David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party, Assistant Minister for Health) Share this | Hansard source

The plebiscite on marriage is a coalition initiative, and it has allowed the whole nation to have its say on whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. As we all now know, the answer to that question—79.5 per cent of the nation made the choice to have a say—was a resounding yes. Because 61.6 per cent of voters said yes, the private member's bill we have before us now, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017, is being debated. A resounding majority said yes—7.8 million people—and 4.8 million said no.

I was among those who said no. In my state, New South Wales, almost 58 per cent said yes and 42 per cent said no. In my electorate of Lyne, 55.3 per cent said yes and 44.7 per cent said no. As I've already announced in my local media, I respect the view of the whole electorate and will not obstruct the view and sentiment of the majority of the electorate. I will respect their decision because it marries with the majority of the state and the nation. But I must also respect the views of the roughly 45 per cent of voters in my electorate who said no.

I have gone through my public, political and representative life holding the view that marriage is a foundational institution of all societies, defined by biology and heterosexual reality, and that it reflects the need for the human race to reproduce itself for our species to exist. Protecting the family unit, the weak and children is the basis of the family unit and it has stood the human race well. That never changes. But society has had a different view on what marriage is, and I will respect that.

The campaign has been mostly very civil and respectful; but, for some, respect has been a one-way phenomenon. Unfortunately, there were very aggressive responses to anyone who held the minority view in this case. There were threats of litigation or loss of employment. There were choruses of public shaming, which was meant to intimidate the minority who held, and still hold, traditional views on what marriage is. Respect and tolerance for opposing views are what I have always espoused. Unfortunately, what we saw in some sectors during this campaign was gross intolerance from those who were espousing tolerance. As a nation, we need to sort this problem out. We should use this as a unifying and uplifting moment rather than a source of continuing inimical discourse and frustration. To get unity across the whole nation is a really important issue that I will pursue.

Like I said, I will not obstruct the majority view of my electorate, but we do need to respect the views of individuals, parents, churches, schools and charitable organisations so that they know that they can continue to hold and have the freedom to hold their views and express their beliefs and values and not be sued or defunded on the basis of them manifesting their longstanding practices and beliefs.

The central tenets of Western liberal democracies are freedom of expression, thought, association and religion. Parental rights are amongst those, but they are not just a tenet of Western civilisation and Western liberal democracies; it's a feature of human life and the human race that parents have always guided their children and controlled their education. Once they're adults that's a different matter, but we need to make sure that those phenomena and those rights are respected.

So there will be amendments brought forward in this debate later, and I will be speaking in favour of them. On my discussions around the parliament, it appears that they won't get the support numerically. As many people have said, politics and what happens in place are manifestations of basic arithmetic. But we should not allow people to use this bill to suppress those rights that I have spoken about or to use it as a subsequent wedge to justify implementation of other practices and other agendas besides purely allowing same-sex couples to have a marriage ceremony and to have it called marriage. We don't want it to be a subsequent wedge to justify implementation of radical agendas such as the agenda to de-gender society. We have to have the clear understanding and the regulations and laws in place for the concerns of everyone and so we do generally have genuine tolerance for these opposing views. They're not mutually exclusive. We can have both. It's not one or the other. But we are now by this bill going to make it possible that people of the same sex can marry.

I would also like to remind people that we are not the only people who have advanced the cause of same-sex couples. Before we met in this place, in the period when John Howard was the Prime Minister, in federal legislation and state legislation there were 84 pieces of legislation changed to remove blatantly discriminatory practices, to clarify rights to inheritance, for legal recognition of civil unions of same-sex couples achieving de facto status and protections under the law and for matters of intestacy and inheritance. So many of the things that needed to be done have already been done, but this will complete the circle of what the majority of the nation, the state and my electorate want to happen.

I have to respect the views of my whole electorate. The 'no' vote was not small; it was 45 per cent of the electorate. I can't ignore their concerns and I can't become a hypocrite and then go against the things that I have always espoused and believed, but I won't obstruct the passage of this bill. It is a historic period in the time of this nation, and I'm very happy for all those people who advocated for 'yes'. It has lifted a cloud over a lot of their lives, and so in that regard I'm very pleased that it is where it is. But I am who I am and my beliefs remain what they are. Thank you.

See this speech in context