Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

I support the bill. I made this view clear at the most recent Australian Labor Party national conference in December 2011. I expressed my view at the time that legislation or the state in the guise of the Commonwealth parliament should not stand between same-sex couples having equal access to marriage to reflect their lifelong partnership—a secure, stable long-term relationship. This was not always my view. Indeed, at the previous Australian Labor Party national conference in 2009 I expressed a contrary view, what might be described as a traditional view. But I did take note on that occasion of the speech made to the conference by the now Minister for Finance and Deregulation, and said to her at that time that I had listened to her speech and this was something that I would have to think about. And I did. At the last national conference I made remarks which I have referred to.

Australian society has changed dramatically at very many levels since I grew up as a young boy in country Western Australia and subsequently in Perth. I was born in the mid-1950s, and the generation of my mother and father, who were young men and women in the 1950s, essentially did what the current Commonwealth Marriage Act reflects. Young men and women of their generation got married, had children and set up modern, post-World War II Australia. In 1961 the Commonwealth Marriage Act essentially took over the institution of marriage from the states where there had been previous state legislation reflecting the institution of marriage.

So, for men and women of the fifties, sixties and, indeed, the early seventies, this was the norm. De facto relationships between men and women were not recognised. On the contrary, they were either kept private or shunned. Same-sex relationships were kept very private, were shunned and same-sex relationships between men were serious criminal offences in every jurisdiction.

The first change to legislation and societal attitudes in the area of marriage came in the mid-1970s when this parliament in 1975 enacted the Family Law Act and for the first time bona fide, genuine de facto relationships between men and women were recognised as they should have been. That was deeply significant legislation passed by this House and the parliament. So for the first time, a very short period of time ago in an historical sense, bona fide domestic relationships between men and women which were not the subject of a ceremony—religious or otherwise—under the Marriage Act were recognised by the parliament and by the state. That enabled important rights and entitlements to flow as they did for couples who had had their relationship recognised under the Marriage Act. They went to rights of custody for children if the relationship broke down and to entitlements pursuant to maintenance and to estates in the aftermath of death of a partner.

We saw that substantial change in the 1970s. In the 1970s, but more particularly in the early to mid-1980s, through the Commonwealth parliament and state and territory parliaments—almost across the board—we saw the enactment of anti-discrimination and equal opportunity legislation. This effectively made it unlawful to discriminate against people on the basis of sex, gender, sexual preference, religion, ethnicity and the like. So the next substantial body of work done by this and other parliaments was to enshrine in Commonwealth, territory and state legislation the notion that people were equal before the law irrespective of sex, gender or sexual preference. In the course of the last two parliaments, led by then Attorney-General McClelland, we have seen substantial work done to remove the remnants of discrimination to same-sex couples who were disadvantaged by the failure to recognise a same-sex relationship.

When you look at the change in Australian society—the sweep of legislative history at state, federal and territory levels—you see we are now in a position where effectively the capacity of a man and a woman to marry under the Commonwealth Marriage Act is respected and reflected. The capacity of a man and woman to be in a long-term relationship, a bona fide domestic relationship not reflected by the Marriage Act, is respected under the law where the same entitlements and rights accrue. Finally in respect of every area other than marriage itself there is a recognition by Commonwealth legislation that same-sex couples are not discriminated against for entitlements, benefits or their status.

Indeed, in the course of that sweep of legislation, we have also seen the removal from all of the state and territory jurisdictions of Criminal Code or criminal law provisions which made it a serous criminal offence for male homosexual conduct. Much earlier in my working life, I was very pleased as principal private secretary to the Attorney-General of Western Australia to strongly support the passage of private members' legislation through the Western Australian parliament to decriminalise homosexual activity or conduct.

One last area remains and that is: do we now as a modern, tolerant society accept people of the same sex who want to have their relationship recognised under Commonwealth law, who want to say, 'We are in a long-term, enduring loving partnership, we want our relationship recognised as well'? That is the issue which this piece of legislation confronts the House and the parliament with. The attitude and view that I express as a result of exercising my conscience—because this is, in my view, a conscience vote issue—is a view that I would not have expressed five or so years ago. Australian society has changed. We are a mature, tolerant society. This is a conscience vote because people form a view about this issue as a result of a belief strongly held. There may be a religious basis for that belief. There may be a cultural basis for that belief. In this area, everyone's view is entitled to be treated with respect and with dignity. The view that I have come to is that this parliament should recognise same-sex couples and allow them equal access to the institution of marriage.

This is an important piece of legislation. It comes before us as a private member's bill. It is not the first occasion either before this parliament or before state and territory parliaments that issues of this nature have been determined by a private member's bill where people have exercised their conscience. Like most members of this place, I have been the recipient of a wide variety of views expressed to me on the streets of Perth or through my electorate office. My own judgement is that the majority view, or the prevailing attitude, is that the parliament should allow equal access to marriage for same-sex couples. But I do not think we should determine it on the basis of a majority view; we should determine it on the basis of what we think is the right thing to do.

I think it is also the case that the absolute overwhelming view of young Australian men and women—teenagers and young adults—is that, frankly, they do not see what the problem is. They do not see what the fuss is about. They are living in a generation where they treat all of their colleagues and friends as equals, irrespective of sex, irrespective of gender, irrespective of sexual preference and irrespective of private and personal relationships. That reflects the changing Australia. We are a much more prosperous society than we were when my mother and father were raising a family in country Western Australia and in Perth.

For those reasons of conscience, it is appropriate that this parliament enacts this legislation to enable equality before the law not just for men and women but for men and men and women and women—same-sex couples who wish to have their relationship reflected by the status afforded under the Marriage Act of the Commonwealth.

See this speech in context