Melissa Parke (Fremantle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Marriage is a cultural institution of long standing, and the prospect of change is unsettling to many people. But we should remember that society is always changing, that it has undergone great change even in a nation as relatively young as ours, and that the changes we have made over the last 100 years or so in addressing discrimination on the basis of gender, race and sexual orientation, though in almost every instance slow, difficult and hard-won, have been profoundly beneficial.

In 1902 Australia became the first country in which women could both vote in federal elections and contest those elections as candidates. But it was not until 1962, only 50 years ago, that the Commonwealth Electoral Act extended the franchise to all Indigenous people. In the early part of the 20th century there were Commonwealth ordinances that restricted the marriage of Indigenous Australians, and in places like WA the permission of the Chief Protector was required before an Aboriginal person could marry a non-Aboriginal person. It was not until 1966 that we scrapped the rule that had forbidden the permanent employment of a married woman in the Commonwealth Public Service. It was not until the 1970s that the efforts of organisations like the Women's Electoral Lobby and the work of people like Jocelynne Scutt began to bring about legislative reform to address the common-law immunity for a man charged with the rape of his wife. Less than 50 years ago, a woman, by virtue of marriage, could not be a permanent employee of the Public Service and could be legally raped by her husband.

I cannot imagine anyone looking back at those circumstances and wanting to return to them today. But nor should we imagine that reform occurred easily. Some of these changes were fiercely resisted, and all of them took a long time to achieve, even after the terrible discrimination that they represented had been identified, and even though removing that discrimination now seems a matter of plainest common sense. The restrictions on who could marry whom and the abrogation of certain rights or protections within marriage did not stand alone as discrete instances of discrimination but rather stood as manifestations of a widespread discriminatory malaise that applied to Australian women and Indigenous Australians.

Within a marriage—as within society as a whole and its laws, institutions and culture—Australian women had fewer rights and lesser standing than men, and Indigenous people had fewer rights and lesser standing than non-Indigenous Australians. Despite the progress over the past 50 or 60 years, that broad inequality has not yet been fully erased. The same is true of gay men and women today. Same-sex couples being excluded from the opportunity to choose the category of relationship that we generally regard as representing the greatest degree of love and commitment is a form of pure discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. For that reason, it is illogical, unfair, intolerant and intolerable. Just as the discriminatory aspects of marriage as it applied to women and Indigenous Australians bespoke a larger and connected set of inequities, so does marriage discrimination against same-sex couples.

The journey we have made over the last 100 years, on the road to being a more tolerant, more cohesive and more egalitarian nation with each passing decade, has delivered benefits in which we have all shared. As part of that, the reforms introduced by this government in 2009 represented a huge leap in the legal and administrative recognition of same-sex couples, with all the rights, security and peace of mind that attend those changes. Those reforms built on the wider cultural shift that has occurred. While gay men and women have made their contributions to Australian life from the outset, for much of our history gay Australians, ordinary and extraordinary alike, have been personally, socially and economically constrained through intolerance and discrimination.

Once upon a time it would have been unusual if not practically impossible for a new senator, like Dean Smith, or for the leader of a political party, like Bob Brown, to be openly gay. It would have been unusual for a High Court justice, like Michael Kirby, to be openly gay or for a CEO, like Alan Joyce, or for a sportsperson, like Matthew Mitcham or Ian Roberts or Natalie Cook. It would have been just as unlikely and in many ways even more difficult for a bricklayer in Donnybrook, a school teacher in Hamilton Hill or a GP in Port Hedland, let alone a year 9 student or the captain of a school footy team. Those difficulties continue to be very real, because discrimination against gay Australians is very real and often very cruel. The consequences of that discrimination, especially for young people, include bullying, severe alienation, violence and mental illness.

Families and households come in all shapes and sizes and yet the most important things remain the same: the sense of belonging, love, happiness and wellbeing. Happiness shared is not happiness diluted. I support this bill and the change it represents because there is no reason or evidence to believe that sharing the benefits of marital commitment more widely heralds anything other than greater tolerance and stability and love in our community.

