John Alexander (Bennelong, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am very happy to speak on this bill, the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016, today. This issue is one of the more pressing on our social conscience. It has been prominent in the political world for months and will be until resolved.

In my role as a local representative, last year I conducted a survey of my local electorate on a number of issues. Every home and business in the electorate received a paper copy of the form, and it was also available online. The purpose was to get a complete snapshot of the views of local residents. We received a response from 10 per cent of all homes.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, of the 50 questions, the one on same-sex marriage raised the most comments. Of these thousands of responses on the question on marriage equality, those for and against came out at 50 to 50—to be precise, 49.53 to 50.47. This is a clear statement of where we are now. No doubt 20 or 30 years ago the result would have been very different.

What is also clear is that, on this issue, the poles are far apart. A large proportion of the supporters of marriage equality view its opponents as troglodytes who are stuck in the 19th century, have no sense of fairness and cannot apply the concepts of equality and nondiscrimination to the right to marry, while the opponents of same-sex marriage see its supporters as leftie troublemakers with no sense of decency, out to destroy millennia of the family unit.

As our former prime minister Tony Abbott has said, there are good and decent people on both sides of the debate, and neither should be thought less of when the decision is finally made. Regardless of the outcome of this debate, throughout our society it is essential that both sides recognise the strength and validity of their opponents' principles. Respect is crucial. This is a moral issue that goes to the belief systems that people have cherished for their entire lives. Such views are held for a particular reason—be it personal, religious or cultural—and are very hard to change. Whatever one's individual view, we must recognise the strength of the views of the other side. Seeking to demean the opposition is wrong. I understand that strongly held views, devout perspectives, live deeply within our psyche where emotions live. It is important that emotions do not cloud this debate. That said, I would like to focus my attention on one particular argument that has been around religious opposition to same-sex marriage. In my electorate I have had a lot of representations from people with religious backgrounds, who hold deep concerns about how same-sex marriage will affect their church. This is a vital issue. The separation of church and state is essential. This is a two-way street. Our politics is based on this notion, as are our current marriage laws. Churches currently have the right to place stipulations on those they choose to marry, and these are adhered to without calls of discrimination. In the event of marriage equality being successful in Australia, this distinction should remain. No church or institution should be forced to perform same-sex marriages, and any debate regarding individual religions' attitude to gay marriage should be confined to a discussion within that religion. This chamber is no place for a debate on the social decisions of individual religious groups.

This model was adopted in the UK, where they passed a similar law in 2013. Some churches jumped at the opportunity of growing their flock and immediately opened their doors to same-sex unions—for example, the Anglican Church, after a period of deep consideration, then decided to conduct same-sex services. Meanwhile, the Catholic Church decided to stay with their doctrine.

The opposite of this acceptance and celebration, unfortunately, was on display in my electorate recently. Election literature was handed out at Eastwood polling booth which carried a host of insults and doomsday predictions should certain parties who support gay marriage be voted in. It described homosexuality as a 'death curse' and suggested the election of some political parties would lead to rape in women's toilets. It recommended voting for the Christian Democratic Party, although the Christian Democratic Party have denied any knowledge of the leaflets and they carried no authorisation. Regardless of your stance on the issues at hand, these opinions are simply not welcome—not in Bennelong and not anywhere in Australia. I was very proud to run a positive campaign and had good relations with every one of my fellow candidates. As a result, the election was largely friendly, good natured and good to be a part of. Comments like these leave a bad taste in our mouths and undermine all the good work that has been done.

Part of the government's role is to provide the conditions for a society where everyone is equal and no-one feels discriminated against. These two central tenets of our society must be maintained through this debate and afterwards as well. We must respect each other though we disagree, and people must accept the decision once we have a final decision.

I would like to leave this debate with one thought. Our government has always aspired to be the guardians of equality in this country. However, what has been viewed as equality in one generation has not always been seen in the same light subsequently. Many shameful moments in our history have been accepted at the time with blinkered views of equality, and other shameful moments have come about because previous policies have not been updated to stay in step with the views of the day. Change to these laws is inevitable. This debate 30 years ago would not have been contentious. In comparison, the changing of the law in 2004 raised a discussion, but not one as all pervasive as the one we find ourselves in now. It is only a matter of time for equality and the elimination of discrimination that will welcome all people to the right to marry.

See this speech in context