Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This issue is undoubtedly a contentious issue for a variety of reasons and for many people. There is nothing more iconic or symbolic than the institution of marriage. It means many things to many people and it has associated with it yet for many people a sacramentalisation by religion. Some people associate marriage with that sense of the spiritual, the religious or the sacramental, depending on their theology and beliefs. Some of those people associate marriage with a spiritual dimension. And it means a great deal to them. I do not deny that for a moment. I recognise that both in my own background and in my own socialisation as a Catholic, until I stopped being a practising Catholic. Indeed, I trained as a priest for a number of years as well and I have an abiding interest in the studies of religion. I have been a chief examiner and a teacher of studies in religion for many, many years in the college system. So I have a great appreciation of the significance of marriage for people of a religious persuasion or belief. Many of those people live in my electorate and have contacted me. In the main, those people have asked that the law not change in its definition and its extent in our community. I fully acknowledge and respect their viewpoints.

On the other hand , of course, for many other people marriage is a secular institution. It is viewed and valued in different ways, but it is for many of those people a formal recognition of their relationship, a formal state of recognition in the eyes of the community about the nature of their relationship. For many people it is also associated with the creation of a family and, in the main, is viewed as a relationship between a man and a woman. That, indeed, is the current definition as we understand the Marriage Act at the moment.

However, the institution itself is fundamentally, for me, a statement about relationships. There are many marriages that exist today very happily and that, of course, is a great testament to marriage as an institution and that formal recognition. There are many marriages that do not, for a variety of reasons, involve having children. The nature of that marriage is no less significant because they do not have children. So the institution itself is not necessarily for the creation of what we deem to be a family of mum, dad and children. Marriage is a formal recognition of the relationship between those two people. To me, marriage in our community has had an extraordinary history over time, as do most major social institutions. It has had a variety of meanings and functions, and they have been more traditionally different from how we understand it today.

Within marriage today and as it has evolved we talk about equality, partnerships and so forth. In other words, the individual has rights and their human rights are valued inside the institution which we call marriage. In our community it is, irrespective of how people may view it in terms of their personal values and beliefs, a secular, government recognised status. At the moment, that recognition is based on a gender relationship, and to me—and this is not easily arrived at—it is based on discriminating on gender. I believe that we as a community are evolving and working through our values system. I believe that the individual human rights of a person should not be discriminated against on the basis of their religious belief, on the basis of their gender, on the basis of their ethnicity or on the basis of their sexual preference. I do not believe that, if we change the act itself to allow people in same-sex relationships to adopt this iconic institution, it will affect the rights or status of opposite-sex couples in any sense. What it will do is include others who have been discriminated against in terms of being able to choose that institution, to be able to have formally recognised their relationship. I do not believe it affects one single religious belief in terms of those who regard a particular relationship as being unacceptable for whatever theological reason they may have. Those people will continue to hold those beliefs. This has nothing to do with that. People who find the relationships of same-sex couples to be unacceptable for a variety of reasons will continue to do so. No-one is forcing them to attend or be part of a marriage ceremony if two people decide they want to formally recognise their relationship. Nor will it require people who are of religious orders or have religious recognition and status to perform ceremonies or to perform marriages for same-sex couples, as it exists now for opposite-sex couples. So I do not believe the rights of other people and the values of other people are going to be affected at all by this decision to allow people who may wish to recognise their same-sex relationship to have it formally recognised in what is a secular, government recognised status.

I do appreciate that, like any major debate in our community, there are a variety of views on this. We move through these things; that is why we discuss, debate and, ultimately, legislate. The important thing about our legislation is that it is not so much that we have to grant a human right in this sense; we need to recognise and protect the human rights of everyone, and I believe that, at the moment, the Marriage Act discriminates against individuals and couples based on gender and sexual preference. I believe the law should change, and that is why I support this, but I do of course recognise the difficulty this presents for people who are opposed to it—I will be exercising my conscience vote in this—and the difficulty that is presented currently with the legislation for those people who want to formally recognise their relationship with their same-sex partner and their families. At the same time, I know all sides of the parliament were supportive of removing a lot of the discrimination and unfairness that was associated with same-sex relationships in terms of legal proceedings and other matters. I think it was something like 80 pieces of legislation in 2008 that were supported by the parliament. It was very significant. Indeed, that led to what some would regard as a reinstatement of fairness in recognising these relationships, but it is not a reinstatement and is certainly not an acceptance of equality. I believe that is what we need to recognise now and uphold, and that is why I will be supporting the legislation. Thank you very much.

