Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012, and I congratulate the member for Throsby for bringing the matter forward. I think it is worthy of debate in this place, and the contributions have certainly been worthy. I am very pleased that the member for Throsby brought forward a very sensible bill and—I hope I do not offend him by saying—maybe a minimalist bill, one which goes to the core of the issue we are debating without wandering off into extraneous issues. We have a clear question before us here: should the Marriage Act be amended to remove what some people might describe as discrimination, and therefore allow same-sex couples to marry, under that act?

I think this is the fourth occasion on which, over my 16 years in this place, I have risen to speak on a matter which has been determined, within the Labor Party at least, a matter of conscience. Certainly euthanasia was one, stem cell research was another, and I am pretty sure I was here for the debate over RU 486. These conscience vote issues bring a certain civility to the parliament. They put a sombre note into the air, but they force people to think very deeply about their position of these issues. Certainly, from the Labor Party's perspective, there is no opportunity here to hide behind the collective decision. What we do on these issues is a matter for us and therefore we are accountable to our electorate, very directly.

When I voted against the bill to allow euthanasia, I often found that people assumed my position was based on my Catholic upbringing. Indeed it was not. While it is very true that I am a Catholic and have had a strong Catholic upbringing, my real fear about euthanasia was that, rather than enacting a law to give people a choice, it would have been a law which would deny people a choice. In other words, pressure could have come from other interested parties to choose that option. So people should not assume that everything we say in this place is necessarily based on our upbringing, our Christian faith or otherwise.

Obviously, like all members, I have spent a lot of time thinking about this issue and, like the member who spoke before me, I am very proud to be part of a government which, since 2007, has removed discrimination from every piece of legislation sitting on the Commonwealth books. For all of that period of reform I sat on the front bench with the then Attorney-General Robert McClelland, and I can assure all members that that was not easy for the then Attorney-General, and it was not easy for the party. What we did was a huge challenge. It was not an uncontroversial thing—it was quite a controversial thing. But we did it and we should be proud of it.

I am not convinced that the current wording of the Marriage Act does equate to discrimination. From my perspective, the Marriage Act is an instrument for procreation between opposite-sex couples, and I will be arguing today that that is what it should remain.

I have consulted very broadly within my electorate and, like all members, I have had lots of emails and other correspondence on this issue. Again, like everyone else in this place, I know gay and lesbian people and include some of those people as my friends. I think I understand why people want the act changed. I think it mainly goes to the idea that they are being discriminated against, although I do find it interesting that marriage as an institution is in decline amongst heterosexual couples, and some in the gay community seem to be running against the tide in trying to secure the opportunity, and it is a curiosity to me. We do have civil unions in most if not all states and therefore the opportunity does exist to formalise and legalise a same-sex relationship.

On conscience votes, it is worthwhile asking ourselves why we are here. Are we here to push our own personal views on these issues or are we here to represent those who elect us, our constituency, and therefore the collective majority? I am convinced after talking to many people in my electorate that my constituency is not ready for this change. I am not saying that there are not many in my constituency who do support the change, there certainly are, but I would be very surprised if it is anywhere near 50 per cent. That might be contrary to the national snapshot or any national poll. But of course our electorates vary considerably in terms of their demographic make-up, et cetera. I find that the majority of my people do not want this change. I have said publicly that maybe that will change as time goes on and as more conservative, older voters pass on, like we all will one day. But I have found, and I have said it publicly before, that many couples, particularly the older ones, in my electorate are challenged by this concept and have told me that they feel that extending the Marriage Act to same-sex couples would in some way devalue their own marriage certificate—something they hold very close to their hearts. You have to be careful to generalise but I would argue that they hold this marriage certificate much more closely than maybe some of the generations that follow them, particularly those who have gone through their golden wedding anniversary, or through to 60 years. They do feel, rightly or wrongly, that the extension of the Marriage Act to same-sex couples would somehow devalue their marriage certificate. I do not necessarily agree with that, of course, but I understand the sentiment and I understand the pain they would feel based on the stories they have articulated to me. There would be pain caused by this change to the Marriage Act.

I do not have a very strong view on the issue, personally. I do not think it matters much to our society, quite frankly, whether same-sex couples marry or not. I do not think it benefits them greatly and I do not think it disadvantages the rest of our society greatly either. I will probably be attacked for saying this, but I think this is a sort of 11th order issue. I believe it is an important debate, and I said so, but in this place I would much rather be debating some of the more challenging social issues that we face as a parliament and as a people. The unemployment payment, which is topical at the moment, we approach from the wrong angle. We should not be arguing about the rate of pay; we should be arguing about the way in which we treat all unemployed people the same, whether they are likely to get a job or not likely to get a job. There is a lot we could be doing productively in that area.

But here we are today, in any case, having an important debate. Again, I do not have a dogmatic or hard opinion on it. It has been a tough question for me, as I am sure it has been for most of us in this place. On this occasion, again, I do not have the opportunity to hide behind the collective of the party but I do have an opportunity to do what I think is the view of the majority of my constituency. I do not think my electorate is ready for this change and on that basis I will not be voting for this change.

See this speech in context