Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support this bill. I support it because, after much thought, I am convinced that it is an argument about justice that all should be equal before the law. So, in good conscience, I can make no other choice. I make this decision even though many people I know and some that I love violently disagree. I respect and understand their choices. I ask them to respect and understand the choices of others.

The highlight of my brief time in this House was a speech by the President of the United States, Barack Obama. At the time of his birth in 1962, President Obama's parents could not have been legally married in 16 states of the country he now governs because his father was black and his mother was white. Three years before he was born, a trial judge in Virginia sentenced an interracial husband and wife to one year's jail, with the words:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow Malay and red and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages.

In 1967, the US Supreme Court would unanimously overturn that ruling in a famous civil rights case. There was a deep irony in the surname of the couple that brought the case: Mildred and Richard Loving. In Loving v Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled 'marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man'. In an interview, the famous conservative US lawyer Ted Olson recalled this case. He said that, in preparation for it, a lawyer asked Richard Loving, 'What shall I tell the justices of the Supreme Court?' He said, 'Tell them I love my wife.'

Ted Olson was one of the lawyers who successfully challenged California's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. His involvement shocked many of his conservative friends. He said this fight 'shouldn't be considered a liberal issue or a conservative issue; it should be considered a matter of equal rights and equal dignity to individuals'. He went on to say:

People are not, do not choose to be gay. They are born with characteristics that cause their sexual orientation to be what it is. They deserve happiness and equality and dignity and respect and absence of discrimination in their lives the same as the rest of us do.

I have wrestled with this issue, because I have honestly tried to weigh all the arguments. Some constituents tried to convince me to vote against this bill by arguing that the union of a man and a woman is natural and same-sex unions unnatural. Some gay constituents opposed it and some gay friends wondered why anyone would want to get married. Some constituents urged me to consider the children of same-sex unions now that the law, science and innovation has shattered the natural barriers to same-sex couples being parents.

And it caused me to reflect on my own family, because this is not just an intellectual exercise. I cannot divorce it from my own experiences and the people I know and love.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would have preferred that my father had not left my mother when I was 11. It was not my choice, it was not the choice of my sisters and it was certainly not the choice of my mother. It was the choice of my father, and I bitterly resent and take deep offence at the suggestion that I was not raised in a family, or that I am damaged or dysfunctional because I was raised by a single mother, because families come in many forms. Over the ages, children have been raised by aunts, by uncles, by grandparents, by siblings, by cousins, by friends, by benefactors, by the church, by the court, by nannies and by boarding schools. What is critical is that children in all circumstances are loved, respected, nurtured and safe. Coming from a single-mother family, I know for a fact—I speak from experience—that the construct of that family did not matter to me. The only thing I needed to know when I got home from school was that I had someone there to reassure me, to nurture me, to tell me that I was okay and that life was okay.

Then there is the experience of my wider family. I am the proud godmother of Alice Rose Uhlmann-Foy. She is a precocious five-year-old, with an unbridled passion for potato chips. She is a girl well on her way to being Prime Minister. I find it impossible to believe that she could have more devoted parents than Elizabeth Uhlmann and Kate Foy. Both know that nothing is more nurturing than the life and love of family. The world is a better place because Liz and Kate have two beautiful daughters, Alice Rose and Emma Kathleen. I cannot deny for them anything that I would wish for myself, and the best thing in my life is my marriage. My marriage stabilises me. My marriage energises me. My marriage encourages me constantly to be better than I am.

Kate and Liz know that their life has not been an easy thing for some in our family to reconcile. It directly challenged the deep faith of my beloved late mother-in-law, Mary Rose Uhlmann. Mary was devoted to her family and her church. She was the president of the Catholic Women's League. She argued in the committees of this House against the use of the kind of reproductive science that have allowed Liz and Kate to have children. And yet her love for Liz and Kate and her granddaughters was ferocious and it was unconditional. Liz and Kate gave their first daughter Mary's middle name in recognition of that strong love, because Mary found a path to love both her faith and her family, and in her dying words she implored us to 'love one another as I have loved you'. Yet I do not doubt that she would oppose this bill today, and Liz and Kate and I would expect nothing less.

Since this debate got a head of steam, I have met with many constituents on this issue. I have been struck by the most unlikely people being in favour of same-sex marriage, and the most unlikely being opposed to it. I have been struck by the strength and passion of both sides of the argument. Both sides have presented well-considered and well-grounded reasons for their views—many based on their faith and many based on their own morality. Both sides have been deeply respectful—in the main. And I say that because I have also been struck by the intolerance of a handful of people calling for tolerance and by the level of contempt among an invisible minority that peddles its views in the social media. I have been the victim of a campaign, as I am sure many in this chamber have been. Attempts have been made to 'out' me. Attempts have been made to put me on 'for' and 'against' lists. Some of these attempts have come from my own party.

In the short time that I have been a member, the thing that has disturbed me most about modern public life is the belief among some individuals and groups that I will be bullied into supporting their cause through blackmail, and that if I do not support a cause and then go out and advocate for it—as if supporting it is not enough—that I will be exposed to the world as an unbeliever. I have also been offended by the suggestion that those who do not support same-sex marriage are homophobic. Mary Rose Uhlmann was not homophobic.

The constituents I have met who are opposed to same-sex marriage are not homophobic. Like those who support it, they are driven by a deep faith and a deep morality, and I respect that. But I respectfully disagree.

We are not here today discussing unions sanctioned by the church, we are talking about the sanctions by the state. No church should ever be forced to marry same-sex couples and I will never support that. But the state already recognises unions like de facto couples that the churches do not. Before the law of this Commonwealth, all women and men should be equal no matter their colour, their creed or their sexual orientation. People have the right to choose the individual they love, and if they choose to marry, the state should not stand in their way. Strong relationships are the foundation on which we build a strong community.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I guess here we are again, another occasion when the time of the parliament is taken up with this matter of same-sex marriage. I believe it was going to be five minutes each for 15 speakers and yet there has been trouble filling that list. Perhaps that shows that enough has been said on this matter and that what we really need to do is get to a vote to decide once and for all on the merits of the bill and the issue.

I do, however, question why we are here at all. Before the 2010 election it was very clear: the two major parties made the commitment that there would be no change to the definition of marriage. We know that voters so often make their decision based on the views they have gathered of a number of different policies, or perhaps just one policy. This is an emotive issue with many Australians, but when I consider how many of my constituents contacted my office to express their views, it does say that views on the subject are not extensively stressed: 1,224 of my 93,321 constituents have to date contacted my office to state their views on whether the definition of marriage should be maintained or changed. To put it in context, ten times more people in Cowan opposed this Labor government's attacks on private health insurance than want a change to the definition of marriage. It is important to put these matters in perspective, and I am certainly not trying to denigrate the strongly-held views of anyone; however, some 1.3 per cent of my constituents have expressed their views and of the total number in my electorate 0.3 per cent have expressed a view that the definition of marriage should be changed.

The next question may be why more people have not expressed a view. Perhaps more of my constituents are interested but remember that before the last election the Liberal Party said there would be no change to the definition of marriage. Perhaps they also remember that before the last election the Labor Party also said there would be no change to the definition of marriage. I therefore suggest that if the policies of the two major parties before an election are clear then the parliament of this nation should vote consistently with what was said before the election. Maybe that is the reason why so few people have expressed a view either way, because they are confident that what was said before an election will be adhered to after an election. So the people of this country in my view have not contacted their MPs in support of a change in the definition of marriage because they expect us to keep our word. If I say that I will do something before an election, I should maintain that exact position after the election. That is certainly the view of this side of politics, as the Australian people have become so clearly aware of on so many occasions in the last two years; but it is not the view of the other side. My contention is that this is clearly not a big enough issue for even a majority of Australians to contact their MP about and, given that the election promises of both sides were clear, there is only a mandate to maintain the definition of marriage. We said what our position was and the coalition maintains that position and will not break faith with the electorate.

As I said before, we have a stated position and we maintain that position, a clear contrast to the Labor Party. What is said by Labor before an election cannot be trusted after an election. The Labor Party was happy to hide its position on carbon tax and the definition of marriage before the election yet is gleefully willing to flip as it marches to the tune of the Greens after the election. Perhaps that is not correct with all who are in the Labor party. Before the election we knew how many of you wanted same sex-marriage legalised but just went along with no change to the marriage definition line to try to save the government. This is usual. Power always comes before principle with Labor—untrustworthy but nevertheless reliable in a perverse way.

