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

I rise to speak in opposition to the Marriage Amendment Bill. I want to say at the outset that I have the utmost respect for my colleagues who are in favour of this bill, and my esteem for those in my own party is not diminished in any way because I hold a different view from them. I am pleased to be a member of a political party that accepts that this issue is one that involves deeply held and differing views, and so I will put my view on the record again and I will, when the time comes, exercise my right to a conscience vote.

It is a matter of public record that those opposite do not have the same option but are being silenced and held to a party political view. But this is an issue where genuine beliefs and identity are debated in our democracy, and we will find out as a test of this debate how weak or strong we are as a democratic nation. In a way this debate reveals to us our capacity or our failure to live with the tension of sharing the politics, respectfully acknowledging that there are different views and that each view should be heard.

I start out making that claim because it is too often the case in the debate about same-sex marriage that people who are opposed to it are maligned as homophobic, intolerant, bigoted, brainwashed by religious indoctrination or intellectually inferior to those who support it. I want to put on the record that such a view is of itself intolerant and 'otherphobic'. I want to put on the record how proud I am of our federal party, following the victory of 2007, in undertaking the substantive program of legislative change that saw more than 80 pieces of law amended to give lesbian, gay and transgender individual Australians the same practical rights before the law.

Yet I stand in opposition to this proposed law before the House for a number of reasons. Firstly, regardless of culture, time or place, the organic nature of the family unit that is the natural consequence of the union of a man and a woman is the key social unit on which a stable society is built. Marriage is almost universally viewed as a legal and social event that is life generating and is understood to be much more often than not linked to children. Terri Kelleher from the Australian Family Association cites recent research and argues that:

Although the family takes many forms in contemporary Australian society, it is uncontroversial to insist that the ideal family environment is that in which children are raised by their own mother and father. According to a 2004 study, 73.6% of children under 18 in Australia live with their biological parents in intact families. It is a statistic we expect most Australians would applaud: the more children growing up in such circumstances, the better. The institution of marriage is instrumental in realising this ideal, by binding a man, a woman, and their biological children in a stable family unit.

The Marriage Act defines marriage to mean the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. This is a commonly held position in the broad Australian community. It is a position expressed by our Prime Minister and a position held by many people of many faiths. Many but not all Catholic people like myself and Islamic people, Jewish people, secular humanists and Indigenous families think of marriage in this way. We prize it and we understand it very certainly as a union between a man and a woman. The Chinese Methodist Church in Australia put it this way in their submission to the recent inquiry into this bill:

Marriage is the logical basis of the family … an institution fundamental to the well-being of all of society, not just religious communities.

…   …   …

The preservation of the unique meaning of marriage is not a special or limited interest but serves the good of all. Therefore, we stand all who are of a kin mind in promoting and protecting marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

The Ambrose Centre for Religious Liberty in its recent public submission on the bill cited Frank Furedi in the Australian on 25 and 26 June 2011:

From a sociological perspective, the ascendancy of the campaign for gay marriage provides a fascinating story about the dynamics of the cultural conflicts that prevail in Western society. During the past decade the issue of gay marriage has been transformed into a cultural weapon that explicitly challenges prevailing norms through condemning those who oppose it.

…   …   …

As a result, it does not simply represent a claim for a right but a demand for the institutionalisation of new moral and cultural values.

This brings me to another reality that needs to be acknowledged: too often it is overstated that the broader community is in favour of legislative change to the current definition of marriage. It is a claim that is made here again today, but it does not reflect the community to which I belong. A cursory view of speeches in this place in response to the call from the member for Melbourne to consult with our communities indicates that there are more elected representatives on the record in this place reflecting a majority community opposition to a change than there are elected representatives conveying community support. In short, community support for a change to the definition of marriage is overstated and community opposition is understated. For these reasons, and for several others that I will not have time to speak on, I oppose the bill.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On 17 June 2004 I spoke in this parliament in support of the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2004, which made changes to the Marriage Act 1961. As I said in my speech of 17 June:

A marriage is and should be between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. The amendments in the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 include those marriages entered into in other jurisdictions and overseas, measures which are important to ensure legal loopholes are not used to introduce social changes which go against the will of the people. Far be it from me to criticise the courts, but where there is a lawyer and there is a loophole, there is a possibility for social change. The other amendments to the Marriage Act will spell out that overseas adoptions cannot be undertaken by persons not in a marriage which is recognised in Australia. These are consistent amendments, consistent both with the social expectations of the people of Australia and the legal definition of marriage.

