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

In 2004, the coalition amended the Marriage Act 1961 to define in legislation the common understanding in our community of marriage—that is, the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life. The coalition continues to believe that the majority of the Australian community agree with that definition. This definition does not in any way seek to prevent or discourage people from entering into same-sex relationships but, rather, simply recognises marriage as one of the bedrock institutions of society, which is the basis for forming families and which is underpinned by tradition. The coalition will not support legislation that would alter the status of traditional marriage between a man and a woman.

The coalition in the past supported the passage of the government's same-sex reform legislation on the condition that nothing in its terms affected the status and centrality of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. We believe it is important to send this strong signal about the special status of marriage. The coalition continues to remain committed to these principles and will not support future legislation that would allow same-sex couples to marry in Australia.

This is indeed a contentious issue but it is a contentious issue that is driven by a minority of the Australian population. The reality of the situation is simply this: that we are not all born the same. We are by our very nature possessing of personalities and physical traits. We are different, and it is up to good governance in our society to provide a framework for behaviour—a framework that broadly embraces what is acceptable on a day-to-day basis as being our culture.

One of the things, as I have just said, is that we accept that marriage has a sanctity. It is different to other relationships. It is covered by law, and that law defines that marriage condition as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life. If one wants to engage in a relationship that is not a relationship between a man and a woman, is not entered into voluntarily or is not for life then that relationship is not marriage. I for one, and the coalition at large, agrees that that is the situation and, no matter how hard we may wish it, those who are not a man and a woman—those who may be of the same sex in a relationship—cannot therefore at law refer to themselves as married. And why not? Because they are simply not a man and a woman.

The sanctity of marriage that I speak of is such that when a couple court and marry, create a home and a loving environment, we hope that that will be rewarded with the production of children and those children will be brought up as members of our society. That is what we speak of when we speak of the sanctity of marriage, and that relationship, that union, ought to be respected at law by Australians. It is our culture. It is our law. It is a productive situation that is rational, that nurtures and provides the environment to nurture children and those children then become members of our society, responsible, law-abiding members of our society who will largely follow in the footsteps of their parents, we trust, and follow the laws of this country. I state again that the law of this country is that marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life, and that law ought remain for time into the future.

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

I am pleased to speak in support of the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, because I believe that all Australians, irrespective of their sexuality, are entitled to be treated equally. Marriage is one of those institutions that has evolved over time. Despite the protestations of some people suggesting that it has been frozen in time and handed down from Mount Sinai, the reality is that previous speakers are quoting from legislation that has only been around less than a decade.

I approach this from a pretty basic point of view—that is, if people are committed to each other, if people are in love with each other, and wish to have society recognise that committed relationship, why should society not permit them to express that commitment via the institution of marriage? Obviously when it comes to religious institutions that is a different process, and the process of changing the views of religious institutions is something different. But we are a secular institution. We in parliament might start each day with a prayer, but we are a secular institution. Our Constitution provides for that. We also protect religions. Our Constitution provides for that. But we as a parliament must do what is best for all Australians, and how we can say to two people who are in love with each other that they cannot have a committed relationship recognised by an institution like parliament is beyond me.

I should stress that this is not the No. 1 issue in the electorate of Moreton. There are cost-of-living issues, there are people concerned about employment, there are people concerned about making sure that their job is secure and there are people concerned about education, health and the like. I understand that, but I think we as a parliament have time to revisit this. I thank the member for Melbourne for reintroducing this legislation. He served on the committee that I chair which looked at this bill—a committee that had the greatest number of submissions in the history of Federation; a committee whose members had a broad range of views. I see in the chamber the member for Latrobe, who was also a part of that committee.

The reality is that, if the member for Warringah agrees tomorrow to let the members of his 'free-thinking Liberal Party' have a vote and this legislation was passed, it would not change anything in terms of how I see my wife tomorrow. It would not change anything in terms of how I approach my family, school et cetera. But it would let people who love each other and who are committed to each other have the protections of an institutional arrangement that society has recognised for hundreds and hundreds of years as being a good thing.