Stephen Smith (Perth, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the bill. I made this view clear at the most recent Australian Labor Party national conference in December 2011. I expressed my view at the time that legislation or the state in the guise of the Commonwealth parliament should not stand between same-sex couples having equal access to marriage to reflect their lifelong partnership—a secure, stable long-term relationship. This was not always my view. Indeed, at the previous Australian Labor Party national conference in 2009 I expressed a contrary view, what might be described as a traditional view. But I did take note on that occasion of the speech made to the conference by the now Minister for Finance and Deregulation, and said to her at that time that I had listened to her speech and this was something that I would have to think about. And I did. At the last national conference I made remarks which I have referred to.

Australian society has changed dramatically at very many levels since I grew up as a young boy in country Western Australia and subsequently in Perth. I was born in the mid-1950s, and the generation of my mother and father, who were young men and women in the 1950s, essentially did what the current Commonwealth Marriage Act reflects. Young men and women of their generation got married, had children and set up modern, post-World War II Australia. In 1961 the Commonwealth Marriage Act essentially took over the institution of marriage from the states where there had been previous state legislation reflecting the institution of marriage.

So, for men and women of the fifties, sixties and, indeed, the early seventies, this was the norm. De facto relationships between men and women were not recognised. On the contrary, they were either kept private or shunned. Same-sex relationships were kept very private, were shunned and same-sex relationships between men were serious criminal offences in every jurisdiction.

The first change to legislation and societal attitudes in the area of marriage came in the mid-1970s when this parliament in 1975 enacted the Family Law Act and for the first time bona fide, genuine de facto relationships between men and women were recognised as they should have been. That was deeply significant legislation passed by this House and the parliament. So for the first time, a very short period of time ago in an historical sense, bona fide domestic relationships between men and women which were not the subject of a ceremony—religious or otherwise—under the Marriage Act were recognised by the parliament and by the state. That enabled important rights and entitlements to flow as they did for couples who had had their relationship recognised under the Marriage Act. They went to rights of custody for children if the relationship broke down and to entitlements pursuant to maintenance and to estates in the aftermath of death of a partner.

We saw that substantial change in the 1970s. In the 1970s, but more particularly in the early to mid-1980s, through the Commonwealth parliament and state and territory parliaments—almost across the board—we saw the enactment of anti-discrimination and equal opportunity legislation. This effectively made it unlawful to discriminate against people on the basis of sex, gender, sexual preference, religion, ethnicity and the like. So the next substantial body of work done by this and other parliaments was to enshrine in Commonwealth, territory and state legislation the notion that people were equal before the law irrespective of sex, gender or sexual preference. In the course of the last two parliaments, led by then Attorney-General McClelland, we have seen substantial work done to remove the remnants of discrimination to same-sex couples who were disadvantaged by the failure to recognise a same-sex relationship.

When you look at the change in Australian society—the sweep of legislative history at state, federal and territory levels—you see we are now in a position where effectively the capacity of a man and a woman to marry under the Commonwealth Marriage Act is respected and reflected. The capacity of a man and woman to be in a long-term relationship, a bona fide domestic relationship not reflected by the Marriage Act, is respected under the law where the same entitlements and rights accrue. Finally in respect of every area other than marriage itself there is a recognition by Commonwealth legislation that same-sex couples are not discriminated against for entitlements, benefits or their status.

