Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

As we now understand from the report into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs, which was tabled earlier this morning, the public is ready to do the right thing and remove discrimination from our marriage laws. Sixty-four per cent of the people who responded to the survey conducted by the committee supported this bill, and over a quarter of a million people responded to the survey, the biggest ever response for a House of Representatives inquiry.

The Australian population has moved on. The Australian population is relaxed about someone marrying the person that they love. But we should support this bill not just because it is popular but because it is right. Love is a powerful force. Love knows no boundaries. It knows no limits. And love knows when it has found its partner. There have been many attempts throughout history to limit love, and all have failed. As we move further into the 21st century, I am confident that attempts to limit love will fail yet again and that full marriage equality will become a reality.

It is important, not just because we can no longer continue to discriminate against people just because of who they love it is also important because who are we in parliament to tell people in this country that the person they love is not someone they can celebrate their love with in front of their friends and in front of their families simply because of their sexuality? That ultimately is the issue. The arguments against this bill ultimately come down to an argument against same-sex-attracted people themselves and their relationships.

It is more than just preserving people's individual rights, though. It is more than giving effect to what the Australian public wants. It is also sending a very, very important message, from this parliament out to the community, that we believe that love is equal. As we speak, there is no doubt a boy in a country town who is working out who he is attracted to; there is a girl at high school who is wanting to invite her partner to the school formal and has been told she cannot do it because her partner is a girl. When we have same-sex-attracted people in this country more than four times as likely to commit suicide and when we know that increases the further out that you get from the cities and into the rural and country areas, then we have an obligation in parliament to send a message to every member of the Australian community that you are valued, and that your love and the person that you choose to spend your life with are just as valuable and just as respected as anyone else's. We need to end the situation where we say that in Australia there are two classes of people and some have greater rights than others. It is time for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to get out of the way and allow history to take its course and for parliament to give effect to the will of the Australian people. Unfortunately, we have a situation where one side of the parliament, the Labor Party, has a policy in favour of equal marriage but their members are not obliged to vote for it. Given that, and given that we have the Prime Minister, with a group of MPs, opposing change, to see reform in this parliament we are now going to be reliant on coalition members of goodwill. I know that there are members of the coalition who support this change, but we are in the situation where Labor members are able to have a free vote and the coalition, the party of freedom of choice and the party that is, supposedly, about giving its MPs the right to vote as they wish, is restricting its members from voting according to their conscience. This is the party that says that individuals should be able to do as they choose, so long as it does not harm someone else, and that freedom of choice should be paramount. It seems that stops at someone's door and you are not allowed to marry the person that you love.

I hope that we see reform in this parliament. I will not be pushing this bill to a vote quickly, because at the moment that would fail, but I am confident that in this parliament we can see reform if the Leader of the Opposition allows a conscience vote.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In order to allow the debate to proceed I second the bill and reserve my right to speak.

Stuart Robert (Fadden, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. I rise to oppose the bill in its entirety. I rise to speak against the bill and to reaffirm my long-held and firm views that marriage is between a man and a woman. I rise also to acknowledge the coalition's view that we will vote on this issue as a matter of policy. We went to the last election with a firm view expressed to the Australian people that we would not be looking to change the definition of marriage and that we believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. More importantly, we believe in holding our election promises and keeping our word. Our word was that we would vote on it as a matter of policy and, despite the remonstrations of the member for Melbourne, we will not be changing our view on that. We will not be altering our view that this is a matter of policy. In line with our firm commitment to the Australian people that we made solemnly at the last election, we will adhere to the view given at the last election and we will vote against this bill and against any bills that seek to achieve the same thing by watering down in any way the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The marriage equality campaign has been driven by elements of our society including—and not the least being—the Greens, of which the member for Melbourne is the deputy leader. That marriage equality campaign has, deceptively, given the public the impression that discrimination still persists in Australian law for same-sex couples. Let me categorically make a statement: it does not exist; there is no discrimination at all. As family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson said in his submission to the senate inquiry:

In Australia, functional equality has already been achieved.

