Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support the private member's bill, the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012, knowing that it is a matter of great interest to the community Australia wide and to the community in my electorate. Also, it affords the opportunity through those decisions taken by the government and the Labor Party to exercise what is described as a conscience vote on this matter. It is the case that the Labor Party, when it met at national conference, amended its platform. It changed its platform to say that Labor will amend the Marriage Act to ensure equal access to marriage under statute for all adult couples—irrespective of sex—who have a mutual commitment to a shared life. I certainly support that change that was expressed at the conference.

I have, as the local member for Kingsford-Smith, sought the views of my constituents on this issue. In doing that, I can say that the majority of expression of views are in favour of same-sex marriage. It is the case that some members of the Labor Party and certainly in Kingsford-Smith, including individual branches, are not in favour. Some members are. The fact is that there is a polarity of views on this issue and also a polarity of views amongst religious organisations. I indeed have received letters and representations from churches in the electorate opposing this bill, as I have received letters supporting it. I do note the Reverend Andrew Johnston, who heads of the chaplaincy organisations of the University of New South Wales, saying welcomely that it was wonderful to hear the local member state again his public support for this fundamental issue of justice.

I acknowledge those views. I respect the views that those opposed have expressed, but I do not share them. I do not believe that the arguments put forward suggesting that the traditional bonds of marriage would be weakened by amending the Marriage Act are arguments of force. I do not believe they have thrown up any material or compelling reasons as to why members should not support this amendment. If churches wish to marry persons on the basis of the traditional interpretation of marriage, they are still free to do so. There is no obligation imposed on ministers of religion to recognise same-sex marriage in the Jones bill. I, like many others, am a strong supporter of marriage. I have been in that 'happy state' for 27 years or more. I expect that to be the case as long as I draw breath. I greatly value family life. I recognise that at its best it is providing the durability and the reliability that growing up within a family can provide for people.

It is the essential frame within which the young are nurtured, protected, educated and socialised. All of that occurs in families. It is universal—for the most part—of our human species and it should be seen as such. But the fact is that families are diverse. They are representative of a community. The choices of people living in families, who see themselves as family and see family as an essential part of their lives, deserve to be respected. Commitment to marriage, a desire for the same recognition by the state of that commitment by same-sex couples, does not in my eyes represent a weakening of the institution at all. If anything, I would argue that it is a strengthening. To that extent, I am clear that what the bill in front of us is actually proposing is an opportunity for more people within the community, who have a strong and enduring commitment, to have it recognised by the state.

In 2012 there are differing attitudes and priorities around marriage as well. There are increasingly numbers of de facto relationships, second marriages are increasingly common and so it goes.

But the desire by one group in the community to have their relationship duly recognised by a sign of intention to have permanence and enduring commitment does not represent the destruction of an institution that I have already referred to as being in a state of evolution and change. The fact is that it is the integrity and commitment within relationships that has at its heart the endurance that we seek both in families and communities more broadly.

Finally, and importantly, I do not consider that sexual orientation in and of itself is sufficient to deny any person a right to which others are entitled. The desire for recognition of a commitment to a permanent same-sex relationship as a marriage is, amongst other things, the desire to be treated the same as others, to be seen in the same light as others, to be equal to every other citizen in our democracy. The fact is that these people are in our families, they are our workmates, they are members of the community at large and they are the people that we as members of parliament represent. If the integrity of marriage as an institution sanctioned by the state is not sufficient reason to prohibit same-sex couples from having their union recognised, which is what I am arguing, then the question is: what reason remains? I can see none of any legislative or compelling moral or intellectual force.

I do not believe we should discriminate against people on the basis of race or religion—nor should we permit discrimination on the basis of choice of partner or prohibit the equal recognition of that choice and commitment by the state. In fact, I do not believe that the denial of the rights and opportunities of one group over another contributes to the shared societal goal of healthy relationships across the board and across the diverse terrain of human society. This parliament should not deny our brothers and sisters, our nieces and nephews, those we work with, our children, those whom we represent, the right to be considered equally in the eyes of the law and fellow human beings, entitled to have their commitment to a permanent relationship duly recognised by the state. I support the bill.

See this speech in context