Indeed, in the course of that sweep of legislation, we have also seen the removal from all of the state and territory jurisdictions of Criminal Code or criminal law provisions which made it a serous criminal offence for male homosexual conduct. Much earlier in my working life, I was very pleased as principal private secretary to the Attorney-General of Western Australia to strongly support the passage of private members' legislation through the Western Australian parliament to decriminalise homosexual activity or conduct.

One last area remains and that is: do we now as a modern, tolerant society accept people of the same sex who want to have their relationship recognised under Commonwealth law, who want to say, 'We are in a long-term, enduring loving partnership, we want our relationship recognised as well'? That is the issue which this piece of legislation confronts the House and the parliament with. The attitude and view that I express as a result of exercising my conscience—because this is, in my view, a conscience vote issue—is a view that I would not have expressed five or so years ago. Australian society has changed. We are a mature, tolerant society. This is a conscience vote because people form a view about this issue as a result of a belief strongly held. There may be a religious basis for that belief. There may be a cultural basis for that belief. In this area, everyone's view is entitled to be treated with respect and with dignity. The view that I have come to is that this parliament should recognise same-sex couples and allow them equal access to the institution of marriage.

This is an important piece of legislation. It comes before us as a private member's bill. It is not the first occasion either before this parliament or before state and territory parliaments that issues of this nature have been determined by a private member's bill where people have exercised their conscience. Like most members of this place, I have been the recipient of a wide variety of views expressed to me on the streets of Perth or through my electorate office. My own judgement is that the majority view, or the prevailing attitude, is that the parliament should allow equal access to marriage for same-sex couples. But I do not think we should determine it on the basis of a majority view; we should determine it on the basis of what we think is the right thing to do.

I think it is also the case that the absolute overwhelming view of young Australian men and women—teenagers and young adults—is that, frankly, they do not see what the problem is. They do not see what the fuss is about. They are living in a generation where they treat all of their colleagues and friends as equals, irrespective of sex, irrespective of gender, irrespective of sexual preference and irrespective of private and personal relationships. That reflects the changing Australia. We are a much more prosperous society than we were when my mother and father were raising a family in country Western Australia and in Perth.

For those reasons of conscience, it is appropriate that this parliament enacts this legislation to enable equality before the law not just for men and women but for men and men and women and women—same-sex couples who wish to have their relationship reflected by the status afforded under the Marriage Act of the Commonwealth.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I rise in this chamber to support marriage equality. I do so because I believe it is the right thing to do. It is the fair thing to do. All individuals are entitled to the right to participate fully in our society and to receive the support and protection of the law, regardless of their sexuality.

Let's be clear. The inequality and the intolerance that many lesbians and gay men face will not immediately stop if this bill is passed. No law can deliver that. It will take time to pull down the prejudices that have built up over time. What laws can do is remove institutional injustice. That is what gays and lesbians face today.

This bill will also send an important message. It sends an important message about acceptance of individuals in our society, regardless of their sexuality. There are many young people right now struggling to come to terms with their sexuality. There has been too much tragedy in the past as a result of issues relating to discrimination. Indeed, a failure by society to offer full acceptance has led at times to people being less than frank—often with themselves, let alone with the people around them—about their sexual orientation, with consequences as a result of that.

We need to send a message that it is surely a basic right for each of us to be able to marry the person that we love. I fail to see how the institution of marriage is weakened if more people have the right to participate in it. My view on this comes down, essentially, to one fundamental disagreement with those who will not support this legislation, and that is that giving one group of people the rights that they have been denied in any way diminishes the rights that currently exist for the rest of us.

That is why I have been fighting for equality for same-sex couples ever since I was elected to federal parliament 16½ years ago. Indeed, fighting for equality is what led me to join the great Australian Labor Party more than 30 years ago. I am proud that Labor governments were the ones to decriminalise homosexuality. Labor governments were the ones that had the courage to confront the deadly HIV-AIDS epidemic and set an example for the rest of the world. Labor governments were the ones to advance same-sex adoption. On each of those occasions there were people of goodwill across the political spectrum who supported equality, and I know that there are many people in the coalition who would like to vote for this legislation but who will not be able to. I think that contrasts with the leadership that has been shown by Barry O'Farrell, the New South Wales Premier, in acknowledging the importance of a conscience vote on this issue in the New South Wales parliament.