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

I rise to speak about the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 and an issue I am very passionate about, marriage equality. I realise that this issue is highly contentious and affects all communities. The electorate of Wright, which I serve, is no different. I am a firm believer that, if a fellow politician wants to be brave, they should stand up before an election and use this issue as a platform in order to try and win government. I do not agree with the wider view that marriage in Australia has changed since the 2010 federal election. I wholeheartedly support the coalition in believing that the definition of marriage contained in the existing provisions of the Marriage Act of 1974 appropriately affects the common understanding of marriage in the Australian community: 'The union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.' I am not persuaded that this definition should be changed. It is not a piece of legislation that can or should be considered lightly. The effect of making any changes to the Marriage Act as it currently stands will have many psychological and social implications, which at this point in time are not well researched and understood. I am not just talking about the welfare of children.

Firstly, I must highlight to this parliament that I was brought up in a family with strong Christian values. While I am no saint, I stand by these values because they have been and continue to be a fundamental moral compass for my life. In a speech on 13 February 2012, the member for Melbourne spoke about love, stating that it has no boundaries and no limits. However, I say that love is a feeling, just the same as anger, frustration, confusion and hate. I certainly do not feel it necessary to try and convince the parliament that I should be allowed to act upon it with anyone I meet. The same Christian values that I was brought up on have helped me to understand that. Can you imagine the consequences for society if we were to legislate acts of violence, for example, due to the feelings of hate? It would be a disaster.

Secondly, I made a commitment to the preselectors of Wright before the last election that I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman and that I intend to honour that commitment—a concept sometimes foreign to the people on the other side of this House. Thirdly, I question the long-term effects the amendments to the Marriage Act will have on children who will become the innocent victims should we fail to ensure that we accurately know and understand the psychological and social effects of growing up with same-sex parents. This is not an area where we should be allowing experimentation. In a speech for the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010 on Friday, 4 May 2012, Professor Tom Frame highlighted that same-sex marriage cements an alienation of one children from one or both biological parents.

My last point is in relation to the perception that some of the arguments against the bill are discriminatory. My decision to not support this bill is not aimed to discriminate or separate those who choose to have a same-sex relationship, because I am convinced that the changes to the Marriage Act as it currently stands will do far greater harm to our society. The Prime Minister pointed out on ABC's Q&A on Monday, 11 June, that there is no practical discrimination against same-sex couples in Australia. In 2008, 85 laws were changed in favour of those same-sex relationships and was supported unanimously by Labor and the coalition removing all discrimination in Commonwealth law. State law was genuinely ahead of the Commonwealth on this but relationship registers or their equivalents in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT ensure that there is no discrimination at state or territory level.

I also bring to the attention of parliament the speech of 13 February. The member for Melbourne made an inaccurate statement when he said that a change in the Marriage Act will make it clear to those same-sex relationships that the parliament believes that their love is equal. The parliament has never, to my knowledge, stopped everyone from falling in love. However, marriage is not an automatic action just because I or someone else had fallen in love. If that was the case, I am sure that the majority of society would be married several times over to many people, and think what would happen to those people who love their pets.

In a submission to the Senate inquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, family law expert Professor Patrick Parkinson said that in Australia functional equality has already been achieved. He said:

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 terms of rights in relation to the division of property and the payment of maintenance on relationship breakdown.

In conclusion I say that, on issues as significant as this, we want to take it to a federal election. Let the people have their turn. I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Health) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the member for Throsby's motion because the time for marriage equality in Australia has come. This is a recognition of the basic equality of all Australians, regardless of sexuality or sexual identity. All Australians should have the right to legal recognition of their relationships and the advantages and responsibilities that such legal recognition brings with it. All Australians deserve the full social acceptance that removing discrimination symbolises.

I am proud of the reforms that this Labor government has made in removing those 85 pieces of discriminatory legislation, removing every piece of discriminatory Commonwealth legislation bar one. It is time to remove this last piece of discriminatory legislation. Some have said that this change is a threat to marriage, but I believe that the opposite is true. This change reinforces that marriage is a legal and social bond that many Australians aspire to in order to demonstrate their commitment to their partner. Even for those gay men and lesbians who do not want to get married, the message that this change sends is a powerful one. The message is: you are equal before Australian law and you are equal in the Australian community. No young man or young woman should feel that their same-sex attraction marks them out as a second-class citizen.