I am not aware of any legal rights and obligations that arise from marriage that do not also apply to registered same-sex unions, other than the right to call the relationship a marriage. Certainly that is so in federal law. For example, there is complete equality in rights in relation to the division of property and the payment of maintenance on relationship breakdown. The Prime Minister pointed out on Q&Aon Monday, 11 June that there is no practical discrimination against same-sex couples. In 2008 I was here, in the House, and I voted for the removal of 85 laws. That was supported unanimously by both sides of the House and it removed all discrimination against same-sex couples from Commonwealth law. State law was generally ahead of the Commonwealth on this, as a matter of interest, and relationship registers or their equivalents existed in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT to ensure there was no discrimination at a state or territory level. The issue that has been disingenuously pushed in our community—that this is somehow about discrimination—is patently and utterly false. No discrimination currently exists in law against same-sex couples: all have been removed.

I am equally concerned about the freedom of speech aspects that have been driven by the Greens and others in this campaign for marriage equality. It has been driving a whole range of alternative voices in the debate. There has been public demonisation. People have used a whole range of dreadful labels against the likes of the Australia Christian Lobby and other supporters of marriage. In fact, Victoria's Deputy Chief Psychiatrist, Professor Kuruvilla George, was forced to resign as a commissioner on the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission because he simply participated in a submission to the Senate inquiry which supported retaining the definition of marriage. There were calls by gay activists for tennis great Margaret Court's name to be removed from an arena at the Melbourne Park tennis centre because she disagreed with same-sex marriage. In every jurisdiction where marriage or something able to be described in the law as the 'same as marriage' has been given, this sort of situation has arisen.

Proponents of marriage equality have tried to assure the church that it will never be forced to provide marriage equality to same-sex couples. Yet Denmark, the first country in the world to recognise civil partnerships for same-sex couples, this month legislated to force the church to provide same-sex weddings. Everything that the Greens have driven out there in the public purveyance in terms of this bill has been wrong. No discrimination exists. Their campaign forcing people to move away from their jobs, forcing views to change because of this, is disingenuous at best. The coalition will not be supporting this bill in its entirety or in its piecemeal.

John Murphy (Reid, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012. One of the lasting results of second-wave feminism in the 1970s is marriage equality. That term was used to mean equality of the sexes within marriage—something I believe we in this House all support. Some people still think that is what marriage equality means. But this seemingly innocuous term has been hijacked by those who want to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples—for the simple reason that this will maximise support. Most people support marriage and almost everyone supports equality. It sounds so reasonable.

Speaking at the recent Sydney Writers' Festival, early gay-rights activist and author, and now Director of the Institute for Human Security at La Trobe University, Professor Dennis Altman, made some very candid and very revealing points in a panel on same-sex marriage. First, he correctly pointed out that marriage was established to deal with issues related to the procreation of children. Second, he wants the entire Marriage Act to be abolished, saying that marriage sends 'dangerous signals' to people who are not in long-term relationships. Same-sex marriage therefore diminishes the cultural achievement of most gay people, in particular gay men, who are actively non-monogamous and, as Altman said, 'do not need the sanctity of state or church to legitimise their relationship'. He added that same-sex marriage is 'a conservative form of winning respectability'.

Supporting Altman's call to remove the words 'a man and a woman' as a first step to abolishing the Marriage Act, prominent gay writer Masha Gessen attacked those who claim that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples will not diminish the importance of traditional marriage, saying: 'It is a lie to say the institution of marriage won't change … We want to abolish marriage.' Her words confirm my previous speech in this House, when I said redefining marriage would change the meaning of marriage for all Australians. Effectively, it would make marriage meaningless.

Given my public stand that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, I have received much feedback. Some same-sex couples have spoken to me directly of their desire to get married. But other gay individuals, echoing Dennis Altman's view, said they cannot understand how any gay person would want to embrace an unambiguously age-old heterosexual institution. I have found that most of the support for same-sex marriage has come from people who are heterosexual, particularly young people, including teenagers, who have abstract and less developed notions of equality based on inexperience. Some supporters of same-sex marriage were downright abusive and intolerant of my view, and made it clear that they will never vote for me unless I support their view. That is their right, of course, and I do accept this. However, I do not accept that the move to change the Marriage Act to accommodate same-sex couples is a matter of equality or human rights. It is not about equality for all since there has never been marriage equality, as I outlined in detail in my previous speech on this matter. Marriage, in my view, is therefore only possible between two people of the opposite sex.

