Steve Fielding (Victoria, Family First Party) Share this | Hansard source

Family First strongly opposes the ACT Civil Unions Act 2006. For this reason we strongly oppose the disallowance of the instrument disallowing the Civil Unions Act 2006. The issue before us is a simple one. The Civil Unions Act wants to make civil unions between same-sex couples the same as marriage. The definition of marriage in the Marriage Act states that marriage is ‘the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’. But the ACT legislation states that a civil union is to be treated for all purposes ‘in the same way as a marriage’. Quite clearly the ACT legislation seeks to establish a new kind of marriage—a marriage between people of the same sex, just under another name. Family First says this is not on. This undermines the status of marriage, and that is something the Australian community does not support. Marriages bloom between a bride and a groom. Family First represents ordinary Australian families and mainstream values. For this reason, we believe it is vital to defend marriage.

But that is not enough. What Family First believes we should be doing as a community and in this parliament is putting the case for marriage—promoting marriage, strengthening marriage and improving marriage. That is what the Australian community wants. Let us look at the case for marriage. Marriage is one of our most important cultural institutions. It was created and maintained over thousands of years and has stood the test of time. Marriage is the foundation for family life and offers the best environment in which to bring up children. Family First believes that too often in these debates children get ignored. The interests of children must always come first, and it is in the child’s best interest to be raised where possible by a mother and a father who have made a lifelong commitment to each other through marriage.

As I said earlier, marriages bloom between a bride and a groom. Men and woman have different but complementary contributions to make as father and mother, and a child needs both—a male parent and a female parent. It is stating the obvious, but it is important to state that the major difference between marriages and same-sex relationships is that marriages can produce children. If we allow gay marriage, what comes next? Will we have laws banning the words ‘mum’ and ‘dad’ from school textbooks? Will the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ be banished from our TV screens and movies? As far-fetched as it sounds, this is already, sadly, happening. Just recently we learned that Victorian schools are being advised to dump the words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ in a campaign to promote same-sex parents. The new teachers manual also says pupils as young as five should act out plays where they have two mothers.

There is no doubt that marriage is under attack, which is why it is not enough simply to defend marriage, but to promote, strengthen and improve it. Other arguments in favour of marriage include that studies show that people who are married are healthier and happier and they feel a greater sense of worth, security and stability. Studies also reveal that the overwhelming majority of Australians aspire to marriage and what it usually leads to, that is, family life.

Of course it is true that many marriages break up, despite the best efforts of husband and wife, and that is a tragedy because of the devastation it causes to all parties, particularly children. But that is no reason to weaken or undermine marriage, which is what the ACT legislation would do. Marriage is the ideal—it is the best form of relationship society can aspire to—and Family First is passionate about protecting marriage, strengthening marriage and promoting marriage. The more we can do to protect, strengthen and promote marriage, the better Australian society will be.

It is interesting that the ACT Civil Unions Act focuses on people of the same gender. Why just them? What about any two people who live in a codependent relationship and want it socially and legally recognised? For example, Family First knows of two sisters who live together and care for one another on a permanent basis. Why should they not also be included? The reason is because the ACT Civil Unions Act is not merely about recognising interdependency and commitment. It was specifically created for same-sex couples so as to legitimise and endorse their sexual relationships.

As I mentioned earlier, marriages can produce children; same-sex relationships cannot. Therefore, a sexual relationship between a man and a woman has much greater responsibilities, which is why we recognise those relationships differently. The federal government made its objections clear to the ACT government about how its Civil Unions Act was simply marriage by another name. The ACT government rejected the federal government’s arguments—and, frankly, I think they were being mischievous—which is why we are here now.

There is widespread community support for overturning this legislation. I was particularly interested to read that the Muslim leader Sheikh Fehmi Naji el-Imam has spoken strongly in support of the federal government’s position. The federal government has the legal power to overturn legislation passed by the territories. The ACT is not a state and we should not pretend it is. So it is quite in order for the Commonwealth to overturn legislation which undermines one of our most important institutions—marriage. Family First strongly opposes this motion.