Chris Bowen (McMahon, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

It is unusual in this House to dedicate a speech to anybody in particular, and I have never done that in my 13 years in this House. But I begin my remarks by dedicating what I am about to say to my friend Robert McMahon and his husband, Paul Stewart.

On 24 March 2002 I married the woman I love. At home I have my marriage certificate. At the top of the marriage certificate is the Australian coat of arms. It is not a religious symbol, it is not a symbol of faith; it is a symbol of our country. It tells me that it was my right as a citizen to marry the person I chose to. It is a construct of the state. It is regulated by this House. Of course, marriage is also a religious institution, and that tension has led to some tension in this debate, but it is a construct of the state. It is the right of all citizens to marry the person they love—except, at the moment, it is a right that is not given to all. Hence, I will be voting in favour of this legislation. This is the latest and perhaps the last in a very long march of legislative reform from the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the 1970s through all the reforms of governments of all persuasions, most notably the last eradication of discrimination during the Rudd government.

I do want to deal with some matters head-on. As has been commented upon widely, my electorate voted 'no' in the recent survey. Some people were surprised by this. Some in the media appeared to be surprised by this. I was not. I fully knew and expected that to be the view of my community. If I dare say, I know my community well. That is actually why I took the conscious decision before the last election to make it clear that I would be voting in favour of marriage equality if I should get the opportunity to do so this term. I did so to seek a mandate, so that voters in my community were very clear: for those for whom this was an important issue, for those for whom it might determine their vote, if they strongly wanted somebody to vote against marriage equality they should not vote for me. I did that deliberately and consciously.

Having been here for 14 years, I hazard a guess that this is not the first time I have voted in a different way to what my community would want. I would put it to you that there is not a member of this House who serves for any period of time who could put their hand on their heart and say that if the community had a say they would vote the same way as I am in this House. Whether it is an economic matter, the introduction of the GST, or anything, there is no manner, I would suggest, in which a long-serving member of parliament could say, 'I always do exactly what my community wants.' The difference here is that we had a survey. This was a poor process. It was a process we never supported. It is a process we have not gone through for any other legislation. On no other legislation where we have dealt with discrimination, on no other legislation where we have dealt with people's rights, have we held a survey to first see what people think.

The people of my community who opposed this change are good people. I know them well. They are people, overwhelmingly, of faith. Having spent much time with them over the recent weeks and months, and indeed years, talking about this issue, I think I understand what drives their concerns. Many of them fear that their church will either immediately, or over a period of time, be forced to change—to change its thinking or its teachings. I have used the example of no-fault divorce many times in conversations. In the mid-1970s no-fault divorce was made legal in Australia. It was a controversial debate, not unlike this one. It was hard-fought. It was a conscience vote. Many people of faith argued that if the state allowed divorce more easily, so too would the church be forced to. History does not bear out that argument. It's now been legal in Australia for 40 or so years, and, certainly, while some churches may have chosen to liberalise their views on matters of divorce, the Catholic Church, for example, has not. It chooses not to recognise divorces, and there is no pressure on the church to change its teachings.

I would put to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to the House and to my community, as I have done, that the definition of marriage is a similar matter. It is our job in this House to ensure that the right to marry is available to all citizens. It is not our job to teach any church or religious institution what they shall believe and teach. We are not doing that tonight, and we will not do that when we pass this bill tomorrow. There are specific protections in this bill. Clause 47(3) says, that 'a minister of religion may refuse to solemnise a marriage'. Clause 47B says that 'a body established for religious purposes may refuse to make a facility available, or to provide goods or services'. These are important protections and, of course, I don't believe it is the wish of any member or senator to force a religious institution to change. They will not be. I completely, however, respect and understand those concerns and I will continue to work with my community on those concerns. Bill Shorten has made it clear in his statements. He said: 'The Labor Party believes in religious freedom. We understand it is central to our democracy and our society.' And we do. But I also recognise the concerns in the community that, somehow, people of faith, people of religion, will be forced to change.

In many senses, we have not rushed this. Far from it. Nobody can say that Australia has dealt with this in a way that has not allowed people to think through the ramifications. We are the last English-speaking country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage—to introduce marriage equality. I do not believe that society has broken down in the other countries. That is not to minimise or belittle people's concerns, but it is simply not the case that societies have broken down in the countries that have legalised marriage equality.

See this speech in context