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

I rise to speak in support of the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and I do so because I support the right of same-sex couples to marry. This bill amends the Marriage Act 1961 by amending the definition of marriage from 'husband and wife' to 'two people' and making consequential changes to give effect to that. Importantly, it does not oblige a minister of religion or a marriage celebrant to marry same-sex couples. On my view of it, this bill seeks to remove discrimination and to advance equality.

When we are considering this issue I think it is very important to look at it in a historical context, because marriage has undoubtedly changed over the years. We no longer have betrothals, dowries, a wife's vow of obedience or the prohibition on certain inter-race or religious marriage. Times change—that is a fact—and it is important that the legislature changes with them. Ending discrimination in this matter does not take away someone's rights; it in fact establishes equal rights for members of our community. Others in this debate, both here and overseas, have put that argument very eloquently.

On the issue of the addressing of discrimination, Labor of course has a very proud history of fighting for rights and ending discrimination. It was Labor that established the Racial Discrimination Act, the Sex Discrimination Act and the Disability Discrimination Act. Labor has also acted in support of equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Australians. It was Labor in South Australia in 1975 that decriminalised homosexuality, and that was followed by Labor governments in New South Wales in 1984, Western Australia in 1990 and Queensland in 1991. In 1999, the New South Wales Labor government amended 20 pieces of legislation to provide same-sex partners the same rights as those enjoyed by de-facto heterosexual couples. The Victorian Labor government in 2000 outlawed discrimination on the basis of sexuality or gender identity. In 2001, the Western Australian Labor government provided same-sex couples rights around wills, estates and superannuation. Many state and territory governments have introduced relationship registers.

This federal Labor government has built on all of that record. In our first term in office, Labor amended 85 separate pieces of legislation to remove discrimination against same-sex couples. In this term of parliament we have allowed the issuing of certificates of non-impediment to same-sex couples wishing to marry overseas; we have extended the paid parental leave provisions to same-sex couples; and we have introduced the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill which will make it unlawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of their sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status, including in aged care. These are all important reforms.

In providing equality in relation to same-sex couples, Australia will not be acting on its own in the international community. When I spoke on this issue in debate on a similar bill last year, I advised the House that 10 countries and even more jurisdictions allow same-sex marriage. Since then, many more have acted, including France, our neighbours across the Tasman, in New Zealand, and many states in the United States of America.

Like many members, in considering my approach to this issue, I have taken many points of view from amongst constituents I have consulted in relation to the issues, and I think it is fair to say that there are many strong and wide-ranging points of view about same-sex marriage. I respect those alternative views but, ultimately, for me as a member of parliament and as an individual, it is a matter of discrimination, in my view, against same-sex couples that I believe that the parliament should remedy. Same-sex couples should not be denied the right to marry.

As is the case for many other members, this issue is not only a matter of principle but also is personally relevant in the case of my own family, my extended family and amongst my friends. I cannot support continued discriminations against persons for whom I care very deeply and, as a parliamentarian, I think I have an obligation to make decisions based on not only personal values and issues of principle but also the importance of removing discrimination of this nature.

We must make decisions in the interests of the constituents who elect us to this place, taking into account the wide range of views, having respect for them but ultimately ensuring that we do what we consider as parliamentarians to be the right thing.

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

I rise to speak on the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012. It is 2012 and I wonder how long these bills hang around and why this one has not been brought to a vote—maybe it should have been settled in the same manner that the member for Throsby's bill was settled in the past.

As many speakers on my side have said in the past with regard to this matter, we had a position at the last federal election. We have a policy position that exists for the next federal election. We believe that it is important for Australians to know where we stand on things, to know that if they want to support us then they are getting a particular set of policies. The reality is that you are never going to make everybody happy with your policies and, ultimately, the voters in Australia will make their minds up as to what the really important issues are and what they would like to have but maybe cannot have.

What I always say to people is: 'You know where we stand on this. This is the position we are taking to this federal election. We will not support a change in the definition of marriage.' We have been very clear on this. It was the case before the last election; it is the case for this coming election, so people know where we stand.