It is also about time that someone said marriage is about more than sex. This debate has focused so much on the agenda of the couple and, by implication, on the sex act itself that I think we have lost the real meaning of marriage. Marriage is about a lot more than the sex act or the gender of the couple. It is about bringing two families together and creating a third family. It is about stability, commitment, mutual love and support. It is about friendship and companionship. For many people, of course, it is a religious sacrament; for others it is a secular, social and legal commitment to their partner; and for others it is the ultimate romantic gesture.

The member for Wright spoke about the innocent victims of same-sex marriage being the children of such relationships. I find it disturbing that there are so very many children who are already the children of same-sex relationships. When they hear things like, 'They are the victims of their parents' relationship,' what do they think? Those children should not be brought up thinking that the loving, committed relationships of their parents are worth less than the loving, committed relationships of their friends' parents.

If marriage were just about sex and procreation, we would not let people who cannot or will not have children marry. But, of course, we welcome and celebrate marriage for all of the reasons I have described. I understand that many, though not all, church leaders are concerned about this change. This bill makes it clear that churches will not be forced to solemnise same-sex relationships.

I have been overwhelmed with support from my constituents for this change—not just my gay and lesbian constituents but many, many straight constituents who are opposed to discrimination. Of course I have heard from opponents as well. But, when I ask myself whether I should be on the side of change or on the side of discrimination, there is only one answer that I can reasonably give: I have to be on the side of change and equality.

I hope that in years to come, when all Australians are able to formally recognise their love without discrimination, we will look back on this debate with the same wonder we now feel that there was ever a time when couples of mixed race were prevented from marrying or when couples of mixed religion were discouraged by their families from marrying. As I have said before, it is not good enough to say to one group in our community: 'You're almost equal; you should be content with that.' We do not say to women: 'You're almost equal; you should give up the fight for equal pay.' We do not say to people living with a disability: 'You're almost equal; you should stop campaigning for greater access and support.' And we should never say to gay and lesbian Australians: 'You're almost equal; that is good enough.' Almost equal is not good enough.

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

I rise to speak against the current bill before the House and to inform the House that the coalition will not be voting for the bill. The coalition will honour the policy it took to the 2010 election to maintain the Marriage Act as relating to marriage between a male and a female. We took that to the election and people voted for us on the basis of that platform. We will honour that commitment and we will vote on policy, en bloc, as one, as a coalition against this and a similar bill that I spoke on this morning introduced by the Greens deputy leader, the member for Melbourne.

Can I just get rid of some shibboleths that exist out there, the first being that this is an issue of discrimination—that we need to remove the discrimination that exists within the Marriage Act. Having been here in 2008 and having voted for the legislation that removed 85 pieces of discrimination from 85 bits of legislation, I can say with some authority that there is zero discrimination right now in the law with respect to same-sex couples. The Prime Minister pointed this out on ABC's Q&A on Monday, 11 June, when she made this same point. Family law expert, Professor Patrick Parkinson, in his submission to the Senate inquiry, said: '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.' The so-called marriage equality campaign that some people have entered into and engaged with with the best of intentions, to their credit, unfortunately has been deceptively hijacked by an aggressive Left-Greens agenda.

The other way that this is unfortunately being hijacked is that it is now being aggressively pushed as an anti-freedom of speech issue. The campaign has depended on first driving alternative voices out of the debate by public demonisation and then filling it with a range of disinformation. The terms 'extremist', 'hater', 'bigot' and 'propagators of hate' are some of the labels used in the media recently against the Australian Christian Lobby and against other supporters of marriage. How is it that the debate has degenerated to such standards of speech? Victoria's deputy chief psychiatrist, Professor Kuruvilla George, was forced to resign as commissioner on the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission because he participated in a submission to the Senate's inquiry which supported retaining the definition of marriage. There were calls by numerous gay activists for tennis great Margaret Court's name to be removed from an arena at the Melbourne tennis centre because of her disagreement over same-sex marriage. The ACL submission to the Senate inquiry documents numerous other cases around the world of freedom of speech on this debate being infringed.

In every jurisdiction where marriage or something able to be described in law as the same as marriage has been given this situation has only worsened. Proponents of marriage equality have tried to assure that the church will not 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. The rights of parents to determine what their children are taught in the area of sexuality has been dramatically curtailed in places like Massachusetts in the United States, where gay marriage has been legislated because it must be presented as equal once given the same status as marriage. Parents have been fined by the state for objecting to socialising even their preschoolers. This is almost certain to follow such legislation here in this country when the Australian Education Union already has in its 2006 policy on gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex people on page 3 that it is determined to teach that heterosexism is discriminatory.