I will not delay the House further by restating all I had to say at that time.

I acknowledge that there has been a concentrated campaign to change the definition contained in the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to marry. I respect their campaign and, in particular, the right they have in a free and democratic society to pursue their agenda without the personal persecution that may happen in other countries and societies.

There are two bills aimed towards changing the act to allow same-sex marriage currently before our House. However, I am extremely disappointed at the tone of the argument made by certain individuals and groups alike who are pro-same-sex marriage, making me a target, stating that I am homophobic for not supporting the change. I can assure this House that that is not the case. Whilst I understand the highly charged emotion attached to their argument, I do not agree with the tone from some—and, thankfully, not all.

I do not discriminate against any individual on the basis of gender or sexuality. I choose and always have chosen my employees on the basis of their ability to deliver the outcomes required. I choose my circle of friends on the basis of common interest; sexuality and gender do not come into the argument. I am not going to name names, but I have had in the past, currently have and probably will in the future have employees who are homosexual. But they work for me because they have the capacity to do the job and to deliver the outcomes required. I have a number of genuine friends who are homosexual, both male and female, because we share a common interest across a broad selection of topics. As I said, and I want to restate to the House, I am not homophobic. For those who say I am not reflecting my electorate of Paterson, I also say that is not the case. In my office, we keep an electorate database of all contacts from my constituents. Of all of the emails, phone calls, letters and meetings with my constituents of Paterson in relation to the issue of same-sex marriage, as of last Friday 92 per cent were against same-sex marriage. Only eight per cent were for it. For those who said I should have spent money surveying the whole of my electorate, the feedback from those both for and against has been resounding enough not to warrant further expenditure. I have said to them they are welcome to do a whole-of-electorate survey and provide me with the results, along with details of how the polling was done. Nothing has transpired.

I say to those who have condemned me for my stance that I am representing the majority view of my electorate of Paterson, which also happens to align with my personal view, based on my strong faith values. I recognise and acknowledge the right of any individual to campaign on any issue. I recognise the rights of the individuals to have their own views and their own opinions. But it also should be said that they should respect me and allow me to have my views and my values. They are based on a Christian faith and fortunately, in this situation, they are reflected by the broader consensus of my electorate. Therefore I will be opposing this bill in its entirety.

Laura Smyth (La Trobe, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This debate is about change. It is the next stage in a long line of important policy changes relating to marriage and the status of married people in Australian society. So far as women are concerned, it was only in 1883 that the South Australian Married Women's Property Act began to allow married women to own and dispose of property in Australia. Despite most women gaining the right to vote in 1902, women could still lose their Australian nationality when they married a non-Australian national, even up until the late 1940s. Before 1966, many women had to resign from Public Service positions upon getting married. After campaigns for change, Australian society and its parliaments have changed their views on the status of women, once regarded as mere subjects in the institution of marriage.

As late as 1959, Indigenous Australians did not necessarily have the right to marry a person of their own choosing. The case of Gladys Namagu and Mick Daly in that year demonstrated the arbitrary nature of marriage arrangements in relation to Indigenous Australians. Gladys, an Indigenous woman, and Mick, a white man, were denied the opportunity to marry at first instance. This kind of discriminatory treatment in marriage was to change after much struggle, including the 1967 referendum campaign. Before 1975, we still had a system of fault based divorce in this country. Some would prefer that system to still be in place. I strongly, strongly disagree. Fortunately, so did others, with the effect that in 1975 we saw a more humane approach to the already difficult decision to end a marriage.

