Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

As I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017, I wish to say that despite my own personal beliefs, respecting the principles of democracy, I will represent the will of the electors in my constituency in respect of the proposition that the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. However, I have concerns that the proposed legislation does not contain adequate safeguards to protect the freedoms and liberties of a large section of our community. In recent weeks I have received a volume of correspondence from my constituents expressing concerns about their freedoms. This legislation introduces arguably the most significant and radical social change in our nation's history, both in custom and practice, to the traditions of our country, even dating back prior to European settlement, when Indigenous people shared many Western norms relating to gender roles and family structure. The long-established binary nature of marriage is now being challenged.

By way of background, in 2016 I was part of the Liberal-National coalition team which went to the federal election on the platform of giving the Australian people the right to vote on the issue of same-sex marriage via a nationwide compulsory plebiscite intended to ensure maximum participation. However, as events unfolded, the plebiscite enabling legislation was blocked in the Senate on a number of occasions. As events unfolded, members of the coalition party room collectively decided that the Australian marriage law postal survey, conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, was the appropriate course of action. The question posed in the survey was, 'Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?'

At the time of the survey, some 16,006,180 Australians were registered on the electoral roll and eligible to vote. The national participation rate was 79.5 per cent, with 12,727,920 responses received. Of these, 7,817,247, representing 61.6 per cent of respondents, voted yes, whilst 4,873, 987, representing 38.4 per cent of respondents, voted no. In my electorate of Moore, there were 100,491 eligible electors on the electoral roll, 83,575 of whom made the effort to vote, representing a participation rate of 83.2 per cent. A total of 56,690 electors voted yes, representing 68 per cent of respondents, whilst 26,690 voted no, representing 32 per cent of responses. It appears there were 195 informal votes.

I made a commitment to the electors of Moore that I would carefully consider the survey results in arriving at my decision in parliament. Accordingly, I wish to explain my reasoning. Firstly, the participation rate of 83.2 per cent is relatively high—only slightly lower than the attendance typically recorded at a compulsory federal election. This is a significant contributing factor in my decision to abide by the result. Secondly, the 56,690 electors who voted yes represented more than 50 per cent of eligible electors by 6,444 votes, representing 56 per cent of all eligible electors—a clear, absolute majority. Therefore, respecting the principles of democracy, I am inclined to reflect the will of the electors in my constituency by voting in favour of the proposition that the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. In doing so, it is contrary to my own personal beliefs, which I have expressed during the debate. Out of respect for the electors of my constituency, I propose to explain the reasons for my beliefs so that they may consider and better understand my reasoning as their elected representative, irrespective of whether we agree or not.

I believe that the institution of marriage is predominantly for the purpose of the having and raising of children in a supportive environment by their biological parents. Of course I acknowledge that, in reality, marriage does not always result in children, and that, due to circumstances, children are not always raised by their biological parents nor in a supportive family environment. Traditional marriage is by no means perfect, but I believe, as many Australians do, that it is the best system which our society has, in the vast majority of cases, for raising children.

Every child is conceived and born of a father and a mother. Every child should have the basic right to be raised by his or her parents, unless there are extenuating circumstances which prevent this. This is a social norm which the government ought to protect. Parents of opposite genders bring unique characteristics and traits, which enrich a child's life with diversity. Where a child is separated from his or her biological father or mother due to unfortunate circumstances, then it is my belief that it is best that the child has access to a father figure and a mother figure to guide him or her to develop into a well-adjusted young adult. What I am saying may be controversial in today's politically correct world. It may be called 'old fashioned'. It may be called 'conservative'. But it represents the family values which a significant proportion of the Australian population believes in, and I have every right to express this point of view without fear of persecution or prosecution.

It is biologically impossible for a same-sex couple to produce children without the involvement of a third party, a gamete donor or surrogate, using reproductive technology. This arrangement introduces the element of a third person into a marriage relationship and is one of the fundamental reasons for my objection to same-sex marriage.

Consenting adults have a choice when deciding to enter into a relationship. I believe that the rights of the child in relation to his or her biological father and mother must also be taken into consideration. Is it ethical for government to normalise the separation of a child from his or her biological father or mother, merely by adult choice, without good reason? Children did not get a vote on this issue, yet future generations of children will be among the citizens most heavily impacted by this legislation.