With those sorts of radical forces at play in our community, this is not a debate about whether loving couples can marry. This has nothing to do with that. There are many genuine people who are seeking that debate but this debate has been radicalised. This is about reshaping the national conscience and the law in the image of some people who want to see a radical agenda in place. The coalition will have no bar of it. We went to an election promising that marriage will be between a male and a female. We actually honour and hold our election policies. We do not change them on a whim and we will not change this one.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the fourth occasion on which I find myself speaking on same-sex marriage. I spoke in favour of same-sex marriage in this place on 13 February of this year, the day before Valentine's Day; on 24 August last year I reported back to parliament on the views of my constituents; and on 30 July last year I spoke to the ALP ACT national conference on the issue. So I wanted to use the opportunity today to read into Hansard some of the stories of my constituents which I have received over recent months. Daniel Edmonds wrote to me:

When I was young, I asked my grandmother what her view would be on having a gay grandchild. Her response was steadfast: "I could not support it," she said. "It would be against God, and against everything I believe in." Years later, I came out to my family before leaving home to move to university (an economics degree!). My grandmother was unsteady in the knowledge that she now had a gay grandchild, something that was seen as uncommon in North Queensland at the time. It was years before she was able to bring it up in conversation with me. However, when she finally did, it really moved me. "I want you to know that I will always support you, and love you, no matter who you love." Ever since, she has met my partners, opened her arms to them as part of the family, and consoled me when those relationships didn't last. I am very lucky to still have my grandmother, but I only regret that in all likelihood my grandmother will not be able to attend my wedding day. I appreciate you fighting for the right of future grandmothers, grandfathers, mothers, fathers, aunts, uncles, brothers and sisters to be able to attend the wedding days of their beloved family members.

Ian Brown wrote to me:

My partner, Roger, and I have been together for (gulp) 40 years and were 'civilly united' in 2006 under UK law, as he holds a UK passport.

We had our ceremony in the British consulate in Sydney—they said we could have a maximum of six guests so naturally we invited 30!

It was one of the most exciting days of my life and I will always remember my late mother's tears of joy on our finally being 'married' after a 34 year 'engagement'!

Another constituent, Bill, from Ainslie, wrote to tell me of his experience watching an interview with Bishop Pat Power on 7.30last Friday. In that interview Bishop Power said:

... where two people have that definite commitment to each other and if they make the decision before God well I would say that their blessed in that life that they're living and they do that with honour and respect for one another ... I would want those people to feel at home within the life of the church.

Bill had written to me previously to say that he did not support same-sex marriage. He wrote to me after seeing that interview and said:

Good Morning Andrew,

For what it's worth and just to let you know, after hearing Bishop Power speak and having met and spoken to several Gay people myself I have now changed my mind and support Gay marriage.

I felt that you treated my position then with respect and I appreciated that. I'm sure there are many others in the community who are wrestling with this issue and who will, with time and reflection, come to see the justice of the homosexual case.

There are many people of faith who have taken the view that we should support same-sex marriage. Writing in the National Times, the Reverend Harry Herbert, the Executive Director of UnitingCare NSW/ACT, refers to the fact that in the latter part of the 19th century there was a campaign to remove from marriage acts the restriction that a man could not marry a sister of his deceased wife. When it was proposed by colonial governments in Australia to remove the restriction, churches led the charge against it. Reverend Herbert quotes the Reverend Adam Cairns, who at the time described the proposed change as a 'deliberate treachery to the cause of truth' and said, 'By the unchangeable word of God such marriage is incestuous.' Reverend Herbert points out that this seems to be a selective reading of the Bible because the Book of Deuteronomy in fact enjoins a man to marry his deceased wife's sister. But the broader point that the Reverend Herbert makes is that churches should not impose on nonbelievers a vision based on faith.

In his I have a dream speech, Reverend Martin Luther King spoke of the promissory note that African-Americans were bringing to be cashed. In that speech he said that America had defaulted on her promissory note as far as her citizens of colour were concerned but that they did not believe that the 'bank of justice is bankrupt'. The same principles bring gay and lesbian Australians to this House to call for us to support same-sex marriage laws. I do so with a respect for those who disagree but with a passionate belief in the justice of this cause.

Debate adjourned.