To all of those who campaigned and struggled for change in relation to each of these important issues, I say thanks, because those changes have reflected broader societal change. They have corrected injustices and they have made us a better society. Campaigns for racial and gender equality have been hard fought and are ongoing. They have rightly reached into all aspects of law making, including laws relating to marriage. This campaign and this debate will be the same. It is a historic debate which reflects a shift in social expectations. Australia agreed to be bound by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1980, and in so doing it recognised the importance of equality before the law and principles of nondiscrimination. There has been a lengthy campaign for law reform to reflect these basic premises in the ensuing decades and it continues today. After winning the 2007 election Labor pushed on with reforms which saw around 85 Commonwealth laws changed to remove discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. I am proud that we did. Last year Labor's national policy platform was changed to support amendments to the Marriage Act which would ensure equal access to marriage under statute for all adult couples, irrespective of sex, who have a mutual commitment to a shared life. I am speaking in support of marriage equality today to give effect to those statements. I will be voting in favour of marriage equality in the bill before us and I hope that other members of my party will do the same. I simply believe that voting for marriage equality is the right thing to do.

There will be those who disagree with me. I am a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs and I have listened to the witnesses who have come before the inquiry into the bill. Strong views have been put against the bill. I have found them, in the final analysis, to be unconvincing. On this occasion votes against marriage equality may prevail, but I know that this debate will not end merely because debate on one piece of legislation ends. It will continue in society until equality, including equality in marriage, is achieved regardless of sexual preference.

Barry Haase (Durack, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to fiercely defend the status quo in relation to this bill. Change for the sake of change is simply a waste of human endeavour. All of us are constrained in society by the mores of that society popular at the time, and any change that is sustainable is change that is well thought through and necessary. None of the aforementioned are required for change to the Marriage Act. The Marriage Act clearly states, as you are all aware and as has been heard ad nauseam, marriage is between a man and a woman for life to the exclusion of all others. It is the perfect world. Of course, it is the perfect environment for the propagation, raising and teaching of children to sustain the society that we have and enjoy today and that some of us fiercely defend.

There are others in the community, sadly, who would have change ad nauseam. The slightest suggestion by one minority group in society that tomorrow ought be different from today is listened to, splinter groups are formed, lobby groups are formed and suddenly we, who maintain the status quo, are encouraged to feel as though we are second-rate citizens because we do not believe in the particular popular 'ism' of the day.

I am proud to be a stick-in-the-mud if that is what I am to be categorised as. I have no hesitation in accepting that couples, multiples or whatever may live together and choose whichever particular sexuality they desire, but at the end of the day any domestic relationship is just that. It is enjoyed by members of our society in a free society. What they do not have the opportunity to enjoy is declaring themselves equal in every respect to a couple that is a man and a woman living together to the exclusion of all others for life; therefore, they are not married. If couples wish to lament the fact that they cannot be married because they are a same-sex couple or living in a polygamous arrangement, so be it; such are the constraints at law in our society today and so they ought to be. I was much heartened to hear a member of the government today express so much good sense when the member for Robinson came into this place and expressed her point of view, firmly espousing that she would not be changing her point of view, because she thought it was right. I too believe that my point of view is right and that the definition of marriage ought remain.

There are many other definitions of relationships. I have some here. We have polygamy, and most of us know about it. It encompasses both a man with multiple wives in polygamy and also polyandry, which is one wife with multiple husbands living in a domestic relationship. We have polyamory, a de facto type of marriage where both partners have more than one partner. And then we have polyfidelity, which is an expanded monogamy. All of these arrangements exist in our society today and no-one loses a great deal of sleep over that. But none of those aforementioned relationships can consider themselves to be married. For the sake of those couples who do live as man and wife, a male and a female, to raise children in an environment which is most popular and stable in our community today, they ought not to be shown disrespect or denigrated by giving the same legal definition to all of those other domestic arrangements.

I state my case. I firmly believe in maintaining the status quo and that any debate in regard to changing the Marriage Act is such a waste of time in this place because there are so many other vitally important issues to be debated.

