Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

As the House is aware, members of the government have been given a conscience vote on this bill, which is appropriate given the significance of the issue and the fact that there are likely to be very strongly held views on either side of this debate. Therefore I believe it is important—at least important to me—not only that I exercise my vote but that I explain the rationale in coming to my decision. It is not the first time that I have had the opportunity to speak about the issue of same-sex marriage. The last occasion was when members of the House were invited to consult broadly with their electorates and report back to the House on the result of those discussions. When I did, it certainly triggered an avalanche of correspondence from those who are less than happy with my position, but may I say that that was certainly not the experience with those that I represent in my community in south-west Sydney. Indeed, when I had the opportunity to speak at the ALP conference last year, I was written up in some publication as being a vile, right-wing politician. So much for holding a view that was not necessarily embraced by everybody.

The conscience vote is just that. It is not a free-for-all, it is not poll driven and it is not a vote dictated by focus group research. It is a vote to be exercised in accordance with one's own personal beliefs. Therefore can I again indicate to the House that it is my strong personal belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I also strongly believe that to change the federal Marriage Act, as sought by the member for Throsby's private member's bill and to recognise same-sex marriage, would not only violate the sanctity of marriage but redefine the traditional meaning of marriage itself. In coming to this debate, I have been accused by some of not having an open mind or of simply doing the bidding of the Catholic church. I am not sure how one can have an open mind when it comes to beliefs or matters of conscience. If beliefs can be so easily swayed by others, maybe that says more about the substance of the person than anything else.

But, in fairness and in all honesty, my background and the environment I grew up in does have a level of influence on my views on a range of matters. I do hold certain religious beliefs. As members of the House know, I am a Catholic and grew up in a very strong Catholic household. Understandably, my background and all those experiences that go to make up me certainly have a measure of influence in respect to my views on a range of matters, including industrial relations and, probably in particular, my brand of politics. But as I indicated when I last spoke in the House on same-sex marriage, I have very much sought to differentiate my personal beliefs from that of my constituents.

Resulting from community consultation, petitions and letters that I received, as well as an extensive online survey, I think I understand, and I am well aware of, the overwhelming view of my electorate when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage.

The Marriage Act 1961 was amended in 2002, under the Howard government, to include in section 5 that the definition of marriage 'means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life'. This was supported by the parliament because it codified the traditional definition of marriage that has been long held under common law.

I believe the definition of marriage sits comfortably with the historic understanding and acceptance of what marriage really is, an understanding that it is applicable across all cultures and societies. I appreciate that over the last 15 years there has been a strong move to disturb this historic understanding of marriage, in an attempt to redefine marriage so that it applies equally to same-sex couples. I understand that. It is a move which originated in some states of America. It is true that outside the USA marriage has been redefined in a number of jurisdictions—I think 11 in total—all of which are restricted to western countries, including South Africa. But the fact remains that an overwhelming number of countries do not support marriage as being between any two people, but marriage is between a man and a woman.

I do not accept that marriage is open to all regardless of gender. Opposite-sex couples complement each other, according to the biological construction of their relationship, in a way that same-sex couples cannot. The relationship between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples is different. If the relationship is not the same there cannot be a discrimination when providing the definition of marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman.

To ensure that there is no difference in the legal treatment of couples who set up a relationship outside marriage, since 2007 the Labor government has amended 84 pieces of Commonwealth legislation to put beyond doubt that there can be no discrimination against same-sex couples who establish a live-in relationship. Yet it will be argued by those supporting this bill that not to legislate a change in the federal Marriage Act will amount to a continuing discrimination of same-sex relationships and a breach of human rights. In respect to human rights, I am aware that, over the last two years, the European Court of Human Rights on two occasions has had this matter before it—the issue about discrimination of same-sex couples—and on both occasions the court ruled that there is no specific human right for a same-sex couple to marry.

Following the passage of the 84 pieces of legislation by the federal Labor government to remove discrimination against same-sex couples, it must follow that not to amend the federal Marriage Act does not amount to discrimination. To not amend the federal Marriage Act to apply to any two people, in my opinion, does not form a continuing discrimination. The traditional definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life, is a reflection of a society that has considered or constructed the relationship that best serves the nurturing of children.

As I indicated, that traditional definition of marriage is one that is largely observed by all cultures and all societies. I cannot say, in all good conscience, that not amending the federal Marriage Act to apply for same-sex couples would amount to a continuing discrimination.

I am very proud to be a member of a government that has worked to alleviate discrimination. We moved those 84 pieces of legislation to do just that. But when it comes to the federal Marriage Act, members have been forthright, from the start of this debate, about the definition of marriage. Despite my friendship with the member for Throsby I cannot support the bill where what he seeks to do goes against my strongly held views. I know that my view is echoed throughout my community. (Time expired)

See this speech in context