The reality is that society has changed. Once upon a time, and not that long ago, homosexuality was in the DSM—the book used by psychologists in terms of approaching it as a treatable disease. Things have changed. It used to be in the Criminal Code in Queensland. Things have changed, though there is still some discrimination in Queensland in terms of the age of consent for homosexuals compared to heterosexuals. The reality is that most of society has moved on and recognised that same-sex attracted people deserve all the same rights, the same treatment and the same respect as every other person. This piece of legislation is an important step to ensuring that.

I would urge those opposite not to just stand up and say, 'I care' or 'I would if I could'. You can. If those opposite believe this then, unlike the people in the Labor Party, who are bound by our rules that say we cannot go against the directions of the Labor Party unless we wish to become an independent, they can stand up and protest and say, 'I would support it.' But caring is doing; caring with words is hollow. You need to show how you care by how you vote. So I will be interested to see if we are allowed to see the member for Wentworth and some of those other more liberal-thinking members of the coalition support this piece of sensible legislation. I urge them to so do.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to speak for 10 minutes in this debate on the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012.

Leave granted.

Social attitudes are constantly and rapidly evolving—perhaps nowhere faster than in the area of marriage and relationships. But I am not sure that they are moving at such a pace as to justify the reintroduction of this bill, coming as it does only six months after this place last considered the issue. That said, debate on the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill was guillotined with unseemly haste. So it is opportune for me to make some small remarks on the issue now.

In a volatile and rapidly changing world, committed, long-term monogamous relationships play a critical role in providing stability to couples and, in turn, their families and communities. Once this was provided almost exclusively through the institution of marriage but, over time, de facto or common-law relationships have become commonplace. The law views these in the same way as marriage, with the same rights, responsibilities and protections. However, only the institution of marriage provides for public declaration and promises sanctioned by the state. This, and society's longstanding appreciation of it and its solemnness, gives marriage its special place and power in our society.

As with many areas of social change, this special place means we should tread warily. Change should be incremental rather than disruptive. Change should be well flagged, and sanctioned by the people, and it should be the subject of broad community consensus. Fifty per cent plus one is not enough. Amongst other things, that means that, in this area, even more than in all other areas, we should abide by our commitments to the electorate.

In that regard, the coalition made a commitment before the last election that it would not support a change to the Marriage Act, and we continue to honour that commitment. In due course, I expect our policy on this area to evolve in step with society's views, and those views are complex.

I have been moved by many of the discussions I have had with people from both sides of this debate. I reject absolutely the notion that those who favour the status quo are homophobic or ignorant. With limited exceptions, those whom I have met have presented cogent and considered arguments—sometimes, but not always, predicated on strong religious views. Equally, I reject absolutely the notion that those who favour change are radicals. I have met many people and the families of people in same-sex relationships who thoughtfully and powerfully presented their views and experience.

For completeness, I should record that I have met some and received letters from some on both sides of the debate whose intolerance of views different from their own I found wholly unpersuasive and, frankly, ugly. To those people I would say: you do significant damage to the cause you seek to support.

Personally, I am comfortable with the idea of same-sex marriage. I am comfortable with it, for so many of the excellent reasons outlined by my colleague the Hon. Malcolm Turnbull MP in his Kirby oration last year. I do not propose to go through each one in turn, given the limited time available, but I do wish to make this point: families are the bedrock of our society. I stated this in my first speech three years ago, just as I also stated that families come in all shapes and sizes. I believe that changing the Marriage Act by extending the definition to include same-sex couples will not lessen the status of families. On the contrary, I think that it will strengthen it by building stronger bonds of commitment between two people regardless of gender and sexual orientation.

There will be some people in my own family who will be disappointed with my personal position on the subject, because they have a sincere view that marriage is an institution between a man and woman. There will be others in my family, though, whose own ability to marry is predicated on such a change. In the end public life demands that we be true to ourselves and that we express our views in an honest and open manner no matter what the cost.