But enough said on that. I think the time has come for this matter to be decided. Having seen betrayed every Australian who voted for Labor, influenced by the policy position of no change to the definition of marriage, it is now time to stand up and be counted. From my position, I know that 153 of my constituents will by unhappy with my vote—possibly very unhappy—and 1,071 will be happy with my vote. But what I say to them all is that, when I say before an election that I will maintain the definition of marriage with my vote in the House of Representatives, I will be absolutely true to my word. What I say to my constituents and those in this House of Representatives is that I respect deeply held convictions, because they come from beliefs about what is right and wrong. What I do not respect is suppression of such views for political expediency before an election and a reversal after the election. In this matter, every member of the Labor party knew that their side promised no change to the definition before the 2010 election and yet said nothing to demonstrate their alternative views. The Prime Minister had three choices before the election: she could have stated that there would be no change to the definition of marriage; she could have said that Labor's position was to recognise same-sex marriage; or she could have said that she would allow a free vote. But she and the Labor Party, the government, chose to have a policy of no change to the definition of marriage. That is the position, the banner under which almost every elected member of this parliament came into this parliament.

When those of us on this side say it, we mean it and we will carry on with it. I say again that we have seen plenty of time spent in this parliament debating this issue. There have been a couple of bills and I really think it is time that we moved on. I look forward to a vote and I think the people of Australia look forward to a vote. Everyone—either on no change to the definition of marriage or on change to the definition of marriage—wants resolution of the issue once and for all, and I look forward to this vote. I hope that it comes on as quickly as possible after this debate is concluded.

Jill Hall (Shortland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012, which is before the parliament. I find the last member's contribution to this debate quite offensive, because, as a member of a parliament voting on a private member's bill where I have been given the right to have a conscience vote, I take that very seriously. A lot of consideration has gone into this for me, and I take a very personal perspective to this piece of legislation.

I would like to commence by thanking each and every person who has contacted me on this debate. Like the member for Canberra, I have been contacted by friends who support the legislation and friends who oppose it. There are people whom I respect very much in my everyday life who oppose this legislation and people who have similar feelings and support the legislation. I ask each and every one of them to respect where I am coming from in relation to this legislation and to hear my story.

As well as that, I would like to put on the record that I conducted a survey and, overwhelmingly on that survey, people supported same-sex marriage. It was only a sample—it was only a couple of thousand people—and I think, on that, about 80 per cent supported same-sex marriage.

There were people who completed the survey outside the electorate. But for those within the electorate it was about 80 per cent. It was higher for those outside the electorate.

I have been contacted by a number of people via email, and I have met with people both in my electorate office and here in Parliament House. Regardless of people's positions, I have listened and I have taken into account their thoughts in relation to same-sex marriage. I would like to share with the parliament my story and the reason that I am finally 100 per cent behind supporting same-sex marriage. I have three nieces and a nephew. Their father and mother died when they were very young. Their father was a person who was maybe bisexual but was probably more likely homosexual. He died when the children were very young. My mother-in-law, a strong Christian and a very conservative woman, was responsible for raising these children. The eldest and second eldest are both in heterosexual relationships. I attended the second eldest niece's wedding in March. I was overwhelmed by the fact that my nephew, who had been married in the UK to his same-sex partner, was at the wedding. The youngest of my nieces was there with her partner. Once again, she is in a same-sex relationship. 92-year-old mother-in law is very accepting of her grandchildren even through initially it was confronting. It was a wonderful celebration of the marriage of the second eldest niece. My youngest niece said to me, 'Jill, could you do for me whatever you can so that I and my partner will be able to be married.' I thought about it and I thought: is it fair that these two women in a very loving relationship, two women who are highly educated, two women who care deeply for each other, are unable to marry, whereas the older two girls can. I reached the conclusion that she was being denied justice, she was being denied equity, she was being denied the ability to share in that same relationship, that same institution.

I understand that some people come from a religious background. I have been approached by both sides: those who are members of the clergy who support same-sex marriage and those who are members of religious organisations and clergy who oppose same-sex marriage. I have listened carefully to what all of them have said. This morning I noticed that I have received emails from both the Australian Council of Churches, which is opposing it, and the another group of religious leaders who are supporting it. So even amongst the church this is an issue that has caused division. There are divided opinions on this issue. In my electorate last week I received a very moving email from a woman whose perspective on it is very similar to my own.

She has two children who have been married and she has a daughter who is in a same-sex relationship. She would like for them to be able to enjoy the same situation that her other two children have. My good friend Fredric Holten and his partner Christopher have constantly lobbied me that they should be able to share being part of a marriage institution, as their brothers and sisters are.

I would never, never impose upon any minister or clergy that they should have to marry people in a same-sex relationship who wish to be married, but I do believe that people in same-sex relationships should have a choice. Currently, people who are in heterosexual relationships can choose whether or not they wish to marry, but those in same-sex relationships do not have that choice.

I support the private member's bill. I am pleased to see that he has just come into the chamber. I thank him for putting it before the parliament. I do agree we need to vote on it. I think that it is time that this legislation was voted on. When it is voted on I will be supporting it, both from the personal perspective I bring to it, from my nieces and nephew, and also from the perspective that I think that it is fair. It is a human right—people should have the right to formally have their marriage and their relationship documented.

Warren Entsch (Leichhardt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In speaking to this private member's bill, the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012, I certainly would like to reconfirm my commitment to removing financial and legal discrimination against same-sex couples. I have been a very, very strong and a very public advocate on this issue since—from memory—about 2002, at a time when legislation was put forward in this place reaffirming the Marriage Act. While I had no issue at the time with the Marriage Act, I was somewhat puzzled that there was a decision to put it forward at that time. I asked what it actually did in relation to the debate. I was told that, really, it was just reaffirming it; it was not going to make any changes. That caused me some concern because, in my view, if there were not going to be any changes and all you were doing was bringing it out into the public sphere again then all it was going to do was provide the opportunity for those individuals within the gay community to be subjected to more criticism or discrimination, which I thought was totally unnecessary. So, at that point in time, I spoke out against it.

I then had the opportunity of meeting some very fine Australians: Rodney Croome was one that came to see me, an activist from Tasmania, and David Scammell, was another one, from Sydney, who came to see me. They gave me some information in relation to problems associated with the gay community which at the time horrified me. I spent the next number of years raising these concerns and trying to get support, initially from within my own party, which was in government at the time, and also from within the opposition. I found very strong resistance on both sides to addressing this issue, but there were people who would—and I have one here beside me; Mr Turnbull was a very strong supporter right from the beginning, and I always appreciated that—through advocacy and introducing individuals who had suffered this discrimination to the Prime Minister of the day and to other members who were prepared to listen.

We were able to work up a whole range of reforms which eventually came to this place in 2008 and were supported very ably by both sides of parliament. When I left in 2007 I was very proud of the fact that it was something I had initiated and actively pursued. To see that come through with those discriminations, particularly in relation to superannuation and legal stuff through Centrelink, it gave me a great deal of satisfaction.

However, I had a short break of 2½ years, and when I came back I realised that there were areas that we had missed. Of those areas we had missed, one was in relation to aged care, and there is still a lot of work to be done there. The first person I met when I came back into this parliament after my break was Rodney Croome, wearing a slightly different hat as one of the champions of the Australian Coalition for Equality. I met him in my office and we had a lengthy discussion about his campaign. At the end of that discussion I explained to Rodney that I could not support his campaign.

I could not support it for a good reason. In building support for the reforms we saw in 2008 I was certainly not identified as a member of the gay community—in fact, quite the opposite—but I found that the definition given to me through the media showed that people had the view that I was not pushing my own agenda but rather focusing on the interests of others. There were a lot of other family members of gay people who said that if somebody of my background—a Far North Queensland, crocodile-farming, wool-catching Liberal—was prepared to be publicly advocating on behalf of their family members they would be prepared to come out and support me as well. Many of my colleagues also decided to come out in support, and it was that support that eventually saw that legislation go through. However, in doing so I had to give some strong commitments to those colleagues that I was not using this as some sort of a Trojan Horse to introduce marriage. I made that commitment and I intend to continue to keep that commitment.