When I first arrived in this place in my first term of parliament, I moved the same-sex superannuation legislation to remove discrimination when it came to superannuation. At that time, that was seen as a radical piece of legislation. I had to re-introduce it time after time. There was no debate allocated in the chamber, and a number of times it lapsed—just a short period of time when we look at the extent of the human condition. That legislation, coupled with another 84 pieces of legislation, passed this parliament without opposition during the last term of parliament. Eighty-four pieces of legislation to remove discrimination: it went from being an issue of controversy to an issue which was essentially had a consensus in this parliament. That, to me, is indicative of the way in which society does move forward on issues, not just in terms of equality for people regardless of their sexual preference but on race and gender issues as well. We as a society, particularly under liberal democracies such as we cherish here in Australia, are moving forward to embrace diversity and difference and to respect people on that basis. So I have no doubt that in the near future the removal of this final frontier of discrimination will occur. And then I think people will recognise immediately afterwards that the sky has not fallen, that people have not suddenly changed their sexual orientation as a result of that legislation and that the institution of marriage has in fact been strengthened by the fact that more people are prepared to engage in an institution which celebrates lifelong commitments between two people who love each other. That is what we are talking about with this legislation here.

I very much respect the views of colleagues who disagree with me on this issue. I respect their right to say it and to participate in this debate in a constructive way. I must say that I do not respect some of the views that have been expressed that promote intolerance and reinforce prejudice, and I know that people across the political spectrum in this parliament will agree with me on that. I think that, regardless of what position people will take on this final legislation, overwhelmingly this debate has been constructive, and I congratulate the member for Throsby on his initiative in putting forward this legislation. I say also to those people who support this legislation that we need to be inclusive in the way that we conduct ourselves in this debate. We should be tolerant in the way that we conduct ourselves in this debate. We cannot argue that we are about inclusiveness if we do not act that way ourselves, because I believe that this change is coming, just as we have removed other areas of discrimination in a range of areas. I come down to a fundamental view: that extending the right of marriage to same-sex couples in no way detracts from the rights of marriage that heterosexual couples currently enjoy. I have had the opportunity to be married. I see no reason why someone who happens to want to marry someone of the same sex rather than the opposite sex should not have the same right that I enjoyed.

I also think that in this debate we need to be very careful about the nature of all of our relationships. As someone who was raised by a single mother, I say that those people who speak about the family unit as if they know exactly what is right, to the exclusion of other family relationships, need to think very carefully about the messages that they send to families who are not nuclear in their composition. I was in a two-person family. It was a loving family, and my mother gave me everything that a parent could give their child. Some of the views that have been promoted in this debate question that when they question the diversity that exists in our society.

The fact is that Australia is moving forward on these issues. Most of us have siblings, children, neighbours, friends or work colleagues who happen to be gay or lesbian. It is a simple fact of life. The way that Australians deal with it is just to get on with it, treating each other with respect and as equals. We should not pretend that marriage is an unchanging institution that has been around forever, because it has not. It has evolved just as relationships evolved, just as society evolved. Today we recognise that couples in de facto relationships should have the same rights as married couples. That was not the case a few years ago. Our values and our relationships have evolved and they will continue to do so.

Many relationships, both heterosexual and homosexual, are committed, loving relationships. It is not up to me to judge whether a relationship between a man and a woman is more important, more significant or more loving than a relationship between a man and another man or between a woman and another woman. We do not know what goes on inside relationships. Surely people recognise that life is more complex than that.

We need to face up to the realities of modern Australia. We need to have faith in our fellow Australians wherever they might live. We should have faith that Australians can and have overcome prejudice, intolerance and injustice. Importantly, we should have faith that members of this parliament can make the decision to vote for or against this bill for themselves, which is why I supported this being a conscience vote issue at the ALP national conference—a position that put me in some disagreement with some of my colleagues. I argued that consistently. I argued for equality consistently. I am very pleased to be able to support this legislation, which will be voted on today in the House of Representatives. I look forward to the day when legislation similar to this is passed and discrimination is removed.

Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have listened closely to all speakers in this debate. I have been challenged by and thought deeply on the many issues involved in this topic. I have talked as widely as possible with the full spectrum of representatives of various views in this debate as well as the many within the community who remain relatively neutral on this topic. Of all topics before this House in my four years in this place, this one challenges my view of representation more than all others. I have previously very clearly stated that my view of representation is not to run with the populist mood of the moment, that that is to break the social contract with electors; instead it is very much the Burkean model in his letter to the electors of Bristol, and that is to uphold the social contract with electors by doing your homework, by listening to all the views and then, ultimately, by making a conclusion and representing that conclusion that you think is right for community and country. This one tests that model of representation more than any other because there are some very strongly held views in this debate from most of those who care either for the continuation of the Marriage Act as amended in the mid-2000s or for change to remove any gender-specific reference. At the heart of the conflict I face are a range of issues on both sides and then some conclusions. First, in conversations with representatives from various churches, I have disagreed that a literal reading of the Bible being against homosexuality should be the basis of our view today. I do not think that reflects Australia today, and neither does it reflect the many valuable contributions made by many who on that literal reading should not be participating in society at all. So I disagree with that very strict, literal reading of certain sections of the Bible.

I also sometimes see people trying to build a case that all of this, with change, is somehow going to be compulsory. None of this is compulsory. It is not compulsory who you fall in love with and it is not compulsory for any organisation to marry anyone they do not voluntarily want to. So all of what we are talking about in this debate today is of a voluntary nature. No-one is forced to do anything they do not want to do either as an individual or as an organisation.

I also reflect on some of the debate around health and prevention, particularly from the aspect of a regional member of parliament facing issues of suicide in his electorate. For many regional teenagers this is an incredibly difficult issue to deal with. The arguments that I have seen emerge over the last week or two—trying to build a case that there is lower life expectancy for those who are gay compared with those who are not—is, in my view, actually an argument to expand the bond of love rather than contract it. So it is an argument which has assisted me in drawing some conclusions, particularly from the perspective of a regional MP and particularly, out of all the health profession measures, from the perspective of the issue of youth suicide in regional communities such as mine.

There is also an opportunity in this debate to dispel some other myths about regional Australia. This is not an issue owned by Sydney and Melbourne—and throw in a bit of Brisbane! This is an issue owned by all Australians. On the mid-North Coast of New South Wales we have a very large gay and lesbian community, many of whom play really valuable roles in our community and are engaged in many aspects of community life. Rather than dismissing them or putting them in some sort of corner as a sector that we accept but on other occasions deny, I say on behalf of the mid-North Coast—not on behalf of this Marriage Act debate but on behalf of the community—to anyone of any sexual orientation: you are welcome members of our community so long as you contribute. That is the condition of entry to the mid-North Coast of New South Wales: you participate in community life and you contribute to building a better place. I would hope the majority view is one like mine—that, frankly, I do not give a stuff what you do in your bedroom. That is your business, just as it is my business as an individual, as a father and as a member of parliament what I do in my bedroom.

That gets me onto the issue of the role of the state. This is not an issue I campaigned on in any of the last five elections I have been involved in. So, as a member of parliament, I do feel a bit blindsided by the debate before this chamber over the last couple of years, but I am big enough and ugly enough to deal with it. I will ultimately make a yes or no decision. In thinking this through over the last couple of years, it has become increasingly obvious to me that, from my perspective, this is less an issue of gender in the Marriage Act and more an issue of: what the hell is the state doing in this space anyway?

Why is the state involved in the bedroom and in love and in relationships at all? I particularly note a recent article by Michael Sexton, the Solicitor-General in New South Wales, who made exactly that point. I know it is not going to happen today, but I even find myself—for the first time, I think—agreeing with the Institute of Public Affairs on this topic that the role of the state in love is a questionable one.

