Lyn Allison (Victoria, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak briefly on this motion for the disallowance of an instrument made by the Governor-General disallowing the ACT’s Civil Unions Act. I support it, as all my Democrats colleagues do. We are amazed at the hypocrisy that has been shown over the last couple of days on this issue. It was only a couple of weeks ago that the Prime Minister came out and said he was prepared to remove the discrimination against same-sex couples. The next thing we hear is that removal of the discrimination against same-sex couples which exists in terms of the recognition of their relationships was not going to be possible. The government would trample on the ACT government’s rights to legislate on this issue and to produce the choice for same-sex couples to have those relationships recognised. It would wipe that out.

We still, of course, have not seen those major areas of discrimination tackled. The Democrats have put up amendments time and time again—for superannuation in the Public Service, for instance, which still discriminates heavily against same-sex couples. We put up amendments for Medicare every time there was a debate about safety nets or other real ways in which discrimination is absolute and in your face, as it were, and social security generally.

But, to some people’s minds, those things are not as important as the ability to have a union recognised as such, which is a deep-seated need in people’s lives. That is why people get married: they want others to know that they are in a permanent relationship with the person of their choice. For them it is a fundamental right. But it is denied to same-sex couples. In countries where it has been made available, as has already been mentioned in this debate, the institution of marriage between couples of opposite sex is not somehow suddenly diminished.

It is clear to me that people who write to me on this issue urging me to oppose same-sex unions are confusing the outcome of this. We are talking about a recognition of a relationship which exists; it is not one that might exist if it were possible through legislation. It is as if, by doing this, we are somehow encouraging people to go off and find relationships with people of the same sex. That argument is so banal and ridiculous as to hardly even be worth responding to, but that is the basis of the opposition that we are hearing in this place and outside it. That argument is discriminatory in this day and age. It offends against so much of what we say about ourselves as being tolerant people who seek to remove discrimination at every level in society. That is what we are on about in this place, and yet all it does is entrench discrimination and intolerance and encourage the message to be sent to people who are in same-sex relationships or same-sex attracted that they are somehow less worthy than others.

That is a really damaging message to send people. It is little wonder that there are higher rates of suicide amongst people who identify with that group or that there is such a high level of dissatisfaction with, in some cases, the way in which society sees them. If we want to be an inclusive society then we need to include all people, no matter what their race, sexual identity and sexual preferences are. We have to be serious about taking that diversity on board across society because it benefits the health of the whole nation.

It was with profound distress that most of us greeted the news that the government would stomp on the ACT. I think the ACT has done the right thing. It not only did the right thing but also went out before the last election and said that it would do the right thing. The good folk of the Australian Capital Territory have supported a government which has said it would remove this discrimination and the Howard government has come in over the top and said: ‘No, you won’t. We like this discrimination being in place. We have some rather strange ideas about what sort of threat civil unions entail for the rest of us and we are suddenly frightened of the prospect. We think that by legalising civil unions there is in some way a broader threat to society.’ I think that we in this place are adult enough to know that that is not the case. It is a nonsense, and a further slight on people who are in same-sex relationships.

I certainly hope that to some extent there is a conscience vote on this issue. I know there is not going to be a conscience vote as such, but I hope that enough members of the Liberal Party recognise that often many of their constituents are and will be in same-sex relationships and care about what happens to this bill in a big way. Even those who do not necessarily want to have a same-sex marriage or civil union recognised care, because they know the effect that it has on people. The message that this sends is: you are less worthy than we. That is not tolerable in this day and age, and that is the reason the Democrats will be voting with this disallowance. As I said, we are extremely disappointed that the Howard government has come down to doing what it has.