Greg Combet (Charlton, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 that has been proposed by the member for Throsby and supported by others. Like many members, I have taken many points of view from amongst my constituents and have consulted in relation to the issues and I think it is fair to say, as everyone would be familiar with, that there are many strong points of view right across the spectrum on this issue. But ultimately for me as a member of parliament and as an individual this is a matter of discrimination against same-sex couples that I believe the parliament should remedy. Same-sex couples should not be denied the ability to marry if they should choose to do so.

The bill amends the Marriage Act 1961 to address this issue by amending the definition of marriage from 'husband and wife' to 'two people'. Importantly, it does not place an obligation on a minister of religion or a marriage celebrant to marry same-sex couples if they should not wish to do so. The bill simply seeks to remove discrimination and to advance equality in our society. It is important, as the member for Throsby indicated in introducing the bill, to note that marriage has changed over the years. We no longer have betrothals and dowries, a wife's vow of obedience or the prohibition of certain interracial or interreligious marriages. Times change and it is important that the legislature change with them. Ending discrimination does not take away someone's rights; it establishes equal rights for members of our community.

Labor, I would submit, has a very proud history of fighting for rights and ending discrimination. That is one of the reasons that I am a member of the Labor Party and the Labor movement, although I have enormous respect for the diversity of views on this issue amongst the members of the Labor Party. When one looks at the history of the Labor Party, it established the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975, the Sex Discrimination Act of 1984, the Disability Discrimination Act in 1992 and in the last term of this parliament Labor amended 85 separate pieces of legislation to remove discrimination against same-sex couples. Australia is not acting alone on this matter either. Ten countries and even more jurisdictions now allow same-sex marriage. Although I do respect, as I have said, the different views in relation to this matter, the Labor movement has always fought for equality and justice and I believe that this sits within that tradition.

As for many other members, this is also a matter relevant to my own family and extended family. I cannot and will not contemplate support for discrimination against persons whom I care for. Should members of my family or my friends wish to solemnify their same-sex relationship by seeking to become married, I have respect for that. For the people for whom I care and have regard, I as a member of parliament but particularly as a member of my family cannot support discrimination let alone in the way that I construct the current arrangements discriminate against the rights of same-sex couples to marry. For those reasons, in brief, I do support the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 and am happy to have my support on the record.

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

I have spoken in the past on the issue of same-sex marriage and I intend to remain consistent in both the tone and content of my contribution here today. I am opposed to same-sex marriage but I recognise that there are very strongly held views to the alternative and I acknowledge that this issue does have the potential to become quite divisive in the wider community.

In relation to the tone of the debate, I take my lead from the previous speaker. I think his contribution was very respectful in tone and I think that is the manner in which the debate should be held. It is my intention to participate in this debate along those lines and to listen to both sides. As I said, I think there is a real risk of this debate becoming very divisive in the community. I think some, particularly some on the Left, have deliberately used inflammatory language, portraying people who do not support same-sex marriage as being somehow bigoted and homophobic. I think that is terribly unfair and not the way we should allow this debate to develop.

On the weekend, there was a great example of how this debate should be pursued when the Nationals had their state conference in Bowral. A motion on this very issue was narrowly defeated, but it was a very mature and constructive debate. It is fair to say, perhaps, that a lot of the younger members of the party were advocating change, but I do not think same-sex marriage is an issue which neatly divides on the basis of age or any other basis.

I have had the chance to ask a lot of people in my electorate for their views and I have often been surprised by their comments and the level of passion they have about this issue. Many people are quite ambivalent about this issue and think that there are far more important issues for this parliament to be considering at this time in our history. However, there are others, on either side of the debate, who have very passionate views. I understand that. I am not trying to belittle the issue. But it is fair to say that a significant number of people who contact me on this issue want us, in this parliament, to focus on other things. That is what brings me to my conclusion—that I am not sure how much longer we should continue to have this debate. The issues have, I believe, been well and truly canvassed both in this place and in the broader community and surely it is time to bring on the vote. Bring on the vote and let us see where we stand on this issue. Get a clear indication of where we, the 43rd parliament, stand on this issue and then move on to the other issues which people in the community regard as being of greater importance to their lives at this time.

