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

I rise to respond to the private member's bill dealing with marriage equality put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and seconded by the deputy leader. When the six colonies of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia wrote to the English parliament asking if they could federate, they put forward a proposal in terms of the powers that the new Commonwealth government would have. When Queen Victoria signed off on the piece of legislation, passed through Westminster, on 9 July 1900, thus creating the country of Australia, I guess she had not realised how much laws were going to change over time.

The first piece of legislation discussed by that parliament was the white Australia policy—unanimously supported by all and now quite an archaic piece of legislation. Other pieces of legislation they dealt with not long after gave women a right to vote. Legislation later dealt with allowing married women to stay employed. Then we go forward to 1967, where the referendum came through that said that Indigenous Australians should have the right to vote. Still, nearly 10 per cent of Australians voted against that. When you look back at something only 50 years ago we can see how much Australia has changed. My first day in parliament was the day the Rudd government gave an apology to the stolen generation.

As we see the arc of history, we see how Australia has progressed and our views have become more tolerant and more accepting. The Queensland that I grew up in had homosexuality as a crime in the Criminal Code. In fact, there are still people around today that have had those convictions and have not have had them wiped out. Obviously, we know that same-sex couples experience a lot of discrimination. That is why I was proud to be a part of the Labor government that brought in 87 pieces of legislation under the Attorney-General, Rob McClelland, that dealt with that discrimination.

Anyone with any knowledge of couples and commitment knows that marriage is the best way to protect committed, monogamous relationships. The marriage ceremony publicly affirms the love and commitment that two people have for each other—something dealt with in an inquiry that I chaired under the social policy and legal affairs committee that dealt with many of these issues.

Obviously, marriage has changed over time, just like the laws before this parliament have changed over time. When marriage came to Australia—inherited from the British common law tradition—there were still some rules that applied to the white settlers, including the fact that marriage was limited to those convicts who exhibited good character. Convicts that did not demonstrate soberness or industriousness were not permitted to marry—which some might argue might have been a law targeting the Irish, but I could not possibly support that notion.

When Sir Garfield Barwick brought in the Marriage Act in 1962 he said:

At present there are nine separate systems of marriage law in the States and these Territories; systems which, although possessing many features in common, display considerable diversity in principle and detail.

Things have changed over time. For example, back then the marriageable age in Australian states and territories was the same as the age of consent—so back in 1962 it was 14 for men and 12 for women. If we look at the marriage laws in Queensland, the Aboriginals Protection and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act prohibited Indigenous women from marrying anyone other than an Indigenous man without the permission of an Aboriginal protector—not that long ago. However, the Marriage Act, when it came in, did not include a definition of marriage in section 5 at the time of promulgation. But it does give some sample words, which were that marriage, according to law in Australia, is 'the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life', which is actually what changed under the leadership of Prime Minister Howard, when they amended section 5 of the Marriage Act to that very definition.

Over time, we have seen the approach to marriage. I know it polarises people in my electorate, and that is why I am very committed to consulting with every religious group I can find and everyone that is concerned about this. I know it goes to the heart of many religious faiths, so I will talk with the churches, the mosques and the temples in Moreton, because when this legislation does eventually come to parliament I will have to make a decision according to my conscience, not their conscience, and to go against your conscience is neither right nor safe.

Dennis Jensen (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moreton has tried to make a case for the inexorable march of history. The fact is there is no inexorable march of history. Consider for instance communism—once seen as inevitable, but now consigned to the dustbin of history. This is really not about marriage equality. We already have that. What is being sought is a change to the definition of marriage, which is not the same as marriage equality.

Proponents make, in my view, a very fundamental error. They believe that marriage is only about love. At the moment, the statement is that it is between two people who love each other. But, if it really is just about love, why restrict it to one and one? Why not polygamy, polyandry or any other admix? And what is the nature of love that should be used anyway? After all, I love my siblings, I love my children and I love my parents, but does that mean that I should marry them? How about the love of, say, two sisters, who have lived together most of their lives—should that be called marriage, or does there have to be sex involved to constitute marriage?

In reality, marriage is about family and, to use an old term, the begetting of children. You don't think that is the case? If it is not, why is there legislation in many places, including half of the US states, that does not allow marriage between first cousins? It is not that they cannot love each other or have a sexual relationship. It is about the higher probability that they will have children with genetic problems. Indeed, if it is just about love, why the proscription of the marrying of siblings? After all, apart from the yuk factor that is our natural genetic predisposition against those sorts of relationships due to our innate knowledge of the genetic problems they would cause, why not allow incestuous marriage if one or both of the parties agree to be sterilised?

I find even bringing up the concept distasteful, but these questions need to be asked if marriage is not about family and the producing of offspring. In fact, in Australia, we do allow marriages between first cousins, and also between uncles and nieces or aunts and nephews. The reality of all of these laws, different though they may be in different nations, is that it is all about the resulting offspring. Therefore, almost universally, marriages between siblings, and of parents with their children, are considered incest and are taboo and illegal. But when you look at it, once again, all of these differences in proscription relate to offspring. It is disingenuous to pretend that it is only about love. After all, consider what marriage, through history, has been. At its essence, it is about providing the woman, the mother of the children, with the security that the father will be there for the duration of the upbringing of the children.

What is being sought here, as I said, is not marriage equality but something different, something extra, and therefore a changing of the definition of marriage. Does it not make more sense to simply come up with some other defined union that is, in fact, just based around love, however that love is defined to be? The fact is that those in homosexual unions have had the same rights as heterosexual couples as far as property, distribution of assets following the break-up of the relationship, inheritance issues et cetera are concerned for the best part of a decade. And the member for Moreton is right: Attorney-General McClelland introduced that legislation.

So that is no longer at issue. Why change the definition of an institution that has been around for thousands of years? Why not a new institution and leave the institution of marriage alone? Marriage is fundamentally about procreation and the supportive upbringing of those children to maturity. We should be very careful about making haste with an institution that has served society so well for so long.

Debate adjourned.