Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I have listened closely to all speakers in this debate. I have been challenged by and thought deeply on the many issues involved in this topic. I have talked as widely as possible with the full spectrum of representatives of various views in this debate as well as the many within the community who remain relatively neutral on this topic. Of all topics before this House in my four years in this place, this one challenges my view of representation more than all others. I have previously very clearly stated that my view of representation is not to run with the populist mood of the moment, that that is to break the social contract with electors; instead it is very much the Burkean model in his letter to the electors of Bristol, and that is to uphold the social contract with electors by doing your homework, by listening to all the views and then, ultimately, by making a conclusion and representing that conclusion that you think is right for community and country. This one tests that model of representation more than any other because there are some very strongly held views in this debate from most of those who care either for the continuation of the Marriage Act as amended in the mid-2000s or for change to remove any gender-specific reference. At the heart of the conflict I face are a range of issues on both sides and then some conclusions. First, in conversations with representatives from various churches, I have disagreed that a literal reading of the Bible being against homosexuality should be the basis of our view today. I do not think that reflects Australia today, and neither does it reflect the many valuable contributions made by many who on that literal reading should not be participating in society at all. So I disagree with that very strict, literal reading of certain sections of the Bible.

I also sometimes see people trying to build a case that all of this, with change, is somehow going to be compulsory. None of this is compulsory. It is not compulsory who you fall in love with and it is not compulsory for any organisation to marry anyone they do not voluntarily want to. So all of what we are talking about in this debate today is of a voluntary nature. No-one is forced to do anything they do not want to do either as an individual or as an organisation.

I also reflect on some of the debate around health and prevention, particularly from the aspect of a regional member of parliament facing issues of suicide in his electorate. For many regional teenagers this is an incredibly difficult issue to deal with. The arguments that I have seen emerge over the last week or two—trying to build a case that there is lower life expectancy for those who are gay compared with those who are not—is, in my view, actually an argument to expand the bond of love rather than contract it. So it is an argument which has assisted me in drawing some conclusions, particularly from the perspective of a regional MP and particularly, out of all the health profession measures, from the perspective of the issue of youth suicide in regional communities such as mine.

There is also an opportunity in this debate to dispel some other myths about regional Australia. This is not an issue owned by Sydney and Melbourne—and throw in a bit of Brisbane! This is an issue owned by all Australians. On the mid-North Coast of New South Wales we have a very large gay and lesbian community, many of whom play really valuable roles in our community and are engaged in many aspects of community life. Rather than dismissing them or putting them in some sort of corner as a sector that we accept but on other occasions deny, I say on behalf of the mid-North Coast—not on behalf of this Marriage Act debate but on behalf of the community—to anyone of any sexual orientation: you are welcome members of our community so long as you contribute. That is the condition of entry to the mid-North Coast of New South Wales: you participate in community life and you contribute to building a better place. I would hope the majority view is one like mine—that, frankly, I do not give a stuff what you do in your bedroom. That is your business, just as it is my business as an individual, as a father and as a member of parliament what I do in my bedroom.

That gets me onto the issue of the role of the state. This is not an issue I campaigned on in any of the last five elections I have been involved in. So, as a member of parliament, I do feel a bit blindsided by the debate before this chamber over the last couple of years, but I am big enough and ugly enough to deal with it. I will ultimately make a yes or no decision. In thinking this through over the last couple of years, it has become increasingly obvious to me that, from my perspective, this is less an issue of gender in the Marriage Act and more an issue of: what the hell is the state doing in this space anyway?

Why is the state involved in the bedroom and in love and in relationships at all? I particularly note a recent article by Michael Sexton, the Solicitor-General in New South Wales, who made exactly that point. I know it is not going to happen today, but I even find myself—for the first time, I think—agreeing with the Institute of Public Affairs on this topic that the role of the state in love is a questionable one.

There is a second option of finding a way for state governments, with the powers that they have, to take a lead on this. I note what New South Wales is doing today. I note the debate that is happening in Tasmania. But I also hope that, wherever all these four bills before the House at the moment end up, we not only reflect on gender in the Marriage Act but also reflect on the role of the state. Can we do better in capturing the bond of love and the building of community in a better way than providing boundaries in a Commonwealth piece of legislation? I have frankly been surprised that the Commonwealth is in my bedroom. I did not know that. I had not really thought about it. The more I think about it, the more I am surprised by it.

Having said that, I also think there are some contradictions in the position that the Commonwealth is taking and the role of the state. I go back to the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011, one of the hotter debates of last year. I invite people to go and look at the definition of marriage in a completely different piece of legislation and see that it is really business as normal in this parliamentary process. The definition of marriage in legislation that was passed last year is: 'Marriage includes people who live together in a relationship as a couple on a genuinely domestic basis, even where they are not legally married.' So, even in the run of business in this place already, we are already defining marriage as a relationship between 'a couple who live in a genuinely domestic relationship', and decoupling this issue of legal marriage. It sounds oxymoronic, but that is what we have been doing for at least a year, and there is an example of a piece of legislation where we have done it.

The other point I would like to make is a personal one. I am in a loving marriage with someone of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent. For me: no big deal. And, I would hope, for most Australians: no big deal. But in reading and thinking about this issue over the last couple of years, there was a time in Australian history where I could not have expressed that love and got married to my wife. That is a shocker. I therefore am exposed if I do anything other than reflect that same principle for others in their relationships. If they fall in love with someone and their love is not reflected in law, they quite rightly should and could feel exactly as I would: that that is a shocker. So that is a personal reflection from me that helps drive my considerations. In the final couple of minutes I have to speak in this debate, I will put my worries on the table. I have spoken of the sentiments that lead me to take a position that this issue of equality is really a bit of a no-brainer. My worries are more about the process issues, that we are using this parliament to address traditions and norms that can and could be addressed in other ways, and the strategic questions. I worry that we have four bills before this chamber. I worry that there is a vote in the Senate today that may be close and that we have the Leader of the House saying that we are going to go for it today in the House of Reps and more than likely it is going to have a grand loss. I worry about what the strategies of the political parties are behind why we have got four bills. We have the bipartisanship you have when you don't have bipartisanship. If we do this, it has got to be as seamless and as bipartisan as possible, and it has got to stick, because I also worry that we still have not heard whether, if this change were made, it would be a weapon of campaigns in the future and we will then have the Marriage Act coming before this House to be changed with changes of government. It would help me a lot, and I know it would help many people, to have clarity, particularly from the Liberal-National Party, on whether this change, if it happens either in this parliament or in the future, is change that will stay or whether we are going to revisit debates from 2006 and see a reinsertion of gender. That concerns me greatly.

I worry that we are rushing this at a time when, only today, New South Wales has made some pretty significant moves. I would prefer to see the detail of that and to watch that process unfold, as with the situation in Tasmania as well. I also worry that, regardless of what we do, this is going down the road to the High Court. One way or the other, where this really should have been to start with, prior to 2006, is in a legal definition based on legal precedent of that word 'marriage' in the Australian Constitution. From my reading of several key cases, they were slowly defining and redefining what that word meant. In my view it would have been preferable for that process to continue to unfold. What we are seeing today is a natural response by politicians to an incursion by politicians in 2006. I think that is unfortunate. I therefore worry that we are just heading to the High Court regardless of what we do. So more than likely, based on that conflict, I will support this legislation. But that is conditional: I hope there is commitment to cleaning up processes and cleaning up strategy. I know this is looking more like a statement today than anything else. I am in the business of getting wins and results, and if we are serious about that we have got more work to do.

See this speech in context