The coalition party room has not yet debated what our commitment will be on this issue in the upcoming election. There is one thing though on which there would be universal agreement: it is that with any change religious institutions such as churches, synagogues or mosques should not be forced by law to conduct same-sex marriages just as they are not forced to marry anyone today. Certainly this is my view. Naturally, this also highlights the distinction between the civil and religious institution of marriage and leads to the question of civil unions.

Civil unions represent gradual and incremental change in a highly charged area. They facilitate statutory recognition of enduring relationships which do not currently exist at a federal level. There is clear broad based support for them. They would allow the community to take stock, build further community consensus and then consider whether to move to same-sex marriage just as it has taken place recently in the United Kingdom and almost all other countries that have legislated for same-sex marriage.

Unfortunately, this issue has been hijacked by one political party that prefers to use the issue as a political weapon to divide the community rather than achieve any real progress or outcomes. Hence we stand here today debating a bill that the parliament has already addressed rather than taking some steps forward. I think that is a shame.

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

I am pleased to be able to make a contribution once again on the topic of marriage equality. It is a source of regret for me and I know for many people in my community of La Trobe who were unable to see success in the vote on the question of marriage equality which occurred earlier in this term; however, needless to say, it does not change the expectations I had when I last spoke on this issue, and those are that, ultimately, we will see change in this area just as we have seen substantial change in relation to marriage and the status of people within the institution of marriage over the previous decades.

It is important to recall that fact, because some in this debate will articulate the case that marriage has been unchanging and remained cast in stone for centuries. We only have to look at the last 100 years to see that marriage has changed considerably for women and Indigenous Australians.

Australia agreed to be bound by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1980 and, in doing so, it recognised the importance of equality before the law and principles of nondiscrimination—and those are principles which those on this side of the chamber hold very dear. Many members of the Labor Party have advocated for reform to reflect principles of nondiscrimination in a range of legislative means.

After winning the 2007 federal election, Labor moved very swiftly to amend some 85 or so Commonwealth laws to remove discrimination on the basis of sexual preference, and it was entirely appropriate that we did so. Accordingly, it has been a source of great pride to me to see many members of the Labor Party campaigning around the issue of marriage equality. In that context, I would like to put on record my commendation for all those in Rainbow Labor who have endeavoured to progress this debate as far as they could during this term. I do not think that they will end their efforts.

I said at the outset that this is simply one next stage in a long line of very important changes which have related to marriage and the status of married people in Australian society. I reflected on the role of women in marriage and their circumstances, and the role of Indigenous people and their capacity to seek to be married. Members may not be aware that, although women gained the right to vote in 1902, they could still lose their Australian nationality when they married a non-Australian national even as late as the 1940s. Before 1966, members will recall that many women had to resign from Public Service positions upon getting married. Though those things remained part of our system of law, at that time Australian society and Australian parliaments changed their views on those issues. Accordingly, I think there is the case and the capacity for change now in relation to the question of marriage equality for same-sex couples.

As I also reflected at the beginning of my remarks, Indigenous Australians did not necessarily have the right to marry a person of their own choosing as late as 1959. But that kind of discriminatory treatment in marriage changed after considerable struggle and considerable social change, including the 1967 referendum campaign. These are some of the changes that have occurred in relation to marriage. Indeed, we only have to reflect on the period around 1975 when we still had a fault-based system of divorce in this country. I know that some in this place may still want that to be the case, and I certainly disagree with that. And, fortunately, I know that many others also disagreed, with the effect that in 1975 we saw a much more humane approach to the already difficult decision to end a marriage.

So it is not the case, despite the suggestions of others in this place to the contrary, that marriage and all of the regulatory arrangements around it have remained fixed in stone. Accordingly, I think—as I thought in the earlier debate on marriage equality in this term—that there is a case for change, that change is inevitable, and I hope to see it in the next few years.

Debate adjourned.