Marriage as a legal institution corresponds to the reality of what marriage is: the unique sharing by a man and a woman in all aspects of life. However, the purpose of marriage as a legal institution relates specifically to the distinctive biological possibilities of this union. Some people say, wrongly, that this means couples who do not produce children are not really married. Whether or not children are produced does not change this, as I can attest from my own circumstances on this very day—the 29th anniversary of my marriage to Adriana. Happy anniversary, Honey.

People who want to redefine marriage claim that this will affect only a small number of Australians. In fact, the opposite is true. The definition of an institution determines the way society relates to that institution. Without children, there is no need for marriage. Marriage serves the public interest by connecting mothers and fathers and their children, and holding biological parents accountable for raising their children. That is the crux of this matter.

Darren Chester (Gippsland, National Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Roads and Regional Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In joining this debate, I do intend to participate in a very respectful and moderate manner, which is the tone that I believe is required in our community on this very sensitive issue. For the record, I support the recognition of legal rights within same-sex relationships, but I do not support proposals to change the Marriage Act. I am also on the public record in the past as having expressed my support for all political parties to actually grant their members a conscience vote on this issue. My view of a conscience vote may be different from some other members, but it is my view that a conscience vote is not that straightforward. I believe that members should examine their own personal views on a topic but also recognise the views of their electorates, and recognise their role, duty and responsibility as members of parliament.

I think in all good conscience, as a representative of a particular seat, we need to recognise that different electorates have different views on this issue and we need to balance those two issues—our personal views and those of our electorates—and, if there is a conflict, maybe face a tough decision as an individual. I have previously sought the views of my electorate in relation to this issue in a community survey. Like other members, I have received petitions both for and against this topic. My own survey attracted about 700 responses. But I do point out that the survey was self-selecting; it appeared in a newspaper so it should not be regarded as a scientific opinion poll by any stretch. I did receive strong feedback and 64 per cent of respondents to that survey in my electorate were opposed to the same-sex marriage. I am not using that today as a reason to justify my position; I am just putting it out there as a matter of course that different electorates have different views.

The Gippsland electorate, overall, is opposed to same-sex marriage as it stands today, and they support the current system that is in place. I have received many emails both for and against the topic. The majority of emails from within my electorate have been supportive of my position—that is, to continue with the current system and to oppose to same-sex marriage. But that is not the sole basis of my opposition to the changes to the Marriage Act. I believe that as a matter of political consistency and as a reflection on my own role here and my own personal integrity, it would be inappropriate for me as the member for Gippsland to support any changes in this current term of parliament, because I expressed a view in opposition to same-sex marriage in the lead-up to the last election. Unlike the Prime Minister and her breach of trust in relation to the carbon tax, if I intend to change my position the only fair thing to do for the people of Gippsland would be to take a principled course of action and campaign on that basis in the lead-up to the next election, and then adopt that position in a future parliament, just as the member of the Melbourne has done in his own seat. The member for Melbourne, who has put forward this bill today, to his credit had a principled view. That is his view. He took it to his voters and they voted for him, so I have no grudge to bear against the member for Melbourne for taking his position forward. But the position I took forward—and I will be principled in that position for the people of Gippsland—is to remain in opposition to changes to the Marriage Act.

There is only a short amount of time to examine the issues here today, and I am sure there will be future opportunities to debate this issue, but I want to refer to one area of concern that bothers me in relation to these proposed changes, and that is this issue of retrospectivity. I believe there is an element of retrospectivity in the proposals to change the definition under the Marriage Act, and that is because there are millions of Australian couples today who signed up to marriage under the current definition. If we change the definition of marriage under the Marriage Act, we are fundamentally altering the nature of the contract that they have entered into, so I think there is an element of retrospectivity to this debate and to the legislation that is proposed. I know that for a lot of people that is of no consequence whatsoever, and I acknowledge that. They are completely comfortable with such a change, and that does not affect their definition or their own relationship. But for others in the community this is a very big deal indeed, and they have expressed that opinion to me quite strongly. They signed up for marriage under the current definition, and they believe in the sanctity of that definition and the traditional view of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

I also do not accept the view put forward by others that it is some form of discrimination against same-sex couples to maintain the consistent approach of the current definition and protect the position of couples who have already been married under the existing Marriage Act. I also do not accept the view of some people who have contacted my office, who try to infer that being opposed to same-sex means you are bigoted or homophobic. I do not believe that is a fair assumption to draw. I think it is possible to be opposed to same-sex marriage and still support the urgency of some ongoing efforts, both within my community and more broadly, to work together as a community to support same-sex couples, particularly in regional areas, where younger gay people are over-represented in the incidence of self-harm, mental illness and suicide.