In relation to the substance of the issue, I do support the recognition of legal rights within same-sex relationships but I do not support the proposed changes to the Marriage Act. I think that is the only politically consistent position and the only position of integrity I can take, because it is the position I took to the people of Gippsland at the last general election. Importantly, that position is also entirely consistent with the broader view of my party. We took a position of being opposed to same-sex marriage to the voters at the last election and we are consistent in the application of that policy position in a very open and transparent manner. There have been no surprises in relation to the view of the Nationals and my own personal view. If we wanted to adopt a different position, I think it would be incumbent upon us to take that back to the people who elected us in the first place.

I think that stands in stark contrast to this Prime Minister and her breach of trust on the carbon tax. This Prime Minister explicitly ruled out introducing a carbon tax prior to the last election, yet only weeks or months later she had a change of mind. But she did not take it back to the people of Australia. That is where this Prime Minister and her fundamental breach of trust have caused so many problems for the current government. I think this issue is the opposite of the approach I have taken—I took a position to the people of Gippsland and I am going to be consistent with it. That is the openness and transparency I think you need to show as a member of parliament. If we are going to restore community confidence in the integrity of our democratic system and restore faith in the parliament and the people who serve here, this is a very important principle to remember and one I intend to adhere to whenever it is humanly possible to do so.

As I said, I had a position of opposition to same-sex marriage at the last election campaign and I will continue to maintain that position for the remainder of the 43rd parliament. I certainly do not intend to change my mind on this issue and, even if I did, it would be after I had given my constituents the chance to vote at a general election. So I say again: I think we should bring on the vote on this issue. We need to have the vote and move on to other issues of importance to the Australian people. I acknowledge that this is an issue about which members of parliament clearly cannot please everyone in the electorate or in the broader Australian community. Some people in my electorate will be very disappointed with my view and others will be very pleased. I fear that we may have to agree to disagree on this particular point. I would like to reassure those who may be disappointed by the position I have taken here today that I will continue to work in support of other efforts to improve outcomes for gay and lesbian people in the Gippsland community, but I will not be supporting changes to the marriage act.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012. My views and opinions on this matter are on the public record. Last week I made abundantly clear that I support marriage equality and outlined my reasons for that support. Today, I thought I would share with the House, and particularly with my electorate, the different views regarding marriage equality in the many emails and letters that I have received in my office—certainly the ones that are printable. I can say with absolute certainty that, and this reflects the view of the earlier speakers, marriage equality is a very divisive issue for many. People have come out of the woodwork—not the closet but the woodwork—in support of their opposition to same-sex marriage and have offered a variety of reasons for their position. However, I would suggest that there is a vast, untapped middle group of Australians who are not particularly passionately for or against same-sex marriage; perhaps they are indifferent or even supportive of change. Certainly, the random surveys have suggested consistently that across Australia about 65 per cent of people are in favour of allowing same-sex-attracted people to marry.

I received letters from a number of churches, one organisation and quite a few individuals. I will give one example, from many in the Greek Orthodox community of St George in Brisbane who passed their view on to me. I am respectful of the views of the Greek Orthodox community of St George—I have been to one of their services. I know that this is a deeply held belief for many people in that community. Other people have written to me, saying that they have a particular problem with the idea of children being raised by either two mothers or two fathers. One individual—I will not name names—goes on to quote studies and give statistics about children who go through their whole life never experiencing a bond with a father or the nurturing characteristics of a mother and the effect this has on children emotionally, mentally and physically.

The reality is that there are many single-parent households in Australia where people do manage to become good, responsible citizens who go about their day-to-day lives. Despite the absence of a mother or father, which might be sad and might even create some emotional baggage for them, they nevertheless get on and do what they can.

We know that Australia is changing. I see in the latest ABS data, which was released late last week, that for the first time the actual number of people in a registered marriage fell below 50 per cent. Even in those modern-day marriages that are occurring, only around 30 per cent—and it is heading south—occur in a church, a mosque, a temple or in some other religious establishment.

