Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012. This private member's bill seeks to amend the Marriage Act 1961. Item 1 of schedule 1 will amend the current legal definition of marriage to read that 'marriage means the union of two people, regardless of their sex, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life'. 'For life' is a big commitment for anyone to make, but this is a commitment that many same-sex couples would like the opportunity to make.

My position in support of same-sex marriage is well known, and I have spoken on it before. In 2006 I was the first member of parliament to sign Australian Marriage Equality's Charter of Equality. I did so even though staff were surprised and warned me that it was not ALP policy. I have always had the belief that I am a human being first, no matter what party I belong to or what my role is. On the human level, it was the right thing to do. We should never discriminate against people based on sexual orientation—not in marriage law, not in superannuation law, not in social security law, not in any other law. It is unacceptable to treat one group of citizens different from another. This is why I am proud to be a member of the party that removed 85-odd pieces of discrimination against same-sex couples from Commonwealth laws when we came into government.

In Newcastle, the city I represent, around 60 per cent of people who have contacted me have supported marriage equality—a figure in line with the recent survey by the House of Representatives Social Policy and Legal Affairs Committee, in which over 177,000 Australians expressed support for marriage equality; 64 per cent of respondents. Galaxy Research polling also indicates support for marriage equality at this same level, the highest level since polling on marriage equality began in 2009. It is lovely to be with the Australian people on this issue, and I would love to think this parliament would also be with the Australian people on this issue. I do respect the right of others to hold differing viewpoints when it comes to the issue of marriage. I also respect the rights of religious bodies to be exempt from having to perform non-heterosexual marriages. This bill gives provision to that, ensuring that no minister of religion would be bound to solemnise a marriage where the two individuals were of the same sex.

Many people have made appointments to see me to talk about their views, and I respect those views. Many of those views were about religion—as I said, this bill covers off on that—but they also spoke very much about marriage being about children, including the protection and the raising of children. In 30 years in education as a teacher and a principal I saw many children abused and mistreated by their biological parents. I saw many children loved, nurtured and given great hope by people who were not their biological parents but were their guardians. So I cannot buy the idea that biological parents are obviously the best people to raise children—it just is not always the case.

On Saturday 11 August hundreds turned out at Newcastle City Hall for the Rally for Marriage Equality, marking the eighth anniversary of the Howard government's provocative ban on equal marriage rights. It is important to remember that the Marriage Act never said marriage was between a man and a woman until John Howard changed it. It was always about polygamy and not allowing multiple relationships in a marriage. It was never defined until John Howard put it in. That was a very retrograde step. A number of locals spoke at the rally, including the inspirational Michelle Lancey, who runs Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays in Newcastle—an invaluable support network in my region. Michelle spoke at the ALP National Conference. She is a mother who would like to see both of her boys be able to marry. One is homosexual and one is heterosexual, and she finds it very sad that their relationships are not of equal value.

La Trobe University's 2011 Writing themselves in report, which surveyed the experiences of over 3,000 gay youth between 14 and 21, found that 79 per cent of students attracted to the same sex had been physically assaulted or verbally abused. It is time this country matured. That is not acceptable in any country. It is time tolerance was extended to everybody. It is sad to see the suicide rates amongst gay young people as well. It is time to legislate for marriage equality. We would not be acting alone—many countries have done this. I am pleased to support the bill. (Time expired)

Patrick Secker (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I find it very interesting that the member for Newcastle, in speaking on the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 currently before us, said it was a retrograde step for Prime Minister John Howard to define marriage as being 'between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others', which of course is the definition of marriage in Britain. I was here at that time—as was the member for Newcastle, who is escaping the chamber to avoid hearing this. I do not remember the member for Newcastle coming into this chamber and speaking against that motion or voting against that motion; it did not happen.

I also remember promises being made during the last federal election campaign by both the Labor Party and the coalition to retain that definition of marriage. The Labor Party promised not to change the definition, and we in the coalition also said we would not change the definition. I know that not one member from my side went to that election suggesting that we would break that commitment or that they were against the definition of marriage being 'between a man and woman, to the exclusion of all others'. I am not aware that any Labor member went to the last election saying they would change that definition or were in favour of changing it. I may be wrong—it is possible that one or some did—but I am certainly not aware of it.

I know that those on the other side are quite happy to break promises they made during the 2010 election campaign. We had the famous example of the Prime Minister saying, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' But I think it is sacrosanct that members keep their commitments. If people are to trust politicians, it is very important that politicians, if they make a commitment or promise before an election, keep to that promise—unlike those on the other side.