The government can shift its position and change the definition of marriage from being between a man and a woman. I know they have changed their position. What they said before the last election isn't what they ultimately decided to do. Obviously, that is always a point for them, and the government will be judged on changing their position again on this matter as with other matters.

As I have said in the past, I have been approached by many people with regard to this issue. There are 95,000 voters in Cowan. People approach me—approach everyone—on a number of different issues. There is no doubt about that. I would never expect that we would find one issue where 95,000 people will express the same opinion. Despite what polls and newspapers might say, it is very hard to determine exactly what people believe on any particular issue. On this point, the issue of whether or not to change the definition of marriage, I say again that within Cowan, slightly fewer than 1,400 people expressed a view and made their views known to me at my office through emails. Of those, 178 out of the 95,000 have said that they would like a change in the definition of marriage. Almost, 1,119 have said that they believe the definition of marriage should stay unaltered: as between a man and a woman.

That is their perspective from the Cowan electorate. I do not profess to say that I know the minds of every person in the electorate but, of those that felt the need to raise this issue with me and make their views known, it is quite clear.

In any case, as I have said before, the coalition has a party position on this. Of course, ultimately, members of the backbench have the right to exercise a conscience vote, if they wish to. I think what is now required is that this matter be dealt with in the same manner that the member for Throsby's bill was dealt with. Let us settle this matter once and for all and move on to issues that, according to the figures that I certainly have within the Cowan electorate, a lot more people are interested in. I look forward to this matter being concluded at the earliest opportunity.

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

I support the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, as I did a comparable or similar bill, introduced by the member for Throsby into the House in September 2012, and I do so for the same reasons.

This bill was introduced by the member for Melbourne. I acknowledge his presence in the chamber and complement him on his work and introduction of it. I take a contrary view to the previous speaker. I regard this matter as not a matter for party politics but a matter of conscience, an area where there are strong views firmly held. Those views are often based on religious beliefs and, as a consequence, I think this is an area where parliamentarians should form a view and exercise a conscience vote and I do so, again, on this occasion.

This was not always my view. Between 2009 and 2011 I changed my view on this issue and I let that change of view be clearly known at the 2011 Australian Labor Party National Conference in December 2011 and reflected that view when I voted on the member for Throsby's bill in September last year.

The essential reason for that view is that I do not see any reason why in a modern, tolerant Australia we should not make marriage available to same-sex couples. In my view, there is no reason why in a modern, tolerant Australia why discrimination against same-sex couples should not be removed. That view is consistent with the approach that the Commonwealth parliament has taken over the years to marriage as an institution and I think it is worthwhile retracing those steps.

It was as late as early 1961 when this parliament enacted the Commonwealth Marriage Act, to make the institution of marriage subject to Commonwealth law. Previously, it had been dealt with by state law. That institutionalised marriage under Commonwealth law as a voluntary act entered into between a man and a woman. In 1975, under the Family Law Act, for the first time this parliament recognised that bona fide domestic relationships outside the institution of marriage gave them de jure recognition. So those people who entered into a bone fide domestic relationship, effectively, had the same entitlements at law as those in the institution of marriage reflected by and authorised by the Commonwealth Marriage Act 1961. That legislation gave men and women who, for whatever reason of their own, did not wish to enter into the institution of marriage not only comparable property and other rights if subsequently that bona fide domestic relationship came to an end but also rights as far as deceased estate and intestacy were concerned.