There is a second option of finding a way for state governments, with the powers that they have, to take a lead on this. I note what New South Wales is doing today. I note the debate that is happening in Tasmania. But I also hope that, wherever all these four bills before the House at the moment end up, we not only reflect on gender in the Marriage Act but also reflect on the role of the state. Can we do better in capturing the bond of love and the building of community in a better way than providing boundaries in a Commonwealth piece of legislation? I have frankly been surprised that the Commonwealth is in my bedroom. I did not know that. I had not really thought about it. The more I think about it, the more I am surprised by it.

Having said that, I also think there are some contradictions in the position that the Commonwealth is taking and the role of the state. I go back to the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2011, one of the hotter debates of last year. I invite people to go and look at the definition of marriage in a completely different piece of legislation and see that it is really business as normal in this parliamentary process. The definition of marriage in legislation that was passed last year is: 'Marriage includes people who live together in a relationship as a couple on a genuinely domestic basis, even where they are not legally married.' So, even in the run of business in this place already, we are already defining marriage as a relationship between 'a couple who live in a genuinely domestic relationship', and decoupling this issue of legal marriage. It sounds oxymoronic, but that is what we have been doing for at least a year, and there is an example of a piece of legislation where we have done it.

The other point I would like to make is a personal one. I am in a loving marriage with someone of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent. For me: no big deal. And, I would hope, for most Australians: no big deal. But in reading and thinking about this issue over the last couple of years, there was a time in Australian history where I could not have expressed that love and got married to my wife. That is a shocker. I therefore am exposed if I do anything other than reflect that same principle for others in their relationships. If they fall in love with someone and their love is not reflected in law, they quite rightly should and could feel exactly as I would: that that is a shocker. So that is a personal reflection from me that helps drive my considerations. In the final couple of minutes I have to speak in this debate, I will put my worries on the table. I have spoken of the sentiments that lead me to take a position that this issue of equality is really a bit of a no-brainer. My worries are more about the process issues, that we are using this parliament to address traditions and norms that can and could be addressed in other ways, and the strategic questions. I worry that we have four bills before this chamber. I worry that there is a vote in the Senate today that may be close and that we have the Leader of the House saying that we are going to go for it today in the House of Reps and more than likely it is going to have a grand loss. I worry about what the strategies of the political parties are behind why we have got four bills. We have the bipartisanship you have when you don't have bipartisanship. If we do this, it has got to be as seamless and as bipartisan as possible, and it has got to stick, because I also worry that we still have not heard whether, if this change were made, it would be a weapon of campaigns in the future and we will then have the Marriage Act coming before this House to be changed with changes of government. It would help me a lot, and I know it would help many people, to have clarity, particularly from the Liberal-National Party, on whether this change, if it happens either in this parliament or in the future, is change that will stay or whether we are going to revisit debates from 2006 and see a reinsertion of gender. That concerns me greatly.

I worry that we are rushing this at a time when, only today, New South Wales has made some pretty significant moves. I would prefer to see the detail of that and to watch that process unfold, as with the situation in Tasmania as well. I also worry that, regardless of what we do, this is going down the road to the High Court. One way or the other, where this really should have been to start with, prior to 2006, is in a legal definition based on legal precedent of that word 'marriage' in the Australian Constitution. From my reading of several key cases, they were slowly defining and redefining what that word meant. In my view it would have been preferable for that process to continue to unfold. What we are seeing today is a natural response by politicians to an incursion by politicians in 2006. I think that is unfortunate. I therefore worry that we are just heading to the High Court regardless of what we do. So more than likely, based on that conflict, I will support this legislation. But that is conditional: I hope there is commitment to cleaning up processes and cleaning up strategy. I know this is looking more like a statement today than anything else. I am in the business of getting wins and results, and if we are serious about that we have got more work to do.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be summing up the debate on the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012. I will start by thanking the many members who have contributed to this debate, at times a passionate debate and a very personal debate, as it often is in this space. The contribution from the member for Lyne typifies the quality of contributions we have had in this chamber. I listened very carefully to the member for Lyne's contribution. Many of the points that he raised have been raised by other speakers in this debate, and through the course of my summing-up I will reflect upon some of those.