As I explained to Rodney when we had our meeting in late 2010, I have come to realise that there is another area of discrimination of which the surface has hardly been scratched: that is, the issue of transgender and intersex. There is a huge amount of work that needs to be done there, and with tripartisan support we have been able to establish the first Parliamentary Friendship Group for the LGBTI community. Graham Perrett is, of course, one of my deputies as is Senator Sarah Hanson-Young. We have already had one very successful function in the parliament and it is our intention to have another one very shortly.

In commencing that work and raising those issues I made a commitment that I would champion the issues, particularly the issues of transgender and intersex. I have been working with Peter Hyndal from the A Gender Agenda group, who has in a recent conference prepared a paper of priorities that need to be addressed. That will be available in the next couple of weeks and will give us an idea of the issues that need to be addressed and the priorities in which we set them. I intend to work with Graham and Sarah to have another function in the future to be able to launch this and, hopefully, get some support to see some changes there.

I am doing this because my experience over the last 10 years has been that as soon as you throw the 'm-word' into this debate everything else gets lost and the focus comes onto that. I believe it is important that we focus on some of these other issues. There are some very serious issues in the transgender and intersex community that have to be dealt with in relation to identity, which is causing huge problems with them. Sadly, if these issues are not addressed, we are going to see very high and unacceptable levels of suicide in those areas. I have to say that I found the comments of Jim Wallace from the Australian Christian Lobby suggesting that this was a lifestyle choice, like cigarettes, to be absolutely appalling and I was disgusted with such a comment.

I would suggest it is more of a personal comment than a comment from the broader Christian community. I have a lot of Christian people, including members of the cloth, who come to me and very strongly support the advocacy that I have taken.

I have also offered as a means of, if you like, achieving another goal to prepare a private members' bill in relation to a civil partnership arrangement. I in fact had one prepared. It is not a civil partnership for gay people or transgender people, it is civil partnership per se that any person of any orientation has the choice should they want to go down that path. I had that prepared but I was asked by members of the Marriage Equality Coalition not to introduce it during the course of this debate, to allow this debate to run its course, after which I will give some consideration as to whether or not I introduce that private members' bill.

I will continue to be a very strong advocate of the LGBTI community. I think it is important that people like me stand up. People, like my good friend Malcolm Turnbull, have also been very strong advocates, and more and more members in the coalition are very strong in making sure that these discriminatory issues are dealt with, and we will continue to do that. I personally will continue to pursue the transgender and intersex issues that need to be addressed. Hopefully, like we saw in 2008, we are going to see some very significant reforms introduced that will start to give people of these sexual orientations the recognition and the acknowledgement that they so desperately need and deserve. I will continue to pursue it and, hopefully, we will get to a successful conclusion. In the meantime, in relation to this particular bill, for the reasons that I have stated previously I will not be supporting it.

Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Communications and Broadband) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Following on from my very good friend the member for Leichhardt, let me return the compliment. He has been a vigorous, persuasive and very effective advocate for the rights of same-sex couples and people of a homosexual orientation, and has done a great deal of work, perhaps made more effective because of his unlikely persona as the crocodile farmer from North Queensland, speaking up for the gay community in the widest sense of the word.

Turning to the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012, as honourable members are aware, the coalition has taken a position as a party, and as a coalition party room, not to allow a free vote on this issue. So, like the member for Leichardt, I will not be voting in favour of this bill. Were, however, a free vote to be permitted I would support legislation which recognised same-sex couples as being described as in a marriage. I want to explain to the House why I would do that and also suggest an alternative.

The arguments that have been put against gay marriage fall into three categories. The first one we can call a taxonomic one. They say a marriage is between a man and a woman. You cannot make a table into a chair simply by calling it a chair. It is a table; it does not matter what name you give it. The weakness with that argument is that the definition of marriage has changed again and again over time. In my estimation, at least one-third of the marriages extant in Australia today would not be recognised by the Catholic Church, or indeed by the Anglican Church, because one of the parties to that marriage has been married before and their former spouses are still living. So the truth is that society has defined and redefined marriage again and again.

The second argument that is often put up is that homosexuality is a sinful activity, that it is an abomination and that those who practice it will go to hell, and therefore everything should be done to discourage homosexuality. That view, which I guess people are entitled to have if they wish, is one that has no place in this parliament. We have legislated again and again to accord recognition to same-sex couples and to cease discrimination against people because of their sexual orientation. Whatever view people have about the sinfulness or otherwise of homosexual conduct, it is not something that is relevant to the legislative mission of this parliament. Similarly, although many people take the view that adultery is sinful and wicked and that people who commit adultery should not be able to walk out on their partners and marry someone else, we have had no-fault divorce in this country since 1975. The moral arguments may be very persuasive within a religious community, but they simply are not going to be helpful to this House.

There is another argument that is put up against gay marriage. You hear this from the bishops, and in a speech which I will table shortly—a longer speech than I have time to deliver today—Archbishop Jensen made the point that if same-sex couples are entitled to have their relationships described as a marriage it will undermine the marriage between people of different genders. If ever there is an argument that is calculated to persuade you that same-sex couples should be able to term their relationship a 'marriage', it is that one. The proposition that my marriage to Lucy of over 30 years will be undermined because of a gay couple living together down the road or having their relationship described as 'marriage', is absurd. This whole issue drips with hypocrisy, and the pools are deepest at the feet of the sanctimonious. The reality is this: the threat to marriage, and to marriages, is not what gay people may do; it is lack of commitment, it is cruelty, it is indifference, it is adultery. It is all of those things that take the passion and the love out of a relationship. It is lack of commitment that is the threat to marriage. And yet where do you hear the people who most strenuously oppose gay marriage giving the positive message in favour of greater commitment in relationships today? When do you hear them say: 'You should love each other more. You should work harder. Those of you that are together, you should work harder to love each other, to respect each other, to forgive each other, to be more committed.'

Gay people say: 'We want to be together. We want to support each other. The law recognises us as being together.' We have got dozens of acts which this parliament has passed which recognise same-sex couples for a whole range of areas, and gay people say, 'We want our commitment to be given greater recognition.' If there is one thing that we know we have too little of in our domestic arrangements across the nation, and perhaps across the developed world, it is commitment. So in some ways, the advocates of gay marriage and the gay community are holding up a mirror to the heterosexuals, and saying to us: 'Look, we want to make a stronger commitment. What about you? How strong is your commitment?'

The peak of absurdity of this criticism of the case for gay marriage is made by Andrew Bolt, who, after I delivered the speech which, as I said, I will table shortly, said that there is another argument against gay marriage. He said that homosexuals are more promiscuous than heterosexuals. I am not sure on what basis he had researched that, or understood that, or came to that view, but that was his premise. And he said, 'Therefore, if homosexuals are allowed to call their relationships 'marriage' they will be less faithful to each other than heterosexuals are, and this will set a bad example, and therefore undermine heterosexual marriage.'

I observed at the time in response that if you accepted this premise as being correct then, if Italy had recognised gay marriage, Silvio Berlusconi would have had even more bunga bunga parties. My former chief of staff, Chris Kenny, now writing for the Australian, responded to this in a very witty tweet. He said: 'Bunga Bunga is an ancient Perugian dialect for 'The gays made me do it.'

The case against gay marriage, therefore, is a very weak one, in my view. Nonetheless, it is these issues about faith—as Michael Kirby himself has observed, many times—tied up with morality and family arrangements that are ones where people are naturally very conservative and change takes a long time, and it is important the community comes along with the change. As the member for Leichhardt said, raising the marriage issue has been, in the past, quite an obstacle to a lot of the reforms that have been achieved.

My submission to the advocates for gay marriage is simply this: the numbers are not there, in this parliament, for this bill to be passed. That is the reality. In my view, the numbers would not be there even if there were a free vote on the coalition side. I am sure the numbers will be there in due course. Look at countries around the world, countries that are close to ourselves. The United Kingdom is proposing to legalise gay marriage. New York has already done it. New Zealand is talking about it. This is something that is coming, I would anticipate. But what we can do in this parliament, and I know the member for Leichhardt is very committed to this, is legislate for civil unions.

I know that will be seen as being not quite good enough but, as I have said in other contexts and on other occasions, one of the greatest mistakes of those who advocate reform is to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. It is better to get something than nothing. It is for that reason—like my friend—we would support legislation to enact civil unions legislation. In conclusion, I seek leave to table this 5 July 2012 Michael Kirby lecture, which goes into this matter at some greater length.