I have been asked why I will not change my mind on this, and I am quite happy to say that I actually believe in marriage being between a man and a woman. That is not to say that I am against some sort of contractual arrangement of a different type for same-sex couples, but, when it comes to the word 'marriage' and the legal definition of marriage, I am proud to say that I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others. I accept that other people have different views. But, if they have gone to an election saying they will not change that definition and then, when the election is over, break that promise, I think it is a problem. It fuels the belief that politicians do not keep their promises. We are thought of badly enough, thanks to some promises which have been broken.

I am indebted to Brian Camenker, who has given us some information about what happened in Massachusetts:

On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court announced its Goodridge opinion, declaring that it was unconstitutional not to allow same-sex "marriage."

I believe it was a very close decision. Mr Camenker goes on:

Six months later, despite public outrage, homosexual "weddings" began to take place.

Let us have a look at what has happened since that time. Mr Camenker tells us:

By the following year it was in elementary school curricula—with hostility towards parents who disagreed.

He cites an example:

When … the parent of a kindergartener … calmly refused to leave a school meeting unless officials agreed to notify him when discussing homosexuality or transgenderism with his son, the school had him arrested and jailed overnight.

We do not want to see that in Australia. Above all, we do not want to see parental rights taken away by— (Time expired)

Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Higher Education and Skills) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tonight I reaffirm my intention to support the Marriage Amendment Act 2012, introduced as a private member's bill by my colleague the member for Throsby, which aims to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to establish marriage equality for same-sex couples. Over recent times, I have sought the views of my constituency on this issue and have received arguments both for and against the change. Indeed, over 1,500 constituents contacted me, some on multiple occasions, by various methods, including petitions, standard email campaigns and personally written emails and letters.

I came to the debate undetermined about my own views on this issue. I have a significant appreciation of the special nature of marriage for those with various religious affiliations. I have also spent much of my adult life arguing that people in committed relationships who are not married deserve to have that relationship given the same legal and social acceptance and recognition as those who are married. I also have a profoundly held belief that gay and lesbian individuals and couples should not face harassment, discrimination or denial of rights extended to other Australians. For that reason, I welcomed the significant legislative reforms put in place by the new Labor government when we came to office in 2007.

Since I was genuinely undetermined about my own views, I read with an honestly inquiring mind all the submissions made to me. I received personal representations both in my electorate and in Canberra from groups wishing to explain their views on the legislation. In large part, these interactions were well considered and respectful and I appreciate those who argued their case passionately but without attacking the other side of the argument—or indeed me—in a personal way. Sadly, this was not universally the case. But those who resorted to personal attacks simply wasted an opportunity to influence my views.

When the ALP determined that members were to be given a conscience vote on the issue, I concluded my own consideration and determined that I would be supporting the change for reasons I will shortly outline. I then wrote to all of the constituents who had contacted me to let them know of my decision.

I acknowledge that there are some who were, and remain, disappointed by my decision, as there are those who welcomed it. I can only assure all that I reached the decision after extensive consideration of all the submissions made to me and I am entirely comfortable that I have determined the decision conscientiously.

The exercise of a conscience vote is particularly important, as it does not bind a member to a predetermined outcome and therefore the numbers are not the overriding consideration; rather, it is expected that the member will bring their own judgement to the matter. It is a matter of great regret and shame, I believe, that the Leader of the Opposition has not afforded his own members a similar right to exercise a free conscience vote.

The existence of the Marriage Act and the use of that status in various other acts mean that the institution of marriage is not a church-only matter; it is also a matter for consideration by the state. There is much discussion still in this debate that a new form of formal recognition, such as a civil union, would be a more appropriate response as a formal recognition of committed same-sex relationships. Initially I felt this might be an appropriate way forward. I could see the logic of the mechanistic nature of the arguments for this model. But, at the end of the day, it is my view that this is simply splitting hairs. In everyday life, people are asked, 'Are you married?' not 'Are you civilly united?' The nature of the relationships should be equal, so, to my mind, the process should be equal.

As a result of my considerations, I also believe it is critically important that this apply to the state's operation and recognition of relationships for its purposes. I remain firmly of the view that churches and other religious institutions should be protected in their right to perform marriage ceremonies according to their own principles and values. Indeed, the ALP platform specifically states this, as does the amendment bill before us. In the final analysis for me as a parliamentarian, it is up to the state to determine whether or not to expand the definition of marriage, and it is up to the church and its clergy to solemnise marriage according to its traditions.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am a little confused about what is happening with this bill, the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012. If same-sex marriage is such an issue, as it is reported to be, and so many members of the government are in support of it, why has it been introduced by a backbencher? Why wasn't it introduced through the normal cabinet process, brought before the House and a decision made? As it is now, it gets trotted out about every four weeks, like a child's pony, and paraded around the chamber. I presume the tactic there is to give people the idea that something is actually happening on this front. A lot of people are waiting to watching this chamber to see what it does with regard to the issue, one way or another.