At about the same time, from the mid to late 1970s through to the 1980s, both at the Commonwealth and state and territory level, we saw the introduction and passage of anti-discrimination legislation, which removed discrimination on the basis of sex, gender, sexual preference, religion or other areas. That had the effect of ensuring, ultimately through this parliament, through legislation presented and enacted by the then Commonwealth Attorney-General Robert McClelland, the removal of discrimination on the basis of same-sex couples, same-sex attitudes and same-sex approach, particularly in the case of superannuation. So we have seen, since the 1960s, a removal of the distinction between marriages recognised as being between a man and a woman under the Commonwealth Marriage Act; a relationship recognised by the 1975 Family Law Act, without a man and a woman entering into the institution of marriage; and then, both at state and Commonwealth levels, the removal of discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual preference through the 1970s and 1980s, culminating in the McClelland legislation, to which I have referred. At the same time, in state jurisdictions, in the 1970s and 1980s we saw the removal of criminal sanctions against homosexual male conduct or relationships.

In my view, in a modern and tolerant Australian society this is a logical next step to remove a discrimination, to remove an inequity and to remove and an unfairness. For the same reasons that I gave in the other chamber in September 2012, I support the bill in this chamber.

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012, which would change the Marriage Act 1961 to ensure that all people, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation or gender identity have the opportunity to marry. That is what this bill does. The bill also reverses a number of amendments made to the Marriage Act in 2004, which continues to recognise the basis of sexuality and gender identity, but this bill would prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages entered into under the laws of another country. This is certainly an issue that has been brought forward by many people. The current situation is that the marriage overseas of same-sex couples is not recognised in this country. But the Australian government provides a certificate of no impediment to same-sex couples travelling overseas to get married. While we do not recognise it here in Australia, we certainly do not impede the ability of same-sex couples who choose to marry.

One of the important parts of the current law is that when those couples come back to Australia they are recognised as a de facto couple and are not discriminated against under the laws of this country in their legal rights or responsibilities. Labor is very proud of that. This is not a new debate. Labor are very proud of the fact that we have made something like 85 changes in law to make sure we do not discriminate against people. I am a big believer in that. I really believe that we should not discriminate against any person on the basis of their race, their gender, at their sexual orientation or anything else, including if a man and a man or a woman and a woman choose to marry.

This parliament has had a long history of conscience votes, and I think that is the right course of action on this issue. I would not force my view onto any other member of this parliament or any member of the community for that matter. I respect that people have different views in this area. Some are very deeply-held views—views that go to the people's personal moral beliefs, their ethical beliefs, their faith beliefs or just their views on how people ought to be treated in this country. But I do not take away from any individual their right to have those particular views nor any member of this chamber. I think the great strength of the Australian democracy is that these matters, particularly matters of conscience—and I think that this is one of them—come to this chamber and to this parliament, that we can have a sensible debate and that the view of the parliament can be carried and then we can we move on. That is one of the great strengths of our democracy, by any measure.

There have been something like 30 conscience votes since 1950. When you think about it that is actually not a lot, given the tens of thousands of bills and things that are brought to this chamber. Very few have actually been a matter of conscience. During my time as a member, there have only been four: human cloning research, including use of embryos; RU486; and same-sex marriage. I took a principle stand on all of those, from the information that was presented to me at the time, from my own research, from consulting with my constituents, from my own belief structure and from my own views on what my vote should be—in the end, regardless of what people put forward to me as 'numbers', in the sense of, 'Does it slightly fall more one way, or slightly more the other way in what my constituents would think?' My own belief in that area is that you can never win if that is the way you operate. As a member of parliament, you are actually given a responsibility—that is, to act on your conscience, and to do that you need to be able to do that for the right reasons.

I do have to say, though, that my own view is that this parliament will at some point in time support same-sex marriage. I think same-sex marriage is not the thin end of the wedge in terms of other issues. I also do not believe same-sex marriage is a threat to the marriage of others, though some people think that by allowing same-sex marriage you threaten their marriage. Same-sex marriage is not a threat to children; there is no evidence to support that view. Same-sex marriage does not threaten the family. Same-sex marriage is not a threat to our way of life. Same-sex marriage is, as we know, legal in many countries, though not uniformly—some states have different views. I believe the community is changing its view as well because it is seen as being an issue of equity. If this bill does come to a vote, unlike my previous vote I will now be supporting this bill.

Debate adjourned.