Leave granted.

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Throsby for bringing this private member's bill to the parliament. I note the speech by the member for Wentworth. He seems to be longing for a conscience vote. Conscience votes are never easy. In many ways, I find myself longing for the warm embrace of my party, to be honest. I remember reading Edmund Burke's maiden speech, where he said:

Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He did! As my colleague notes, Edmund Burke ascribed to great principles but he lasted just two terms in the House of Commons. Perhaps that is a lesson for us all. This is an issue which a minority in the electorate feel very passionately about. To all those who lobbied me—or wrote to me, emailed me or stopped me in the street and had street-corner meetings, sometimes appearing at the same time and arguing opposite opinions—I would like to thank you, for being part of the democratic process. MPs are, of course, swayed by their constituents' opinions, even if we are, as Edmund Burke said, exercising our own judgement.

There are two broad views reflective of public debate and they have been made in this House a number of times. I do not intend to go into them in great detail. Principally, there were the advocates of change under a campaign of equal love. They argued, I think, for an expansion of liberty, for the expansion of the right to marry and the recognition of this right by the state. Others have gone into that argument in some detail, so I will not bother the House with it.

Against this, there were those who basically argued for the status quo: for traditional marriage and for the traditional family to be the bedrock of the formation of our society. Many of those people argued with some vigour and passion for tradition and stability. They were of course in the main religious people, people of strong religious faith. I respect their views. I do have a great deal of sympathy for tradition and of course for the value of the status quo. I think in all of these debates, there does tend to be an undervaluing of the status quo, of the virtues of what we have already. Perhaps that is a slightly conservative view, but it is one that I would normally hold. Both sides argued their cases strongly and politely, and I certainly respect their views. I think the broad area of public opinion lies somewhere in between. Most people are not ambivalent about it, but it is not the first question in their mind when they approach their politician.

But for me, this debate does have a personal aspect. It is not just a theoretical debate but in some degree a personal one. That is because my sister Simone is a lesbian. I do not know if love is equal. I suspect it finds no such equilibrium, but love, if it is to survive, does have to be practical. I must say, I find it impossible to deny my sister the right to marriage. I have wrestled with this question. I, frankly, would have preferred to avoid debating it and talking about it, but when it comes right down to it, no matter what my sympathies are for the status quo and for tradition, I find it impossible to deny my sister the same right that I have. Just as I would like to have her at my marriage, I would like to be present at hers. That is why I will vote in favour of this bill.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very difficult issue, but I rise to speak in favour of the member for Throsby's bill. I very much thank him for putting it before the House. This is the first conscience vote debate in which I have participated as a member of parliament. In participating in it, I have tried to be as open as I can with those in my community, in my constituency and indeed here in parliament about what I am thinking, but also to provide them the opportunity to engage with me on this issue. As a result, I have spoken with many, many people about this issue both in the electorate of Corio and also here in the parliament. Like the member for Wakefield, I would like to thank them for the way in which they have participated in this debate and in the democratic process and to note that they have participated in this with an enormous degree of grace and civility. Indeed, I would say that the way in which this debate has been conducted, at least in respect of my involvement in it, has been as good as any debate in which I have participated and is a model for the way in which debates ought to occur within our public policy.

I would also particularly like to thank those who have come to me with a different view to the one that I hold in relation to this debate. They have, as I said, put forward their views with an enormous amount of dignity and respect. This is rightfully a conscience vote. One's view on this issue is founded very much on the convictions that one has—often religious convictions—about the meaning of marriage. I do not want to evangelise my particular perspective on this, as I might in relation to other areas of public policy. There are those, particularly from churches, who have a deeply held view, as a matter of faith, that marriage is an act between a man and a woman. That is a view which I disagree with but which I have an enormous amount of respect for. I want to place that on record here today as well.

Many from churches have expressed a concern to me that a change to the civil laws which would allow same-sex marriages would give rise to a pressure on their churches to marry same-sex couples against the traditions of their church, against their faith and against their belief. What comes from that concern is a need from us all to have a renewed conviction in the freedom of religious expression. My views on the freedom of religious expression have not changed in this debate; these have been deeply held convictions of mine all along. But, surprisingly and unexpectedly for me, during the course of this debate the need to defend the freedom of religious expression has been a need which is greater in this society than I first thought. There are churches that feel a sense of threat about societal norms impacting upon their ability to express their faith. In taking the position that I do in this debate I also take a position that their right of freedom of religious expression must be defended, and I absolutely commit myself to that.

Many in the conversations that I have had saw the legalising or allowing of same-sex marriages in our civil law to be the first step down a slippery slope which would see the recognition within our civil law of other forms of relationships. This is an argument that I understand but, ultimately, it is not an argument with which I agree; I do not think we are taking a step down a slippery slope which will lead to unanticipated places. But, at the end of the day, in considering whether or not a particular set of relationships ought to be allowed in the Marriage Act one can only view that on the merits of the particular instance at hand. For me, the merits of that instance are very clear.

During the last term of parliament this government amended 85 separate pieces of legislation to remove all forms of discrimination against same-sex couples as to how they are treated in terms of property, superannuation and so on. This was an uncontroversial step to take and it was an unambiguously good thing to do. It recognised that same-sex couples in loving, committed relationships, which are intended to be permanent as any heterosexual relationships are—and just as in heterosexual relationships, some have children and some do not—ought to be removed of any form of discrimination within our law. That was seen to be the right thing to do, and I, as a member of the government at that point in time, was a proud participant in the removal of that discrimination from our laws.

Marriage can be seen, and is by many people in our society seen, as an expression of faith, as I indicated. But for many marriage is seen separate to religion. It is, first of all, a statement between two people about the level of commitment that they have to each other. It is also a statement by that couple to the rest of society, to their parents, to their friends, to their extended family and to their community as a whole about the way in which they want to be viewed as a couple. Indeed, making that statement to their surrounding community is part of the statement they make to each other about the commitment that they have. To deny the ability of same-sex couples to make that statement to their parents, their friends, their community and their society seems to me to deny them a human right. It seems to me to be as much a form of discrimination as the other instances have been which we removed from legislation in the last parliament. For me, supporting same-sex marriage being allowed within our civil legislation is as simple as removing another form of discrimination as we did in the last parliament.

That is why I am supporting the legislation as has been put forward by the member for Throsby, and I do that with a very much renewed sense of protecting those churches and those religions who do see marriage in a particular way, as a particular expression of faith, as between a man and a woman, and that the rights of those churches to continue to operate in the way they have need to be protected, and indeed this bill would protect those rights. With that in mind, I very much support the legislation that has been put forward by the member for Throsby as legislation which will remove discrimination from our books, which will remove a denial of human rights from our books and which will allow same-sex couples to engage in our society on the same terms as heterosexual couples.

Chris Hayes (Fowler, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the House is aware, members of the government have been given a conscience vote on this bill, which is appropriate given the significance of the issue and the fact that there are likely to be very strongly held views on either side of this debate. Therefore I believe it is important—at least important to me—not only that I exercise my vote but that I explain the rationale in coming to my decision. It is not the first time that I have had the opportunity to speak about the issue of same-sex marriage. The last occasion was when members of the House were invited to consult broadly with their electorates and report back to the House on the result of those discussions. When I did, it certainly triggered an avalanche of correspondence from those who are less than happy with my position, but may I say that that was certainly not the experience with those that I represent in my community in south-west Sydney. Indeed, when I had the opportunity to speak at the ALP conference last year, I was written up in some publication as being a vile, right-wing politician. So much for holding a view that was not necessarily embraced by everybody.

The conscience vote is just that. It is not a free-for-all, it is not poll driven and it is not a vote dictated by focus group research. It is a vote to be exercised in accordance with one's own personal beliefs. Therefore can I again indicate to the House that it is my strong personal belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. I also strongly believe that to change the federal Marriage Act, as sought by the member for Throsby's private member's bill and to recognise same-sex marriage, would not only violate the sanctity of marriage but redefine the traditional meaning of marriage itself. In coming to this debate, I have been accused by some of not having an open mind or of simply doing the bidding of the Catholic church. I am not sure how one can have an open mind when it comes to beliefs or matters of conscience. If beliefs can be so easily swayed by others, maybe that says more about the substance of the person than anything else.