As the previous speaker, the member for Cunningham, said, we get a lot of emails, and I have got a lot of communications about this bill. I have to say to people, 'This is a private member's bill, not a government bill,' and explain what that means. So I really do not think the government are fair dinkum on this. To be honest, I do not think it is fair to the Australian public that they are using this approach. In my electorate there are people who are strongly opposed to same-sex marriage and there are people who strongly support it. Indeed, I have been in communication with people from both sides. But this is not an issue you can decide on a clear majority. If I poll the 100,000 voters in my electorate and 50,001 are for same-sex marriage—or vice versa—it does not mean that is what we will have. You will still have the other half, all those other people, who are disappointed. The nature of this issue makes it personal.

My constituents are very clear about where I stand on this. They do not all agree with where I stand on this but they are all very clear about where I stand. It was not a platform at the last election, but if anyone had cared to ask what my thoughts were, I would have told them. My personal thoughts are that marriage is between a man and a women. That is not to say that I do not respect people who have a different point of view and that, sometime in the future, a clear majority will not think otherwise. That is my personal view, and I do not resile from it. As for the view of my electorate, from the correspondence I am getting and from the mood in the electorate I still think that a clear majority are in favour of marriage being between a man and a woman.

Why is the government handling this issue the way it is? Why is it leaving the running of this to the member for Throsby, in conjunction with the member for Melbourne, who are running a tag team on private members' motions? There is a caucus meeting tomorrow; if the government are fair dinkum about this, they should get it on the agenda, and then let the parliament decide so we can move on.

I suspect that this tactic of having a debate every three or four weeks on same-sex marriage is a great diversion away from the other issues we have been dealing with, such as the carbon tax and asylum seekers. I think that is grossly unfair. I think the government are taking the Australian people for fools to treat them this way. My thoughts are that we need to put this issue behind us one way or another and move on for the sake of the Australian people and for the sake of the gay and lesbian communities.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak against the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012. From the outset, I would like to make a few disclaimers about this bill. The first is my opposition is not driven by any homophobic leanings. The second is I respect the motion of the member for Throsby and his sincerity in this matter, as indeed I do the member for Cunningham—one of the people I most respect in this chamber. But on the bill I beg to differ.

It is simply my belief that marriage in its current form should remain. In fact, I go further than that. I do not think that it is in the capacity of the state to redefine the essence of marriage as being other than between a man and a woman. It is the framework central to a 3,500-year Judeo-Christian tradition and, until comparatively recent centuries, a commitment which took the form of a religious, ceremonial and legal union which was always between a man and a woman. Even in modern times priests and pastors continue to be the front-line celebrants of the marriage ceremony, though it is recognised in a pluralist society that other non-Christian clergy or appointed civil practitioners deliver the ceremony to those who are not part of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

For the last few centuries, civil unions were held in registry offices, court houses and magistrates' offices and by captains of ships at sea until the advent of civil celebrants in the second half of the 20th century. I do not seek to impugn couples who wish to live together, whether that is in a heterosexual, homosexual, lesbian or platonic relationship. I do not contest their right to have ceremonies of commitment, providing they do not purport to be married. I believe couples who come together in these circumstances should not be deprived of joint ownership of property, entitlement to wills, insurance settlements and superannuation, but I do contest their right to redefine marriage.

I vehemently support the coalition in believing that the definition of marriage contained in the existing provisions of the Marriage Act 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 and, within this framework, for the raising of children. I do not believe that parliaments should attempt to change concepts that have historic, cultural and, in most instances, religious foundations.

Of course, with such a contentious topic as this, it should be not just my view that is expressed, but that of my constituents in Hinkler. In 2011, when this issue was just as topical, I took the step of gauging the level of support for same-sex marriage through a newsletter. I have always found my newsletter was a very good way to get feedback from constituents. Only 14 people were supportive of same-sex marriage, and 595 were opposed to it—that is, roughly two per cent of the respondents in Hinkler were in favour of same-sex marriage. Quite frankly, I was surprised. Even though it is a conservative electorate, I thought the result would have been closer. Along with this, I received 232 letters from my constituents in the form of an open letter to the Prime Minister protesting against any move towards same-sex marriage.

As I have said before, I, like the vast majority of my constituents, believe marriage is and should remain the union of a man and a woman. It seems there is a great push in some sections of society for change for change's sake. But that is not good enough.

Finally, what we have heard in the speeches from the government tonight should not be the basis for a change to the Marriage Act.