Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to respond to the private member's bill dealing with marriage equality put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and seconded by the deputy leader. When the six colonies of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia wrote to the English parliament asking if they could federate, they put forward a proposal in terms of the powers that the new Commonwealth government would have. When Queen Victoria signed off on the piece of legislation, passed through Westminster, on 9 July 1900, thus creating the country of Australia, I guess she had not realised how much laws were going to change over time.

The first piece of legislation discussed by that parliament was the white Australia policy—unanimously supported by all and now quite an archaic piece of legislation. Other pieces of legislation they dealt with not long after gave women a right to vote. Legislation later dealt with allowing married women to stay employed. Then we go forward to 1967, where the referendum came through that said that Indigenous Australians should have the right to vote. Still, nearly 10 per cent of Australians voted against that. When you look back at something only 50 years ago we can see how much Australia has changed. My first day in parliament was the day the Rudd government gave an apology to the stolen generation.

As we see the arc of history, we see how Australia has progressed and our views have become more tolerant and more accepting. The Queensland that I grew up in had homosexuality as a crime in the Criminal Code. In fact, there are still people around today that have had those convictions and have not have had them wiped out. Obviously, we know that same-sex couples experience a lot of discrimination. That is why I was proud to be a part of the Labor government that brought in 87 pieces of legislation under the Attorney-General, Rob McClelland, that dealt with that discrimination.

Anyone with any knowledge of couples and commitment knows that marriage is the best way to protect committed, monogamous relationships. The marriage ceremony publicly affirms the love and commitment that two people have for each other—something dealt with in an inquiry that I chaired under the social policy and legal affairs committee that dealt with many of these issues.

Obviously, marriage has changed over time, just like the laws before this parliament have changed over time. When marriage came to Australia—inherited from the British common law tradition—there were still some rules that applied to the white settlers, including the fact that marriage was limited to those convicts who exhibited good character. Convicts that did not demonstrate soberness or industriousness were not permitted to marry—which some might argue might have been a law targeting the Irish, but I could not possibly support that notion.

When Sir Garfield Barwick brought in the Marriage Act in 1962 he said:

At present there are nine separate systems of marriage law in the States and these Territories; systems which, although possessing many features in common, display considerable diversity in principle and detail.

Things have changed over time. For example, back then the marriageable age in Australian states and territories was the same as the age of consent—so back in 1962 it was 14 for men and 12 for women. If we look at the marriage laws in Queensland, the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act prohibited Indigenous women from marrying anyone other than an Indigenous man without the permission of an Aboriginal protector—not that long ago. However, the Marriage Act, when it came in, did not include a definition of marriage in section 5 at the time of promulgation. But it does give some sample words, which were that marriage, according to law in Australia, is 'the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life', which is actually what changed under the leadership of Prime Minister Howard, when they amended section 5 of the Marriage Act to that very definition.

Over time, we have seen the approach to marriage. I know it polarises people in my electorate, and that is why I am very committed to consulting with every religious group I can find and everyone that is concerned about this. I know it goes to the heart of many religious faiths, so I will talk with the churches, the mosques and the temples in Moreton, because when this legislation does eventually come to parliament I will have to make a decision according to my conscience, not their conscience, and to go against your conscience is neither right nor safe.

See this speech in context