But, in fairness and in all honesty, my background and the environment I grew up in does have a level of influence on my views on a range of matters. I do hold certain religious beliefs. As members of the House know, I am a Catholic and grew up in a very strong Catholic household. Understandably, my background and all those experiences that go to make up me certainly have a measure of influence in respect to my views on a range of matters, including industrial relations and, probably in particular, my brand of politics. But as I indicated when I last spoke in the House on same-sex marriage, I have very much sought to differentiate my personal beliefs from that of my constituents.

Resulting from community consultation, petitions and letters that I received, as well as an extensive online survey, I think I understand, and I am well aware of, the overwhelming view of my electorate when it comes to the issue of same-sex marriage.

The Marriage Act 1961 was amended in 2002, under the Howard government, to include in section 5 that the definition of marriage 'means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life'. This was supported by the parliament because it codified the traditional definition of marriage that has been long held under common law.

I believe the definition of marriage sits comfortably with the historic understanding and acceptance of what marriage really is, an understanding that it is applicable across all cultures and societies. I appreciate that over the last 15 years there has been a strong move to disturb this historic understanding of marriage, in an attempt to redefine marriage so that it applies equally to same-sex couples. I understand that. It is a move which originated in some states of America. It is true that outside the USA marriage has been redefined in a number of jurisdictions—I think 11 in total—all of which are restricted to western countries, including South Africa. But the fact remains that an overwhelming number of countries do not support marriage as being between any two people, but marriage is between a man and a woman.

I do not accept that marriage is open to all regardless of gender. Opposite-sex couples complement each other, according to the biological construction of their relationship, in a way that same-sex couples cannot. The relationship between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples is different. If the relationship is not the same there cannot be a discrimination when providing the definition of marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman.

To ensure that there is no difference in the legal treatment of couples who set up a relationship outside marriage, since 2007 the Labor government has amended 84 pieces of Commonwealth legislation to put beyond doubt that there can be no discrimination against same-sex couples who establish a live-in relationship. Yet it will be argued by those supporting this bill that not to legislate a change in the federal Marriage Act will amount to a continuing discrimination of same-sex relationships and a breach of human rights. In respect to human rights, I am aware that, over the last two years, the European Court of Human Rights on two occasions has had this matter before it—the issue about discrimination of same-sex couples—and on both occasions the court ruled that there is no specific human right for a same-sex couple to marry.

Following the passage of the 84 pieces of legislation by the federal Labor government to remove discrimination against same-sex couples, it must follow that not to amend the federal Marriage Act does not amount to discrimination. To not amend the federal Marriage Act to apply to any two people, in my opinion, does not form a continuing discrimination. The traditional definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life, is a reflection of a society that has considered or constructed the relationship that best serves the nurturing of children.

As I indicated, that traditional definition of marriage is one that is largely observed by all cultures and all societies. I cannot say, in all good conscience, that not amending the federal Marriage Act to apply for same-sex couples would amount to a continuing discrimination.

I am very proud to be a member of a government that has worked to alleviate discrimination. We moved those 84 pieces of legislation to do just that. But when it comes to the federal Marriage Act, members have been forthright, from the start of this debate, about the definition of marriage. Despite my friendship with the member for Throsby I cannot support the bill where what he seeks to do goes against my strongly held views. I know that my view is echoed throughout my community. (Time expired)

Joel Fitzgibbon (Hunter, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012, and I congratulate the member for Throsby for bringing the matter forward. I think it is worthy of debate in this place, and the contributions have certainly been worthy. I am very pleased that the member for Throsby brought forward a very sensible bill and—I hope I do not offend him by saying—maybe a minimalist bill, one which goes to the core of the issue we are debating without wandering off into extraneous issues. We have a clear question before us here: should the Marriage Act be amended to remove what some people might describe as discrimination, and therefore allow same-sex couples to marry, under that act?

I think this is the fourth occasion on which, over my 16 years in this place, I have risen to speak on a matter which has been determined, within the Labor Party at least, a matter of conscience. Certainly euthanasia was one, stem cell research was another, and I am pretty sure I was here for the debate over RU 486. These conscience vote issues bring a certain civility to the parliament. They put a sombre note into the air, but they force people to think very deeply about their position of these issues. Certainly, from the Labor Party's perspective, there is no opportunity here to hide behind the collective decision. What we do on these issues is a matter for us and therefore we are accountable to our electorate, very directly.

When I voted against the bill to allow euthanasia, I often found that people assumed my position was based on my Catholic upbringing. Indeed it was not. While it is very true that I am a Catholic and have had a strong Catholic upbringing, my real fear about euthanasia was that, rather than enacting a law to give people a choice, it would have been a law which would deny people a choice. In other words, pressure could have come from other interested parties to choose that option. So people should not assume that everything we say in this place is necessarily based on our upbringing, our Christian faith or otherwise.

Obviously, like all members, I have spent a lot of time thinking about this issue and, like the member who spoke before me, I am very proud to be part of a government which, since 2007, has removed discrimination from every piece of legislation sitting on the Commonwealth books. For all of that period of reform I sat on the front bench with the then Attorney-General Robert McClelland, and I can assure all members that that was not easy for the then Attorney-General, and it was not easy for the party. What we did was a huge challenge. It was not an uncontroversial thing—it was quite a controversial thing. But we did it and we should be proud of it.

I am not convinced that the current wording of the Marriage Act does equate to discrimination. From my perspective, the Marriage Act is an instrument for procreation between opposite-sex couples, and I will be arguing today that that is what it should remain.

I have consulted very broadly within my electorate and, like all members, I have had lots of emails and other correspondence on this issue. Again, like everyone else in this place, I know gay and lesbian people and include some of those people as my friends. I think I understand why people want the act changed. I think it mainly goes to the idea that they are being discriminated against, although I do find it interesting that marriage as an institution is in decline amongst heterosexual couples, and some in the gay community seem to be running against the tide in trying to secure the opportunity, and it is a curiosity to me. We do have civil unions in most if not all states and therefore the opportunity does exist to formalise and legalise a same-sex relationship.

On conscience votes, it is worthwhile asking ourselves why we are here. Are we here to push our own personal views on these issues or are we here to represent those who elect us, our constituency, and therefore the collective majority? I am convinced after talking to many people in my electorate that my constituency is not ready for this change. I am not saying that there are not many in my constituency who do support the change, there certainly are, but I would be very surprised if it is anywhere near 50 per cent. That might be contrary to the national snapshot or any national poll. But of course our electorates vary considerably in terms of their demographic make-up, et cetera. I find that the majority of my people do not want this change. I have said publicly that maybe that will change as time goes on and as more conservative, older voters pass on, like we all will one day. But I have found, and I have said it publicly before, that many couples, particularly the older ones, in my electorate are challenged by this concept and have told me that they feel that extending the Marriage Act to same-sex couples would in some way devalue their own marriage certificate—something they hold very close to their hearts. You have to be careful to generalise but I would argue that they hold this marriage certificate much more closely than maybe some of the generations that follow them, particularly those who have gone through their golden wedding anniversary, or through to 60 years. They do feel, rightly or wrongly, that the extension of the Marriage Act to same-sex couples would somehow devalue their marriage certificate. I do not necessarily agree with that, of course, but I understand the sentiment and I understand the pain they would feel based on the stories they have articulated to me. There would be pain caused by this change to the Marriage Act.

I do not have a very strong view on the issue, personally. I do not think it matters much to our society, quite frankly, whether same-sex couples marry or not. I do not think it benefits them greatly and I do not think it disadvantages the rest of our society greatly either. I will probably be attacked for saying this, but I think this is a sort of 11th order issue. I believe it is an important debate, and I said so, but in this place I would much rather be debating some of the more challenging social issues that we face as a parliament and as a people. The unemployment payment, which is topical at the moment, we approach from the wrong angle. We should not be arguing about the rate of pay; we should be arguing about the way in which we treat all unemployed people the same, whether they are likely to get a job or not likely to get a job. There is a lot we could be doing productively in that area.

But here we are today, in any case, having an important debate. Again, I do not have a dogmatic or hard opinion on it. It has been a tough question for me, as I am sure it has been for most of us in this place. On this occasion, again, I do not have the opportunity to hide behind the collective of the party but I do have an opportunity to do what I think is the view of the majority of my constituency. I do not think my electorate is ready for this change and on that basis I will not be voting for this change.

