating in it, I have tried to be as open as I can with those in my community, in my constituency and indeed here in parliament about what I am thinking, but also to provide them the opportunity to engage with me on this issue. As a result, I have spoken with many, many people about this issue both in the electorate of Corio and also here in the parliament. Like the member for Wakefield, I would like to thank them for the way in which they have participated in this debate and in the democratic process and to note that they have participated in this with an enormous degree of grace and civility. Indeed, I would say that the way in which this debate has been conducted, at least in respect of my involvement in it, has been as good as any debate in which I have participated and is a model for the way in which debates ought to occur within our public policy.

I would also particularly like to thank those who have come to me with a different view to the one that I hold in relation to this debate. They have, as I said, put forward their views with an enormous amount of dignity and respect. This is rightfully a conscience vote. One's view on this issue is founded very much on the convictions that one has—often religious convictions—about the meaning of marriage. I do not want to evangelise my particular perspective on this, as I might in relation to other areas of public policy. There are those, particularly from churches, who have a deeply held view, as a matter of faith, that marriage is an act between a man and a woman. That is a view which I disagree with but which I have an enormous amount of respect for. I want to place that on record here today as well.

Many from churches have expressed a concern to me that a change to the civil laws which would allow same-sex marriages would give rise to a pressure on their churches to marry same-sex couples against the traditions of their church, against their faith and against their belief. What comes from that concern is a need from us all to have a renewed conviction in the freedom of religious expression. My views on the freedom of religious expression have not changed in this debate; these have been deeply held convictions of mine all along. But, surprisingly and unexpectedly for me, during the course of this debate the need to defend the freedom of religious expression has been a need which is greater in this society than I first thought. There are churches that feel a sense of threat about societal norms impacting upon their ability to express their faith. In taking the position that I do in this debate I also take a position that their right of freedom of religious expression must be defended, and I absolutely commit myself to that.

Many in the conversations that I have had saw the legalising or allowing of same-sex marriages in our civil law to be the first step down a slippery slope which would see the recognition within our civil law of other forms of relationships. This is an argument that I understand but, ultimately, it is not an argument with which I agree; I do not think we are taking a step down a slippery slope which will lead to unanticipated places. But, at the end of the day, in considering whether or not a particular set of relationships ought to be allowed in the Marriage Act one can only view that on the merits of the particular instance at hand. For me, the merits of that instance are very clear.

During the last term of parliament this government amended 85 separate pieces of legislation to remove all forms of discrimination against same-sex couples as to how they are treated in terms of property, superannuation and so on. This was an uncontroversial step to take and it was an unambiguously good thing to do. It recognised that same-sex couples in loving, committed relationships, which are intended to be permanent as any heterosexual relationships are—and just as in heterosexual relationships, some have children and some do not—ought to be removed of any form of discrimination within our law. That was seen to be the right thing to do, and I, as a member of the government at that point in time, was a proud participant in the removal of that discrimination from our laws.

Marriage can be seen, and is by many people in our society seen, as an expression of faith, as I indicated. But for many marriage is seen separate to religion. It is, first of all, a statement between two people about the level of commitment that they have to each other. It is also a statement by that couple to the rest of society, to their parents, to their friends, to their extended family and to their community as a whole about the way in which they want to be viewed as a couple. Indeed, making that statement to their surrounding community is part of the statement they make to each other about the commitment that they have. To deny the ability of same-sex couples to make that statement to their parents, their friends, their community and their society seems to me to deny them a human right. It seems to me to be as much a form of discrimination as the other instances have been which we removed from legislation in the last parliament. For me, supporting same-sex marriage being allowed within our civil legislation is as simple as removing another form of discrimination as we did in the last parliament.

That is why I am supporting the legislation as has been put forward by the member for Throsby, and I do that with a very much renewed sense of protecting those churches and those religions who do see marriage in a particular way, as a particular expression of faith, as between a man and a woman, and that the rights of those churches to continue to operate in the way they have need to be protected, and indeed this bill would protect those rights. With that in mind, I very much support the legislation that has been put forward by the member for Throsby as legislation which will remove discrimination from our books, which will remove a denial of human rights from our books and which will allow same-sex couples to engage in our society on the same terms as heterosexual couples.

See this speech in context