Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities, Carers and the Voluntary Sector) Share this | Hansard source

The Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008 and omnibus bill to follow are built upon premises that I do not accept—premises that take their lead from the development of an Orwellian newspeak and give rise to a most pernicious form of social engineering.

Perhaps not even five years ago, the bill that stands before us would have been considered by most in this place as anathema to our society and to the time-honoured principles of support for marriage and the family. Now, I dare say, I am probably seen by many as speaking some form of heresy in this place when I say that this bill does not deserve the time we are about to devote to it. I guess my comments are what George Orwell termed ‘crimethink’. Another, more modern term for my misgivings, and one that I am sure will be levelled at some point, is ‘homophobe.’  Where is the freedom of thought? Where is the freedom of expression? It seems that those of us who oppose the degradation of marriage and the family, which such legislation represents, are reduced to quiet whispers of dissent, lest we be outed, lest we be branded as intolerant, uncaring or heartless. However, I do not accept that we in this place should blindly accept new definitions for ancient institutions, nor should we blithely succumb to the radical reordering of human rights that seeks to hijack principles such as fairness, reasonableness and compassion, making them slaves to errant notions of discrimination and equality.

George Orwell’s 1984 may well have been a tract against totalitarianism and socialism, but it was also a window upon the age that we live in. The clever marketing strategies of the same-sex lobby that have brought us to this juncture have beaten virtually every reasonable objection out of the public debate, not by reason, not by recourse to truth and justice, but through engendering subtle and not so subtle changes to language and perception over a long and sustained period that would have made Syme from the Ministry of Truth burst with pride.

This government has bought the myths and is determined to foist this ungood on every Australian citizen. I say ‘ungood’ deliberately. In Orwell’s own words, the etymology of newspeak was developed:

… not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc—

that is, English socialism—

but to make all other modes of thought impossible.

It is almost impossible in this day and age to think of the term ‘discrimination’ as anything other than negative and the adverb ‘discriminating’ as anything other than a pejorative.

The report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, upon which this bill and others are based, claims that there exists a right to non-discrimination’. What does ‘a right to non-discrimination’ mean? Perhaps if I said ‘a right to be treated fairly’ we might all nod sage-like. But to be treated fairly implies some external standard by which we judge fair and unfair behaviour. What then is the case for fair treatment of same-sex couples? Is it fair that same-sex couples be treated the same as married couples? I say no. This place said no. We in this place made that clear in 2004, although I get the impression that those opposite supported the Marriage Amendment Bill begrudgingly at that time. I say that, because the debates we are now engaged in are about creating precisely such a regimen. They can tell us that these bills are not about marriage, but that is either a delusion or sheer sophistry. As one submission to the various inquiries put it:

We wonder … whether or not the current debate would have been fought out in the context of amendments to the federal Marriage Act had not that decisive moment occurred in 2004.

I agree. The report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission did get something right, though. It pointed out where, in federal law, some same-sex couples are treated differently from married couples. By and large, I believe that most of these differences are entirely justified because same-sex couples are intrinsically different relationships from marital relationships. I say ‘by and large’ because I concede that there may be some instances where a case can be made for change in equitable terms. But this is where the devil lies in the detail. The HREOC simply said, ‘Ah! We’ve found some discrimination, and discrimination is ipso facto wrong; ergo we need to fix that.’

I put it to my colleagues that this is hardly the case for change. What are the arguments arising from these eureka moments of discovering discrimination that would employ the dictates of reason to decide that such change as proposed in this bill and other bills is warranted? There are none. The case has not been made. I say: make the case so we can debate the reasoning, but do not treat the members of this place, elected by the good people of this great nation, as mindless minions. I hope I am not the only one in this place that finds this approach offensive—and offensive is what this bill is. It is offensive in the breathtaking ignorance of social mores and conventions. It is offensive in that it seeks to make the treatment in Commonwealth law of same-sex couples as virtually identical to that of married couples. Again, as one submission put it, if all that is left to differentiate between same-sex couples and married couples is a ‘piece of paper and a ceremony’ then there will remain little defence, at some future point in time, to a claim for full inclusion in terms of the Marriage Act. A equals B, B equals C; therefore, A equals C. The use of algebra by Family Voice Australia in one of their submissions makes the reality all too obvious. We recognised de facto married relationships three decades ago in a limited way. Over time, both in terms of the law and in the perception of the public, de facto married couple relationships have become de facto marriages—or, in fact, marriage, as the Latin term connotes. This and other bills will afford same-sex couples equal standing with de facto married relationships and, therefore, practical parity with marriage itself.

Groucho Marx once said, ‘I don’t care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members.’ The great institution of marriage, which is the foundation of society and the only social institution where children can be properly nurtured, has taken a beating in the past three decades or so. We have expanded the membership of the marriage club to include heterosexual couples who do not, for whatever reason, actually want to get married. Now we want to throw open the doors and welcome into the fold those whose relationships are uncharacteristic of the most basic elements of a marital union. It is not difficult to understand that if a club or association defines its reason for existence away then it will, sooner or later, cease to exist. We do not expect the RSL to broaden their membership to include bohemian peaceniks, we do not ask the Country Women’s Associations to include men and we do not ask the NRL or the AFL to include women in their teams. Why is it then that we defy the same sort of logic when it comes to marriage? I suspect that, as much of the same-sex literature suggests, the ultimate goal of the same-sex lobby is indeed to destroy marriage by defining it out of existence. And we in this place are being asked to contribute to the demise.

If we required any further proof that the recognition of same-sex relationships in the manner outlined is against common sense we need only look at the fact that—to jump through unnatural hoops—the bill defines children as a ‘product of a relationship’. A product of a relationship! How coarse. How degrading: ‘Here, Joe; I’d like you to meet my products: product A and product B. We want to have at least four products in our family.’ Maybe we should extend this newspeak further: maybe a family should no longer be a family but should be referred to as ‘a corporation’. In Spain, parents are no longer Mum and Dad but ‘Progenitor A’ and ‘Progenitor B’, so maybe there is some logic to that. Unfortunately such changes would probably fall foul of HREOC, I expect, because of alphanumeric discrimination! Of course, if a child is a product, then the mother is little more than an incubator—a factory, or production line, if you will. How sad. And one can only imagine how we should be redefining the father. This is where the real test of this type of legislation lies. If we need to redefine the meaning of institutions, relationships and persons so as to make this regimen work, then it is a sure sign that this is wrong. It is a sure sign that it is unnatural. As Aristotle said: ‘It ever remains unjust to treat unequal things equally.’ And that is precisely what we are doing here.

I do not know whether this bill, or the omnibus bill, can be rescued. It is a bad bill with bad consequences, a fact reflected by the government’s own tabling of 18 pages of amendments to their own bill. I am also aware that a number of contributors to the inquiry regarding this bill and the omnibus bill have mentioned the idea of interdependency as an alternative vehicle to deal with superannuation, and we should consider that. I think that, in terms of superannuation, interdependency passes the fairness test. I am not so sure about other matters, and I am certainly opposed to referring to children as ‘products of a relationship’. In fact, I find it quite disappointing that children are being used as an excuse, and a vehicle, to highlight the importance of this bill. In closing, I urge this Senate and its members to raise the bar of reason in respect to this bill. I urge all members to ask themselves whether HREOC and the government have applied reason and presented sound argument for these changes and whether or not the manner in which these changes is to be achieved is fair and reasonable. We are considering major changes to marriage and the family here, and we need to treat this matter with extreme care. I want it noted on the record that I stand firmly with marriage and with the natural family.