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

I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012. I would like to start by recognising that there are many strong beliefs about the issue of marriage equality. Passionate views both in support and in opposition of the changes to the Marriage Act have been expressed to me both in my electorate and around the country. I have respected these views. I am very pleased that the Labor Party has allowed MPs a conscience vote on this issue, because it does recognise that there are varied religious beliefs and social views about the issue of same-sex marriage.

When I consider my position on this issue I believe very strongly that, as a representative in this parliament, I need to consider both my own personal views and the views of those whom I represent in parliament, the communities of Kingston. But I think there is a dilemma for any representative of parliament when there is no clear consensus in the electorate. I have listened to constituents express their views on this issue and have, indeed, watched some individuals change their mind during meetings.

I attended one particular street-corner meeting and the feeling was that the majority was against the changes to the Marriage Act until one woman brought up the complexities of law and the lack of recognition that her friend had experienced in a hospital where her same-sex partner was indeed unconscious. This story was shared at the street-corner meeting and made some people change their position on what they believed. Some found it quite incredulous that some hospitals did not automatically recognise same-sex relationships.

Whilst I recognise there are a lot of legal complexities around this case, at the street-corner meeting I did watch people grapple with this issue—about recognition, about relationships and about the rights that these relationships should have. Indeed, I watched as some people were questioned and changed their opinion on this issue.

So with no consensus and so many different views in my electorate, I have also had to reflect on my values and beliefs. I have reflected on these and there has been no easy conclusion, because I can see parts of all sides of the argument. One of the earliest values I remember learning from my parents was to treat people as you would like to be treated. I remember believing this in my early childhood and it motivated me into my adult years. This value has become more refined in adulthood, a little bit more complex and articulated as values of fairness, equality and compassion and the importance of being free from discrimination. While matters of public policy are not always straightforward, these beliefs have driven me, whether it be my passion for a universal healthcare system, to eliminate stigma in mental health, to fight for equal rights for women in this country and around the world or to ensure workplace rights are protected. When it comes to this debate I need to apply those values, think about those values and consider them.

When I look at these values that have driven me in so many areas of public policy and apply them to this debate I find it difficult to justify how I can stand in the way of changes to the Marriage Act. I do respect the views of others who hold a very different opinion to me. The freedom to express different opinions underpins our vibrant democracy. That is why I do believe it is so important that, under the proposed bill, a minister for religion be under no obligation to solemnise same-sex marriage. I think freedom of religion is incredibly important and it needs to be maintained and certainly should occur if ever same-sex marriage were to be legalised.

I would like to conclude on a final note by reflecting on my own personal circumstances as well and that is that my own wedding is about to take place in four months time. I am pretty excited. Of course, I am looking forward to it so much. I have no doubt that my wedding day will be one of the best days of my life and, importantly, it will be the start of a lifelong commitment that I will share with my fiance, Tim. I have reflected on the fact that there will be gay friends and family sharing this special occasion with us. When I look into my own conscience I do not know how on that day I could look them in the eye if I had used my voice in parliament to stand in the way of them having the exact same opportunity. I cannot stand in their way.

Peter Garrett (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Minister for School Education, Early Childhood and Youth) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the private member's bill, the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012, knowing that it is a matter of great interest to the community Australia wide and to the community in my electorate. Also, it affords the opportunity through those decisions taken by the government and the Labor Party to exercise what is described as a conscience vote on this matter. It is the case that the Labor Party, when it met at national conference, amended its platform. It changed its platform to say that Labor will amend the Marriage Act to ensure equal access to marriage under statute for all adult couples—irrespective of sex—who have a mutual commitment to a shared life. I certainly support that change that was expressed at the conference.

I have, as the local member for Kingsford-Smith, sought the views of my constituents on this issue. In doing that, I can say that the majority of expression of views are in favour of same-sex marriage. It is the case that some members of the Labor Party and certainly in Kingsford-Smith, including individual branches, are not in favour. Some members are. The fact is that there is a polarity of views on this issue and also a polarity of views amongst religious organisations. I indeed have received letters and representations from churches in the electorate opposing this bill, as I have received letters supporting it. I do note the Reverend Andrew Johnston, who heads of the chaplaincy organisations of the University of New South Wales, saying welcomely that it was wonderful to hear the local member state again his public support for this fundamental issue of justice.

I acknowledge those views. I respect the views that those opposed have expressed, but I do not share them. I do not believe that the arguments put forward suggesting that the traditional bonds of marriage would be weakened by amending the Marriage Act are arguments of force. I do not believe they have thrown up any material or compelling reasons as to why members should not support this amendment. If churches wish to marry persons on the basis of the traditional interpretation of marriage, they are still free to do so. There is no obligation imposed on ministers of religion to recognise same-sex marriage in the Jones bill. I, like many others, am a strong supporter of marriage. I have been in that 'happy state' for 27 years or more. I expect that to be the case as long as I draw breath. I greatly value family life. I recognise that at its best it is providing the durability and the reliability that growing up within a family can provide for people.

It is the essential frame within which the young are nurtured, protected, educated and socialised. All of that occurs in families. It is universal—for the most part—of our human species and it should be seen as such. But the fact is that families are diverse. They are representative of a community. The choices of people living in families, who see themselves as family and see family as an essential part of their lives, deserve to be respected. Commitment to marriage, a desire for the same recognition by the state of that commitment by same-sex couples, does not in my eyes represent a weakening of the institution at all. If anything, I would argue that it is a strengthening. To that extent, I am clear that what the bill in front of us is actually proposing is an opportunity for more people within the community, who have a strong and enduring commitment, to have it recognised by the state.

In 2012 there are differing attitudes and priorities around marriage as well. There are increasingly numbers of de facto relationships, second marriages are increasingly common and so it goes.

But the desire by one group in the community to have their relationship duly recognised by a sign of intention to have permanence and enduring commitment does not represent the destruction of an institution that I have already referred to as being in a state of evolution and change. The fact is that it is the integrity and commitment within relationships that has at its heart the endurance that we seek both in families and communities more broadly.

Finally, and importantly, I do not consider that sexual orientation in and of itself is sufficient to deny any person a right to which others are entitled. The desire for recognition of a commitment to a permanent same-sex relationship as a marriage is, amongst other things, the desire to be treated the same as others, to be seen in the same light as others, to be equal to every other citizen in our democracy. The fact is that these people are in our families, they are our workmates, they are members of the community at large and they are the people that we as members of parliament represent. If the integrity of marriage as an institution sanctioned by the state is not sufficient reason to prohibit same-sex couples from having their union recognised, which is what I am arguing, then the question is: what reason remains? I can see none of any legislative or compelling moral or intellectual force.

I do not believe we should discriminate against people on the basis of race or religion—nor should we permit discrimination on the basis of choice of partner or prohibit the equal recognition of that choice and commitment by the state. In fact, I do not believe that the denial of the rights and opportunities of one group over another contributes to the shared societal goal of healthy relationships across the board and across the diverse terrain of human society. This parliament should not deny our brothers and sisters, our nieces and nephews, those we work with, our children, those whom we represent, the right to be considered equally in the eyes of the law and fellow human beings, entitled to have their commitment to a permanent relationship duly recognised by the state. I support the bill.

Jason Clare (Blaxland, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Home Affairs ) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have always thought that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is what I grew up with. That is the way it has always been. It is what society says it is. But society's views are not set in stone. They change, and so have mine.

I have been thinking a lot about this issue over the last few months. I am getting married later this year to a wonderful woman named Louise—the most important person in my life. Our relationship is the most important thing in my life. I have been thinking about how I would feel if I could not marry Louise. Louise is a Vietnamese Australian. If we had met in another place at another time we might not have been able to get married. One hundred years ago interracial marriages were illegal in most parts of the United States. In the 1950s half of the states in the US still had laws banning interracial marriage. The US Supreme Court only struck out these laws in 1967. In Australia, the Northern Territory ordinance act 1918 banned Indigenous people from marrying non-Indigenous people. It was not revoked until 1953. Similar laws existed in other countries.

It has made me think, in the words of Paul Keating's poignant and oft-quoted Redfern speech, 'How would I feel if this were done to me?'. I am fortunate, we are fortunate, that we live in a more equal, more tolerant time—more so every day. Society's views have changed about lots of issues over the years. A bit over 100 years ago women were not allowed to vote. We used to think that was right. We used to think that was the way that it should be. We do not anymore. Fifty years ago Aboriginal people were not allowed to vote. We used to think that was right. We do not now. Sixty years ago there were parts of Australia where Aboriginal people could not get a drink at the same bar as other Australians or sit in the same part of the cinema. People used to think that that was okay. We do not now. Things change. Society has changed.

