Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I appreciate this opportunity to make a contribution in this debate. It is certainly an issue that has been the subject of extensive comment and, as we know, even controversy. I acknowledge that the views being expressed in this parliament and to me in Bass are sincere and deeply held on both sides of this debate. Some people, as we know, believe that changing marriage policy is desirable and they want it to happen much quicker than it is at the moment. Another large group believes that the current definition of traditional marriage should be retained.

In reflecting on these polarised views, I acknowledge that some aspects of marriage have certainly changed over time. Things like arranged marriages and racial restrictions on marriage have been, quite rightly, struck down. Coverture has also been struck down. Feudal customs, where a woman's rights are subordinated under those of her husband upon marriage, have no place in civilised society. Can I also say, light-heartedly perhaps, that, with a strong wife and two daughters in my home, I sometimes wonder whether coverture has moved too far in the opposite direction! But I digress.

The reason I make that point, though, is to suggest that, whilst marriage has adjusted over time, none of these changes transformed the core meaning of marriage as the union between a single man and a single woman. That has been a feature of every culture across human history. So what is being proposed undoubtedly is a major social change in the lives of many people in my community. I say that not to diminish the other perspectives, which I respect, but simply to emphasise that, for a large component of my community, that core meaning of marriage is as precious as the issue of same-sex marriage is to those who advocate for change.

On 13 July 2015, my local paper, The Examiner, reported on this matter as follows:

LESS than half of Northern Tasmanian voters support same-sex marriage, an exclusive poll reveals.

I have added this information to the substantial feedback that has been provided to me in recent years via surveys and correspondence and meeting with people on both sides of this debate. Undoubtedly, there is strong advocacy on both sides of this issue, but we should make decisions on key social policy issues based not on who is the loudest but on reliable evidence. We must also respect competing perspectives on this issue.

In recent months, I have, I regret to say, received emails, letters and messages critical of opposing views, often in very highly emotive and even pejorative terms. We must respect the views of same-sex marriage proponents, just as we must respect the views of traditional marriage supporters who back the current and longstanding legal definition of marriage. Put simply, the rights of one group cannot be advanced by suppressing the rights of another group. It is not as simple as giving proponents of same-sex marriage the change they desire without in the process trampling the liberties of those on the other side of this debate. Even legal scholars arguing for same-sex marriage recognise that fundamental point. It is worthwhile reading the amici briefs of Douglas Laycock and others in the recent US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell and Hodges.

So the best way to resolve this issue is via a people's vote, which the Prime Minister has foreshadowed for after the next election. The overwhelming feedback I have received is that the Australian people support this approach, not having an outcome imposed on them, as the Labor Party has said it will do. A people's vote after the next election will accurately determine Australia's views on this major social change. It will give constituents in my electorate of Bass and elsewhere around the country the opportunity to express their view.

There is no way that I or any member of this parliament can reflect, through our individual votes, the views that I have just expressed—of those two large and diametrically opposed groups in my community and, I am sure, elsewhere around the country—particularly on an issue of this nature. All voters should have their voices heard on this issue and the people should and will decide, not politicians or a slim majority of judges, as was the case recently in the United States. I thank the House for an opportunity to make a contribution in this debate.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:36 to 16:01

See this speech in context