So I will continue to participate in this debate. I believe it is an important debate, and I believe it is critical for members to be very moderate and respectful in their language and not to inflame what can be a very divisive issue in our communities. (Time expired)

Scott Buchholz (Wright, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Like many people in this House, I have relatives and friends living in loving, monogamous same-sex relationships, and I respect and love them. They are cherished, and their love should be accepted, honoured and understood. I love my sister-in-law Rhonda and her partner, Marion. I have friends like Andrew, Clinton and others. But, respectfully, I do not agree with same-sex marriage. As a member of the Australian Labor Party and this government, I was very pleased to vote for more than 80 pieces of legislative amendment which removed discrimination on issues such as immigration, superannuation and the like—without dissension from those opposite.

There have been many wild and ridiculous claims in relation to these matters, on both sides. For instance, from those more fundamentalist extremists from a religious point of view, there have been some ridiculous claims in relation to polygamy et al. This is simply nonsense. I think they are repugnant and really quite disingenuous in relation to their position. But equally, for those people who have argued that this is solely about marriage equality, I think that that same comment in relation to being disingenuous is also the case. For instance, we do not have a situation in this country where one man can marry one woman and then be married to a second woman. That is bigamy, an offence in Australian law. We have prohibitions on marriage between people in close blood relationships. We also have a situation where we have restrictions on the capacity of children to marry. I think it is a clever marketing ploy. I tip my hat to it, but I think that it is disingenuous to argue that it is solely about marriage equality.

I think that marriage between a man and a woman was in the mind of the framers of the Australian Constitution when they enumerated section 51. It gave the power to the new Commonwealth government to legislate in relation to divorce and marriage. I think there is considerable argument in relation to the capacity of the Commonwealth government to legislate in the area of same-sex marriage.

As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs we saw real dispute on this particular matter with constitutional limits of the Commonwealth government to make laws in this area. In written and oral submissions there were disagreements in relation to this. Ultimately, if the House of Representatives and the Senate pass legislation, I am sure that those constitutional limits will be tested in the High Court. But steeped in history, in religion, in culture and in our law is the concept of the old definition that marriage is between a man and a woman. That cannot be denied. It is part of our history and our tradition going back to ancient times. It is part of English law and Australian law. I do not ever think that the framers of the Constitution thought that the Commonwealth government had the power to deal with this issue.

It has significant repercussions to our society. I believe that a marriage between a man and a women is a fundamental institution of our society. I cast no criticism on those people who find love—no matter how they find it—in adult relationships. I have acted for plenty of people in same-sex relationships when I was a practising lawyer in the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. I know many colleagues from my days as a lawyer who were in same-sex relationships. But fundamentally, before we mess with the concept of marriage held by so many Australians, we need widespread and strong community consensus. We do not have it; therefore, I do not support the bill. (Time expired)

Deborah O'Neill (Robertson, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to oppose the bill. I understand there have been a number of speakers who have put this view this morning. I think it is very important that opposition to the bill is articulated clearly in this place, because this is a contested issue in our community at this time. I have had very vigorous communication from a large number of members in my community seeking me to stand and defend the current definition of marriage on their behalf. I know that there will be tabling of documents today regarding an inquiry into this bill and data related to that. I can reflect from my own local community that 70 per cent of the people who have communicated with my office on this matter oppose any change to the current definition of marriage.

I would like to also make an observation from conversations with people in my local community. This is often an issue where views that hold to the current definition are ascribed to older people who are somewhat out of touch with the current values and milieu of our society. In fact, the reality is that there are many young people who speak to me as well. There are many people who absolutely applaud the Labor federal government's amendments to legislation in our very first term to ensure equality before the law. The reality is that they accept that, they are proud of that and they absolutely want to go on the record as having no opposition to homosexuality but much the contrary: to be very clear in their support for the current definition of marriage.

I also want to indicate the large number of submissions that came to the inquiry from the Sikh community, from Uniting Care and also from that great supporter of community social justice, the Salvation Army. I again put on the record my opposition to the bill.

Debate adjourned.