The Leader of the House, the member for Grayndler, in his contribution made the point that the change that we seek to occur will require a respectful debate within the parliament and within the community, a debate that brings people along with us and does not seek to isolate and alienate. I concur with those observations. In fact, when I first spoke on this matter in the House when a private member's motion came before the House last year, I said that if change were to occur it would not occur because of some mad dash to the finish line because some member of this place seeks to own the cause to the exclusion of all others for party or other reasons. That is the very nature of this parliament; if we are able to get any change then we need more votes than can be mustered by any one party that sits in the House. So a mad dash to the finish line will not achieve the results that we seek.

The case for the bill is simple. It is about equality, it is about recognition of relationships—the validation of those relationships—and it is about saying to people who are often excluded, alienated or discriminated against: 'You know what? You are okay. What's more, you are better than okay: your relationship is just as valid as mine is in my marriage to my wife. And if you seek to have that relationship described as a marriage and recognised by the state as a marriage then who are we to stand in your way?' As I said when I introduced this bill, I firmly believe that God made us all equal but different—not differently equal. If this bill is passed into the law, it will ensure that this House recognises that we are equal but different, not differently equal, when it comes to marriage and the recognition of our relationships.

Can I say a few words about the objections that have been raised within this debate? The first objection springs from what I can only describe as some religious or theological objection. I have listened very carefully to all of the constituents who have come through my door and said that, essentially, to bring this bill forward and to vote in favour of this bill is an affront to their religion. Can I say that the objection that they have is not to the bill? It is not to marriage equality; it is to the relationship itself. As many, many speakers have said in this debate, I respect your right to hold that view, but it is another thing entirely to ask the state to enforce it. We have moved on as a society; we no longer believe, as some may hold, that to be gay is somehow wrong, an aberration or a sin. I do not believe that, and I was brought up in a very strong Catholic family; if we demurred from any of the theology of the Catholic Church it was on this one issue, that we do not believe that to be gay is an affront to God and that it is not a sin. So, as much as I might respect people's right to hold that view, we cannot make our laws based on what I believe to be a wrong.

The second objection I summarise as this: to change the law in the way that I propose to change the law is somehow an affront to the tradition of marriage. As many, many speakers have said—and as the member for Lyne quite eloquently just said in his contribution—the institution of marriage has changed in many, many ways over the last 100 years and over the last several centuries. The member for Lyne would have been unable to marry his wife in many states in Australia if he had met her 80 years ago and sought to marry her, because the laws of Australia at that point in time did not allow or recognise the marriage between a white Australian and an Australian who is an Aboriginal or a Torres Strait Islander. The laws of marriage once recognised the institution of betrothal, where a father or brother could betroth their daughter or sister as if she were some kind of property, ensuring that she could be married against her will. In some countries this practice still goes on. We do not recognise that in this country.

I can only imagine, Deputy Speaker—and I know that you are about to get married at some stage in the next few months—the response that I would have received if, in the preparation for my marriage, I asked my wife in the recitation of our marriage vows that she would honour and obey me, let alone submit to me. I can inform the House that I would not be married today and that marriage of 13 of years or more would not have occurred if that had been insisted on in my marriage rites. Dowry, inter-race marriages—there are so many examples that we can all draw upon to prove the point that marriage is a sacred institution but it is not immutable. It has changed in many, many ways over the centuries.

