Andrew Broad (Mallee, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to offer my words on the private member's bill to change the Marriage Act from marriage being defined as a union between a man and a woman to a union between two persons, basically to give legal and equal recognition to same-sex marriage. I represent the electorate of Mallee, a geographical third of the state of Victoria with a fantastic group of fair-minded, hardworking, compassionate Australians. Changing the Marriage Act is a significant question for Australia. It should not be done lightly, as families—indeed, strong families—are the pillar of a strong society. People are right to hold strong convictions, and representing truthfully the values of 100,000 people in the electorate of Mallee is difficult, as is interacting those values with my values, beliefs and considered judgement.

My considered judgement is that the government of Australia should at most times stay out of the homes of Australians except in the interest of protecting from violence or offence against individual family members such as abuse of children or violence against a partner. But, apart from that, what happens in your home is your business. This is a fundamental freedom. I think most of the Wimmera Mallee would hold to the view 'live and let live'. It is for this reason that I held to the position that changing the Marriage Act is a society decision, not a government one. Australians elect representatives to parliament to manage the building of infrastructure, defence of our people, creation of an economy that rewards endeavour but cares for the downtrodden and poor, investment in our health system, looking after of our senior Australians and creation of opportunities for our children through education.

The coalition took to the 2 July 2016 election a party-room-determined decision that the only way there would be changes to the Marriage Act was if, first, the Australian people had been consulted. In contrast, the Australian Labor Party promised to introduce a bill to change the Marriage Act within the first hundred days of a Labor government. The coalition won the 2016 election, and I have defended vigorously both our obligation to honour our party-room-determined election commitment and the rights of Australian society to decide on the values of Australian society. I will always endeavour to be a man to honour my promise and listen to Australians. In contrast, the Australian Labor Party have tried everything to block Australians' rights to be heard and now try to take credit for a decision that Australians have determined.

I gave an undertaking to the people of the Wimmera Mallee that I would uphold their decision on the Marriage Act as determined in the recent postal plebiscite. I feel a sense of duty to do so. The people of the Wimmera Mallee voted 35,795, which is 45.7 per cent 'no', and 42,495, which is 54.5 per cent 'yes'. And the voter turnout was 78,290, which is 78 per cent, which is a significant turnout. Therefore, I feel duty-bound to vote 'yes'.

Other members of parliament will act according to their own convictions as to their own personal beliefs in contrast to their electorate, and I do not offer advice about or judgement upon how they vote in this chamber. I will pay tribute to the people of the Wimmera Mallee and to the extremely decent manner in which they conducted themselves throughout the period of the postal survey. The Australian Labor Party had such little faith in Australians' ability to think through and discuss complex issues, but I know how decent country people in particular can be, and they have proved me right again. It is a pleasure to represent such people.

Throughout this debate I held steadfast to my personal belief that marriage is and should be between a man and a woman. As the people of the Wimmera Mallee have given direction, I shall fulfil my duty and vote 'yes' to changes to the Marriage Act. It is not a position I hold personally, and I shall explain the reasons for my belief here today. I ask for a level of respect for my position because it is held by many millions of Australians who deserve the right to have someone voice their view in this discussion while it takes place on the floor of the parliament. Love between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, and a man and a man can be as equally real in feelings and emotions. Who you love is a decision for you, but my belief is in upholding the ideal of the family in a world full of people who make mistakes and in a world full of less than perfect people, of whom I am one.

There is still value in retaining marriage as the covenant for a bond between a man and a woman to raise children. Love is an essential ingredient to the raising of children and, as a foster parent, I am more aware than most that a traditional relationship does not of itself guarantee the loving raising of children. The breakdown of the family unit has caused more children to be exposed to hardship than any other factor in Australian society. Making the lives of families better improves our society.

I do not cast judgement upon same-sex couples who are currently raising children. I'm sure your love is deep and enduring, and I wish nothing but the best for you. But I believe there is an essential truth that cannot be replicated without the influence of both a man and a woman in a child's development. A young girl between the ages of zero and five craves the nurturing abilities and closeness of her mother, and between the ages of five and 10 the positive influence of her dad is essential: to tell her she is beautiful and that she is worthwhile and precious in his sight. Fathers, I say to you: the best way to prevent your daughter getting stuck in an abusive relationship later in life is to instil a sense of self-worth in her early. Between the ages of 10 and 14, as her body changes, she needs her mum. Frankly, that's a journey best walked with a woman. Between the ages of 14 and 18, the role of a dad is to take her on a date, open the door for her, teach her how a guy should treat her—with respect—and be a guard from guys who might come knocking, while ensuring that their intentions are pure. For too many, this has not been either their upbringing or their lived experience in their own relationships. I want to pay tribute to the many single parents who have raised amazing and well-balanced children under different circumstances to this; however, nothing is equal to, nothing replicates and nothing replaces the ideal of marriage between a man and a woman and the loving raising of children.

Ultimately, I believe changing the definition of marriage from a union of a man and a woman to the union of two people both weakens this ideal and weakens our society. I will personally find fulfilling my duty to the people of Mallee by voting yes difficult, as I believe this change will rob the future children of Australia for generations to come, but I will fulfil my duty.

I have publicly expressed my disappointment at the way this particular piece of legislation has been brought into the parliament. I believe the coalition would have been better to draft legislation at the declaration of the result of the postal plebiscite rather than give free passage to a private member's bill. It would have been legislation that gives effect to the Australian people's wishes to change the Marriage Act from a man and a woman to two persons, as well as hold true to the values that the coalition stands for, values such as: freedom to hold and express a view, freedom for parents to have the final oversight as to how their children are educated, freedom of religious belief and expression and discussion of religion, freedom to administer the assets that a religious organisation has, and the freedom to marry who you love.

Whilst I hear the argument that existing laws already uphold these freedoms and that this bill is quite specific in the wording of the Marriage Act, there is enough concern among many Australians, and anecdotal examples from other countries around the world that have legislated for same-sex marriage, that adding additional assurances would have been a unifying action. The role of government is to unite Australians, and enhancing the rights of some should always be embraced while giving assurance to the rights of others. The coalition should have been able to do this more effectively than they have, and I will be supporting amendments to this bill.

However, I must add that the Australian Labor Party do not believe in freedom of conscience and at all times in this public discussion have sought to take away the freedoms of Australians. The Labor Party tried to take away the freedom to be heard as determined in a plebiscite, even though plebiscites are a key part of our Constitution and democracy. The Labor Party have taken away the freedom of conscience, as the party machine has directed that there will be no conscience votes on any amendments that may be proposed to this bill in the House of Representatives. I am not a member of parliament who believes in always being critical of the Labor Party. However, history teaches us that a political party that fails to consult with the people and curtails the freedom of expression within its own ranks would be more likely to remove freedom from people, and Australians should be concerned by the conduct of the Australian Labor Party on this particular issue.

It is here that I shall conclude my speech, for I have endeavoured to give voice to the people I represent, those who celebrate the 'yes' vote and look forward to the changes that this parliament will approve shortly and those who have voted 'no' and feel the parliament must hear their concerns. I have also attempted to give voice and be true to the values I hold, as ultimately we must all one day give account for the decisions we make in this place.

See this speech in context