Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am mindful that we are a little over time, so I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015.

Marriage equality is inevitable; it is just a matter of when. I make that point again: it is inevitable; it is just a matter of when. I do wonder why we delay it in the way we do. It is just a matter of time, because it is the right thing to do. It is clearly the right thing to do, to allow any two adults who love each other to have the same rights under the marriage act as any other two adults who love each other. At the moment it is legislated discrimination against same-sex couples, and that is a wrong that must be righted.

It is just a matter of time before we will have marriage equality, because it has overwhelming public support. In fact, Crosby Textor, perhaps one of the more credible pollsters, with one of the more credible polls on this issue, found public support in the community for marriage equality at 72 per cent. Almost three-quarters of the Australian population when asked, 'Should we have marriage equality?' said yes. It is just a matter of time as evidenced by the experience in the rest of the world. The member for Melbourne is right. We are the only developed, English-speaking country in the world that now does not have marriage equality. The United Kingdom has it, New Zealand has it, most of Western Europe has it and most of the United States has it. Why, even in Alabama same-sex couples are getting married!

I do respect people who oppose marriage equality. They have their case to make and we should respect them. They have every right to hold their view, to express their view and to practice their faith, but I do not agree with them. And I do not agree with them on one very important point they make. They say that marriage equality must not be allowed because it would be wrong for children—it would be harmful for children. But that really key plank of the anti-marriage equality argument completely and utterly misses the point. The fact is that there are same-sex couples bringing up children at the moment very successfully, in wonderful and loving environments.

This really brings me to the key point here as far as children go: so long as children are brought up in a loving environment with all their needs met then, really, those are the only things that matter. You can have a mum and dad being good parents. You can have two dads being good parents. You can have two mums being good parents. You can have a single dad being a good parent or a single mum being a good parent. It is so long as it is in a loving environment and that the children's needs are met. Just as a heterosexual couple might not be good parents, two men might not be good fathers, two women might not be good mothers, a single mum or a single dad might not be good parents, it is not about their marriage status. It is whether they have a loving, warm home environment for those children.

The opponents of marriage equality would also say, 'It has always been the case that marriage is between a man and a women.' That is not the case; in fact, it was only 11 years ago, during the period of the Howard government, that the Marriage Act was changed to make it explicit that marriage would be between a man and a woman. Before that, it was not explicit in the Marriage Act. In law, in this country, it has simply not always been the case that marriage must be between a man and a woman.

Of course, the opponents of marriage equality are concerned that it will be an attack on religion, and that somehow they would lose their religious rights. But of course, churches already choose who they marry; that is not disputed, and it is certainly not disputed by me. It was very important that in this bill there is included a very clear provision to allow the churches to continue to choose who they marry.

As we know, the previous Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister are committed to a popular vote on this matter. Frankly, that is better than nothing—and let's hope that it happens sooner rather than later—but isn't it our job in this place to represent our community? When you have an issue where the right course of action is so evidently clear—an issue where there is such overwhelming public support for reform; an issue where this country is so completely and utterly out of step with every other developed English-speaking country in the world—surely it is our job to go down into that big room downstairs and to vote in favour of this bill and to send the bill to the Senate, where hopefully they will vote in favour of it too. That is our job. I think we should do that with this bill this year.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:35 to 16:00

See this speech in context