The third objection that I want to address goes to the issue of the separation of church and state. In summary, this objection is that the state has no right to interfere with or legislate in the area of religious rites. I think the best statement on this was made by Jesus Christ himself in that very famous dictum on the relationship between church and state: 'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's.' There is nothing that we are seeking to do in this private member's bill which would force a religious institution, a priest, a preacher or a church to solemnise a marriage where the solemnisation of that marriage is a breach of their religious beliefs. In fact, we are quite clear in this bill that there will be no requirement for a religious minister to solemnise such a marriage. What we are saying, however, is that we recognise the rights of churches to hold these beliefs and to practise their rites of marriage, as different as they may be in all the different churches and religious institutions in this country, but we as a government are not going to enforce those religious beliefs by the exclusion of one type of relationship from the definition of 'marriage'. In summary, we will render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's. The state reserves for itself the right to recognise the marriages that it believes are in keeping with the norms of Australian society, without in any way interfering with the rights of religious institutions to practise their freedom of religion.

The fourth and final objection that has come up within both the parliamentary and extraparliamentary debate is what can best be described as a 'slippery slope' argument. Upon this argument, the contributions quite frankly have at times been quite ridiculous: the idea that if we make this change, which might on its face seem reasonable to its proponents and those who are swinging, we open the floodgates to recognition of all sorts of relationships as marriages—not just between man and woman but between human beings and non-human beings, as I have heard in another debate. Frankly, that is just a ridiculous proposition that no normal, right-thinking person would proffer in the course of a serious debate. But, to the extent that there is a feeling within the community that they might accept this change but for the fact that it might lead to something else that they do not support, I make this point: the ultimate bulwark between that which is acceptable and that which is not acceptable is the Parliament of Australia, which is founded upon the principle that we seek to represent the common sense of the great Australian people. I have great faith in the common sense of the great Australian people—perhaps more faith than many of those who proffer some of these ridiculous arguments.

I believe that views on this particular issue, marriage equality, have changed over the course of this debate but also over the course of the last few years, and the polling reflects that. In 2004, Newspoll conducted an extensive survey in which they found that at that point in time only 38 per cent of Australians supported marriage equality and same-sex marriages. If we wind the clock forward some seven years we find that, in 2011 when the Nielsen polling organisation conducted an extensive poll in the lead-up to the Australian Labor Party's national conference, in excess of 62 per cent of people polled said they do support same-sex marriage. So we can see that over a relatively short period of time in the history of this Federation opinions have changed. As Australians have focused upon the issues, focused upon the debates and looked at the objections, they have come to the conclusion that there is no reasonable objection to parliament moving to recognise marriages between same-sex couples.

I have no doubt that the majority of Australians are either not that focused on the issue or, to the extent that they are focused on it, they support it. I have no doubt about that. Against that backdrop, it disappoints me that we may not have enough votes in this parliament to reflect that view of the Australian people. As the member for Lyne has just said, perhaps it will take a new parliament to see a change to the definition of marriage in the Marriage Act. While the campaign for marriage equality has been won in the community it may not have yet been won in this parliament.

The debate has been interesting, and it has been a quality debate in this chamber. Over 40 members of the House have spoken on it, and roughly half of those are in favour of the private member's bill. I have had the time to examine some of the speeches of cabinet ministers who have spoken on the bill. I believe it is true to say that all of them have spoken in favour of this bill, so the bill has support in high places.

I believe that at some point in the next 10 years Australians are going to look back on this debate, perhaps as they attend a marriage between same-sex couples who are their friends, their sons, their daughters or their cousins—their relationships—and will wonder what all the fuss was about. I know that this change will occur within my lifetime. I hope that I am surprised when we vote upon this issue and the matter comes before the House. I hope that I am surprised, but at this point in time I do not think I will be.

So, in that vein I note that in the chamber today there are representatives of PFLAG, the Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, who have run a tremendous campaign, and representatives from Australian Marriage Equality as well. If we do not get enough votes in the parliament to get this changed after today, can I say in the words of a great Australian, 'Maintain your rage,' because this change will indeed come.

There is much more that could be said in this debate but I hope that I have fairly and reasonably summed up the debate, both the objections and the counter-objections to the proposition before the House. I commend the bill to the House. (Time expired)

Alan Griffin (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That further proceedings be conducted in the House.

Question agreed to.