The way that we look at homosexuality has also changed. One hundred years ago we sent people to prison for it. Forty years ago it was a crime in every state of Australia. It was still a crime in Tasmania 15 years ago. Today there are very few people who would say that gay people do not deserve the same rights in the workplace, our legal system and the health system as everybody else. But we once did. Our views have changed. Four years ago we passed legislation that gives gay couples the same rights as de facto heterosexual couples when it comes to superannuation, inheritance rights, social security and veterans entitlements, hospital visits and the right to file a joint tax return. It was not a contentious debate. It probably would have been if we had had it 20 years ago—but not any more. It is an example of how society's views have changed. This debate about gay marriage also shows us how society's views have changed. There would not have even been a debate on this 30 years ago. It would have been inconceivable. In 30 years time I suspect there will not be a debate either. In 30 years I suspect that people will look back at this debate like other contentious debates and wonder why it was so contentious—the way we look back at debates about women's suffrage, Indigenous rights, and equal pay for women.

If this was a debate today about civil unions rather than marriage, I suspect it would not be a big debate either. Most Australians and most politicians agree that gay couples should be able to have a civil union, to legally bind themselves together and have a ceremony and a certificate to mark the occasion. That has not always been the case either. People did not always think that, but most people do now. If this were a bill about civil unions rather than marriage I suspect it would pass with the support of about 90 per cent of the members of this parliament. That shows us just how much things have changed over the last few years. The debate now is about whether that legally binding agreement should be called 'marriage'. I recognise that there are strong views on both sides of this debate. I understand why. It involves change to something that we have all grown up with. Big social changes are often controversial. When homosexuality was removed as a crime it was very controversial. In New South Wales in 1984 it passed by only two votes. The debates over giving women the right to vote were also contentious at the time. Here is a quote from the House of Representatives debate in 1902:

I have a mother, and I have a wife and a sister and daughters, and I wish to continue in the position of their supporter and their protector, and not to place them under the necessity of protecting their own political position. I do not wish them to have extended to them the right not only to vote, but to sit in this Chamber. It is man's duty to be here, and it is woman's duty to attend to the family.

Imagine somebody saying that today. The debates about equal pay and the debates about counting Indigenous people as part of the population of Australia were also contentious at that time. In all of these debates the argument that eventually won the day was that people should be treated equally, that all people should have the same opportunities in life. And this is an important principle. Everyone should have the same opportunities in life regardless of the colour of their skin, their religion, their sex or their sexual preference. I know a lot of people have a different view of this issue. I respect and understand them. I held it for a long time myself. I have changed my mind because I think this debate, at its core, like other debates I have mentioned, is about fairness.

We should treat others the way we would like to be treated. As Barack Obama has said on this issue, 'In the end the value that I care most deeply about is how we treat other people.' We should treat others the way we would like to be treated. We are all equal and we all deserve the same rights and the same opportunities in life, whether it is the right to vote, the right to equal pay for equal work, the right to practise your religion, the right to drink in the same pub, sit in the same cinema or marry the person you love.

Mark Butler (Port Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Mental Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to follow the Minister for Home Affairs and his very thoughtful contribution to this debate. I particularly thank the member for Throsby for bringing forward this debate through his private member's bill, a very timely piece of legislation before this parliament.

I am on the public record about these matters. I have written in newspaper op-ed pages about this, I have spoken at many public events, including a very large rally outside the front of the ALP National Conference late last year. My views on this matter are well known for those who take an interest in this policy area. It is important that this matter be debated before the parliament, and I thought it was important to reiterate my views in a parliamentary debate.

I, along with other members, have also asked for the views of my electorate over the last many months, particularly since the resolution was passed by the House asking members to do that. In my electorate—a forthright and frank group of people—hundreds of people have sent emails, put calls through, attended street corner meetings and in other ways—at the pub, the shopping centre and suchlike—expressed their views about this matter to me, and I thank them for that. They have been frank and constructive and, without exception, their views have been politely put, so I do thank people for that.

I want, particularly though, to read a passage from an email that I received from one constituent which had a very powerful impact on me. It was a message received last year, before the debate at the ALP National Conference. One of my constituents wrote this: 'When my grandchildren ask me why I can love my partner and not be married, it is painful to explain that I live in a country that does not let people like me get married. After 33 years, three children and two grandchildren, I think I can attest to love, commitment and the hard slog of long-term relationship that goes side by side with the beautiful family moments.' That to me really summed up so many of the messages that I received.'

In their feedback to me, the electors of Port Adelaide in this fairly ad hoc process that all of us have held—it is not a scientific poll by any means—do support this change. The support from the emails, the calls and the other messages that we have received has been running at about 60 per cent in Port Adelaide. Those numbers reflect most of the research that is has been done over the past couple of years in Australia. We have seen polls conducted by Newspoll, by Galaxy and by Morgan, all of which put public support in the community for same-sex marriage at about 60 to 70 per cent. Australians are not alone. There is a big movement on this question across a whole range of developed nations. As a result, parliaments across the developed world are moving on this question. Many others have referred to the shift in the UK under a conservative coalition government. There is movement in New Zealand. President Obama has indicated an open view about this that supports same-sex marriage. There has been important legislation in a number of states and provinces in North America, including particularly the legislation in New York State that was passed last June, that is very much reflected in the Jones' Bill, if I can refer to the member for Throsby's private member's bill in that way.

I support this measure not because of Newspoll and not because of New York but because this is the right thing to do. I have thought that for quite some time. This, if it passes, will be the latest chapter in a series of reforms about homosexuality in this country stretching back a number of decades. They are a series of reforms in which the Labor Party have proudly played a very, very leading role. Whether you go back to the role that Don Dunstan, the Labor Premier of my own state, South Australia, played in being the first jurisdiction to decriminalise homosexual acts or whether you look at the very proud moment I had as a member of this government in our first term when we repealed a whole range of provisions in dozens of pieces of legislation that had discriminatory effect because of a person's sexual preference, you will see a very proud legacy that Labor has had over some decades now, and it is one that I think we should extend through supporting this particular bill.

It is now a very well-established principle in Australia that civil society does not discriminate against an Australian on the basis of their sexual preference. This bill extends that principle to the institution, particularly of civil marriage.

It is often not noticed in this debate, particularly in some of the newspapers, that marriage in Australia is now predominantly a civil institution. Back in the late 1980s, when I became entitled to get married—although I did not take it up quite that quickly—about 60 per cent of all marriages were conducted in a church or another religious institution. That number is down now to about one in three. And in some jurisdictions, particularly Queensland, where the member for Moreton lives, and in WA, that number is now fewer than three in 10. Now, less than 30 per cent of marriages in those jurisdictions are conducted through a religious celebrant. There is no question that marriage now, in Australia, is predominantly a civil institution—and it does not look as if there is going to be any reversal of that trend. If you take this as a market, the religious sector's market share of this is dropping by about one per cent every year.

This bill applies the longstanding civil principle of equal treatment, regardless of a person's sexual preference, to civil marriage—as happened in New York state—while, importantly, permitting religious organisations and religious celebrants to continue to observe their traditional view of marriage as a ceremony between a man and a woman. That is a very sensible position for this parliament to adopt, and it is one which, if adopted, will make a very great difference to many Australians—not only to those who have communicated their views to my office but to those who have communicated their views to all 150 members of this House of Representatives.

I just want to finish by reading an email from Molly, who wrote to me only last Friday. She said, 'As with so many families, we cannot wait to celebrate at our beautiful daughter's wedding ceremony. With votes such as yours it is getting closer and closer.' That is why I will be voting in support of the bill.

Nicola Roxon (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party, Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let me say from the outset that I have attended same-sex weddings. They happen in Australia often. For those who have not attended one I would say that there are many things you would find familiar. There are vows, rings, thousands of photos, and even confetti. There are proud parents and happy friends dressed up to the nines. The ceremonies get followed by receptions with food, wine, dancing and, of course, those obligatory embarrassing speeches. What they miss is not love, family or commitment; what such ceremonies lack is a legal certificate that our Commonwealth Marriage Act currently prevents them from having. These weddings are unofficial, but that does not stop them from occurring.

