House debates
Monday, 4 December 2017
Bills
Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017; Second Reading
1:21 pm
Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source
Back in 2004 when I was first elected to parliament, I was strongly opposed to same-sex marriage. I did not agree with it, would not support it, and never believed that it would occur in Australia. My views were very much based on my religious views that marriage is simply between a man and a woman. Over the years, right up to 2015, I continued to hold that strong view, and I brushed aside the abusive emails, the phone calls and even the protests outside my office and stood very proudly in firm opposition. I even ignored the views of my former police colleagues that I had to move on with the times, and they regarded me as a dinosaur. This is very interesting, because when I was first a police officer, there were offences for loitering for the purpose of homosexuality, and all police members I knew were firmly opposed to same-sex marriage.
There were three events which occurred which changed my view. The first was a chance meeting with Chris Tanti, the former CEO of headspace, a foundation that is dedicated to improving the mental health and wellbeing of young Australians. We met in the foyer of parliament, where we were having a discussion about the sad loss of lives in La Trobe due to youth suicide. As part of the conversation, Chris pointed out to me that far more young homosexual males take their own lives than any other demographic group. When I asked why, he told me it was about acceptance. If they felt that they were not accepted, this often led to depression, drugs and finally the loss of life, as they believed they could no longer go on. Very sad indeed.
The second was a brief conversation over the phone with a long-term friend, Claire Rimmer, who lives with her partner, Anna. When I casually mentioned that I had another wedding to go to, Claire quietly said—and this was on the phone—'I would love to get married.' She did not ask me to change the law, she did not try to pursue the matter, but just left it at that. However, I was a bit shocked, so I asked her why. Claire simply said, 'I love Anna and want to marry her.' They will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of their relationship in April next year and fervently hope to marry on that date. That was the end of the conversation, but it started to make me think, 'Why shouldn't same-sex couples be allowed to marry?' However, I kept on going back to my original thought that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Finally, when I was out and about in my electorate of La Trobe, I found I was meeting not just same-sex couples but also their families. Sometimes parents of people in same-sex relationships would come into the office and meet with me, telling me about their son or daughter without their knowledge. They would bring photos of their child and their child's same-sex partner. For the first time I started to see that my views of same-sex marriage were causing great sadness to others—not only people in same-sex relationships but also their parents, who, like parents everywhere, want their children to be happy and have fulfilling lives. I then realised it was time for me to seriously rethink this issue, which I did. Following that, I decided I would now support same-sex marriage.
After I announced my change of position in my electorate, I caught up with good friends Jayson McNaughton, a local dentist, and his partner, Stephen Walden, who have been in a relationship for seven years and whom I've known for six. They've always respected our friendship and, again, have never pressured me to change my views on same-sex marriage, despite their belief that they and other same-sex couples experience discrimination because they cannot marry. They would like one day soon to be able to declare their love to the world through marriage. So, when they heard I had revised my view, they were both incredibly happy and excited.
In 2015, I made another decision, which was to ask my electorate for their views on the issue. I decided to run a survey and that, whatever the outcome, I would honour my role as a representative of parliament and follow the wishes of my electorate. As I had changed my own view, I must admit I was hoping for a 'yes' outcome, and the result was that, out of 5,168 constituents who voted, 3,011 voted yes, 2,036 voted no and there were 121 'undecided' responses. So a significant majority of La Trobe residents who responded were in favour of same-sex marriage. The survey brought forth some surprises because it demonstrated how many people from the community supported same-sex marriage—members of the local CFA and football clubs, and a variety of businesspeople. I was even quietly told by some churchgoers and teachers at religiously based schools that the time had come for change.
This sentiment in my electorate was reinforced with the recent national postal vote, with 67.5 per cent of La Trobe's voters signalling that they are in favour of same-sex marriage, which, of course, is noticeably greater than the overall national statistic of 61.6 per cent. I would like to congratulate Minister Peter Dutton, as the postal vote was his idea. I also congratulate and thank Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull for his support in the postal vote. I also congratulate and thank Warren Entsch. When he first raised this in the party room, back in the Howard days, everyone would just look at him and think, 'What are you on about, Warren?' But he is dedicated to making his vision a reality. This national figure of 61.6 per cent support for same-sex marriage brings Australia into close alignment with a number of other nations, such as Canada, which showed support of 70 per cent; France, at 67 per cent; Ireland, with its plebiscite at 64 per cent; the Netherlands, at 64 per cent; New Zealand at 57 per cent; and the UK at 66 per cent.
However, it should also be remembered that not everyone supports same-sex marriage, and in La Trobe 32.5 per cent voted no. The views of those 32.5 per cent are views of the minority now, but they still deserve to have their voices and concerns listened to when it comes to religious freedoms. So here I must point out that I do care about religious freedoms and I do not believe that a celebrant or priest should be forced by law to perform a same-sex marriage if they are against that because of their religious belief. I also respect the right of religiously based schools to select staff with the same values and beliefs as those being taught at their school, and I support the protection of parents. In addition to schools and parents, charities must not be discriminated against because of their firmly-held beliefs. I also believe that the issues not addressed in the same-sex marriage bill must be addressed by the panel chaired by Philip Ruddock that will review protections for religious freedoms.
But ultimately I would like to keep away from all the moral and religious arguments around the issue of same-sex marriage and continue to concentrate on this issue from the point of view of people's health. This takes me to the issue of suicide. Can I say: this was not the main reason for changing my decision to support same-sex marriage, but it was the start of my journey for change as gay people told me about the great stress they were under as they believed they were not accepted in society and that the biggest stumbling block was their inability to marry. A 2013 briefing paper released by National LGBTI Health Alliance—
No comments