Passing this legislation will almost certainly result in consequential amendments to other acts, which will have to be amended in the future by parliament. It is not known how many statutes will require amendment. The budgetary impact of this legislation has not been fully assessed and will almost certainly have consequences for future budgets. In my view, there has not been sufficient debate about the consequential costs to society of making this change. Ultimately, it's the taxpayers of Australia who will bear the cost of this change.

Having made a commitment to reflect the will of the electors in my constituency, in favour of the proposition that the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry, the question is: what form will the legislation take? The current bill before the House is inadequate without amendments to protect freedom of speech, freedom of religion, parental rights and faith-based charities and organisations from detriment. Celebrants should be afforded religious and conscientious objection protections.

Members should be mindful that some 4,873,978 Australians, representing 34.8 per cent of respondents, voted no. These Australians deserve the right to hold their views and beliefs and refrain from involvement in same-sex marriage. Reasonable amendments to protect freedom of speech, freedom of religion, parental rights and faith based charities and organisations from detriment are entirely justifiable. The definition of marriage should separately recognise both man-woman marriage and two-person marriage as valid marriages in Australian law. We must maintain our hard-won freedoms to assemble and to speak freely about traditional marriage and family values in our homes and schools. Individuals should have the freedom from being required to express, associate with or endorse a statement of opinion about marriage which is inconsistent with a person's or organisation's genuine religious or conscientious convictions about marriage.

Faith based organisations such as charities must not be forced to become politically correct to avoid fines and a loss of charitable status. They should not be the subject of complaints to the Human Rights Commission or other tribunals. The legal action taken against Archbishop Porteous and the Australian Catholic bishops in relation to the booklet about traditional Catholic Church teaching on marriage is an example. Other examples include professionals being denied their registration because of their views. Experiences in Canada, Ireland and Sweden have seen governments restrict freedoms. The Australian Greens have called for an end to the exemption of religious bodies from the operation of antidiscrimination laws. Holding and expressing a traditional view of marriage as being between a man and a woman must not be deemed to be homophobic bigotry. We must prevent government from taking adverse action against people who have a belief in traditional marriage.

In our multicultural society we must be respectful of the ethnic communities which voted very strongly to retain the existing definition of marriage. The Australian parliament should respect the freedoms of all religions, including the Christian foundation of our nation, and ministers of religion should be free to preach a traditional view of marriage to congregants of their faith. The legislation ought to maintain specific exemptions for religious, educational and medical institutions which allow them to maintain the religious ethos of their respective foundations. Parents should have the right to remove their children from classes where the teaching is inconsistent with their beliefs about marriage, gender or family values.

The Australian censorship system classifies media content according to age-appropriate categories of G, representing suitable for general exhibition; PG for parental guidance recommended; M for mature audiences; MA 15+ for mature audiences, where children under 15 must be accompanied by an adult; and R 18+ for restricted to adults only. If parents are to supervise the content which their children are watching, then it is not unreasonable that they maintain discretion over the content which their children are exposed to in our schools.

Many Australians who voted yes expressed the view that they were happy to let same-sex couples marry as long as it didn't interfere with their lives or impinge on their beliefs, families or rights. Most of these people would be supportive of reasonable and fair-minded amendments to protect these rights. Article 18(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights gives everyone the right to freedom of conscience and religion. The bill in its current form contains inadequate protections for religious freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, parental rights and the right to protest.

During the consideration in detail phase of this bill I will support a series of amendments which seek to protect the freedoms of speech, religion, parental rights and faith based charities and organisations from detriment, which I have just outlined. It is important to include antidetriment provisions to protect individuals and organisations with a genuine traditional marriage belief from being subjected to unfavourable treatment by public authorities because they hold, express or lawfully act on that point of view.

In conclusion, despite my own personal beliefs, I will respect the principles of democracy and represent the will of the electors of my constituency on the proposition that the legislation should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry, and I will be supporting amendments to this bill which seek to safeguard the rights of Australians who hold a dissenting view.

See this speech in context