Obviously, religious beliefs play a large role in individuals' views, particularly surrounding same-sex marriage. I have received many emails and letters from around the country from people who believe that the Bible and Christianity recognise that marriage is only between a man and a woman and that because marriage has been between a man and a women for centuries it ought to continue in this way. None of these people actually advocated that we should give our leaders the right to have 700 wives, like Solomon, but I do not think that any of our leaders would be willing to take on the challenge anyway. One of the correspondents referred to Genesis 2:18:

Then the Lord God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper who is just right for him."

On the other hand, I have received emails from constituents in my electorate of Moreton who believe same-sex partners should be equal before the law and should be able to marry if they so choose. They ask that the government keep pace with society's expectation of the natural progression of equal opportunity for gay and lesbian couples and urge parliamentarians to achieve this historic reform as soon as possible.

As I have mentioned in this House before, last year I conducted my own survey, receiving 2,270 survey responses. The breakdown from the survey was: 44 per cent supported the current definition of marriage, 53 per cent supported change and three per cent were unsure. This is a challenging topic, and I look forward to engaging with my constituents for as long as possible before it is changed.

Alby Schultz (Hume, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose totally the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012. Once again we are confronted with social-engineering attempts that focus on the self-indulgent homosexual movement's push for same-sex marriage. Society is expected to take for granted claims—driven by bullying tactics of activist minority groups—of discrimination and inequality over marriage,. The question needs to be asked: how are homosexuals discriminated against when no homosexual is denied marriage under Australian law and marital requirements are applicable equally to every Australian resident without exception? Isn't declining to accept marital rules a self-discriminating free choice and not a social or legal discrimination? De facto heterosexual couples are not discriminated against for choosing to refuse marriage, so what is the special obligation or need for homosexuals to marry?

History and culture have never regarded a pair of same-gendered individuals as a co-habiting couple deserving a title or a special minority status. It goes without saying that if marriage were redefined to include same-sex couples, then adult-consenting incest, polyandry, polygamy or group marriage relationships could not be excluded without once again raising issues of discrimination. In 2003, Peter Spriggs wrote an article titled 'What's wrong with letting same-sex couples "marry?"' printed in issue No, 256 Family Research Council, Washington DC. He said:

… abolishing the option of marital eligibility and legalising same gender marriage would create a special, exclusive, classificatory right no one else has and discriminate the social order. Everyone including homosexuals has the same equal option "to marry a person of the opposite gender who is of age, sane, not married and not a close relative".

If our biological make-up is physiologically, functionally and psychologically designed for complementary intimacy with the opposite gender, why do homosexuals possessing heterosexual gender choose biologically incompatible partners?

Homosexuals do have the human right to self-determination, including the right to choose incompatible partners, but where is their right to demand society accept biologically and socially incompatible partner choices for marriage? Since the often publicly expressed words 'right to marriage' do not exist under the Australian Constitution, the claims and demands are flawed and driven by activist propaganda to influence public sympathy for ineligible self-chosen relationships. I think it abominable that gay activists continue to focus on and manipulate civil rights strategies to justify claims for same-sex marriage and keep using discrimination, inequality platforms and homophobic accusations to intimidate politicians and the public. Noted American lesbian and literary figure Camille Paglia quite succinctly argued in 1974:

Nature exists whether … like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless … norm … our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction.

She also argued, surprisingly, that gay men had a right to marry but to a heterosexual woman.

This bill is about future muzzling of churches, requiring primary and secondary schools and even kindergartens to indoctrinate children that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual lifestyles, as well as having two mothers and two fathers is no different from having a mother and father. Marriage is a public, not a private, institution; it is not a socially engineered niche for a minority making up its own terms and conditions that, as has been shown, share absolutely no common values with marriage.

A number of my parliamentary colleagues have come into this place today and spoken in this debate. In fact, one colleague said to me while we were coming up in the lift: 'You've got nothing to lose—you're retiring.' I will put on record, as I have done in the past, that this is not the first time that I have defended the sanctity of marriage. I will continue to do so now and into the future; whether I am a member of parliament or not is irrelevant. I do that because constituents have overwhelmingly supported me in my defence of the sanctity of marriage. As I said at the outset: I oppose this Marriage Amendment Bill in its entirety.

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

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.

Sitting suspended from 13 : 35 to 16 : 00