The status of homosexual Australians has changed dramatically over the past 40 years. A major part of this has been legal change. We have gone from laws that criminalise and lock up gays to laws that protect their rights. In the sweep of history much of this change has actually been quite recent. Our government has a very proud history in this area. Three years ago, this Labor government changed 85 Commonwealth laws to remove discrimination and to equalise treatment. This covered a broad range of areas, including Medicare, social security, superannuation and many more. These are changes that have a financial impact. They are changes that put government benefits on an equal footing and laws that properly acknowledge caring relationships. Earlier this year I was proud to remove the impediments for same-sex couples to obtain certificates of no impediment for marriage overseas in the various countries that already allow same-sex marriage.

I must admit that I have always believed that these myriad changes in our legislation were the priority for reform—the practical matters that benefited all Australians wanting to be treated fairly and equally. In fact, it was not long ago that many in the gay and lesbian community also had this view—wanting to ensure protection for all who were treated unfairly because of their homosexuality, not just for those who wanted to marry. But the course of this debate has changed. People's views have changed. And the symbolism of same-sex marriage has grown. And that action taken to remove other discrimination has now served to highlight marriage restrictions as an ongoing barrier to equality.

It is time for us to accept that a person's love and commitment for another is a cause for celebration and recognition, not for exclusion and derision. The critics of this bill are concerned about the fabric of our society and our values, but I personally do not see how this bill will do any of those things that are claimed. There will still be the same number of same-sex couples and the same number of straight couples. The only change is that it will remove a legislative statement that straight couples can achieve a higher status of commitment than same-sex couples. In fact, to me, the values that this bill promotes are essentially conservative ones in saying that, if you love someone, you should form a bond with that person for life. I for one cannot and would not say that my love for my husband is stronger or better or more worthy of government recognition than the commitment of our gay friends who want to take this step. I certainly cannot see how their marriage would in any way diminish or affect ours. This change would actually strengthen and encourage commitment. It is saying that Australia promotes monogamous relationships; it is saying that we promote commitment, love and family. Ultimately, these are values that strengthen our nation's social fabric.

However, people of good conscience can have a different view of such things and social change can be difficult and confronting for many. In my electorate I have been lobbied strongly in both directions, both for and against this change. Particularly because of this division, I want to thank the Prime Minister for having the good judgement to allow members and senators of the government and of the Labor Party a conscience vote on this issue. She has shown that she understands that there are diverse views on this matter and is willing for people to express them. This is significantly different from the view taken by the Leader of the Opposition, who has banned, among others, members such as the member for Wentworth and Senator Birmingham from voting in favour of this bill. The Prime Minister's decision and the ALP conference's support have allowed me as Attorney-General, with carriage of the Marriage Act, to voice my opinion which is different from hers and to support this bill. Despite the support of many who have spoken in favour of this bill, I am not confident that this will be the year that same-sex marriage will become law. I believe that it will happen when both sides of politics allow their MPs a free vote on the issue. But I do believe that this change is inevitable. So it is a matter of when, not if, it is achieved, and I would like to support the bill before the House.

Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 and I would like to take the opportunity of thanking the member for Throsby for putting forward this bill and therefore allowing this debate. There are some people and some commentators out there who love conscience votes. They love knowing that they are hearing individuals' own rationale, that they are hearing not just party key lines but the thinking that has gone behind a decision. Over the past eight years I have been through a couple of conscience votes. But I find them gruelling. My No. 1 priority in this place will always be representing the electors of Adelaide and their views. That is what I have always strived to do. Whether it be on the River Murray or on their health and education needs, standing up and giving a voice to the people of Adelaide is the key role that I have been elected to undertake.

The thing that I find so hard is that there is no one clear view of the people of Adelaide on this issue. I have heard from hundreds, if not thousands, of local constituents. Church groups have organised a really strong email campaign. Many of their members are opposed to this legislation. Individuals have come out at the various street-corner meetings held across the electorate with a variety of different views—some for, some against and some in the middle. In fact, at a recent street-corner meeting in Walkerville a man came along pleading with me, saying why couldn't we, instead, put forward a piece of legislation changing the name of the Marriage Act to the 'Tarriage Act', under which you could either get married or get 'garried' depending on the nature of your relationship. All different ideas and all different views have been put forward to me.

But I have also heard from those strong and incredibly brave individuals who have come to share with me their personal stories and why this matters so much to them—as young people, realising that they were somehow different, how they felt excluded, and what would have helped them and made them feel less like they did not fit the mould.

I have read through all of those emails and all of those perspectives, and I have considered them and I have respected them. It is true to say though that there has not been a consistent view. For each who has passionately argued in favour of change, there has been another who has argued just as passionately for the status quo. In those circumstances, whilst I am incredibly grateful and proud of the ongoing dialogue that I have with our local community on so many issues, and have appreciated all of the representations and encouragement, where there is no clear agreement, where community opinion is divided, as are party views, as are individuals' opinions, all I can do here today is to follow my conscience. And whilst I am incredibly reluctant to ever let down my constituents, those who have a different view to mine on this issue I hope will at least see that I respect their views and that ultimately it has been my pledge to our community in Adelaide to stand before this parliament with integrity at all times. When we are in this place at those times when we are subjected to criticism, when we are in the midst of controversy or of the tough politics that sometimes go on in this place, the thing that I turn to for comfort and for confidence is knowing that I have spent my time here with integrity, that I have done what I believe in, that I have stood up for what I know to be right. My view and my personal integrity mean that I will be supporting this bill here today.

In a question of inclusion or exclusion, I choose inclusion. For some, this debate has been about theology. We have heard quite a lot about that. For others, it has been about entrenched ideology. Some have had their views determined by legal principles. To me it has come down to something that is much simpler than that—it has come down to the issue of people. I look to the people that I know, real people in real relationships that are formed based on real love, and then the decision actually becomes a far simpler one. I honestly believe that our nation and our world would be a better place if we formally recognised and celebrated loving and long-term stable relationships, no matter the genders involved. It is as simple as that.

We have all got those particular stories, or particular individuals, that have shaped our views. For me, in particular, it is one of my oldest and dearest friends, Michael, and the beautiful relationship that Michael has had with the wonderful Rob ever since our days back in university, which sadly, was now some time ago. They love each other. They support each other. They inspire each other to be better. They have been together for over a decade. They have travelled the world. They have changed careers. They have explored lifelong dreams. Yet their relationship is not formally recognised. I look at that in comparison to the fact that I could have gone and married any bloke who was silly enough to have me over those many years since university. But they have a meaningful, true love relationship. That, to me, is something that is incredibly important.

That is just one story, but there are literally millions of those stories—of loving unions that been excluded from our structures, that have been shut out from recognition. I for one cannot stand here today when the member for Throsby has provided us with this opportunity to argue to further entrench that exclusion—I cannot do it.

There are a number of issues that I would like quickly to bring up. One is that some people have said to me that I should oppose this bill so we can uphold the institution of marriage. I find that a pretty confusing proposition because, as many people have argued, marriage has changed over the years. Marriage has continued to adapt to the community, to the society, and to the values that we hold dear. I for one, would like to think that if we want to see marriage as a relevant and strong force in the future of this nation, then we want to ensure that it remains modern and that it represents the values of our community, and they are values of equality. If we want to make sure that, in fact, we protect marriage moving forward, then we must hold up and celebrate loving, stable relationships.

The other thing that I would like to briefly touch on today is that I make my contribution to this debate as we also celebrate National Suicide Prevention Month. I cannot make this contribution without also focusing on the fact that we still have too much discrimination. We still exclude people too much. We have too much making people feel that they are broken if they are different.

We as leaders in this country, we as the decision makers of this parliament, must do absolutely everything we can so that, when young people come out, at whatever age that may be, they are told that that is okay, that it is something that we value in our community and that they have a loving future before them that is accepted by this nation and by this parliament.

Sadly for the member sitting alongside me who has put forward this bill, I do not suspect that it will get anywhere close to passing this parliament at this time. But it is important that we keep putting forward our views and that we keep arguing for equality. It is important that we keep making perfectly clear to all that love is a good thing, that stable relationships are such an important and positive force in our community that we should recognise and celebrate them, because what it actually does is encourage them.

Sitting suspended from 13 : 01 to 16 : 00