Guy Barnett (Tasmania, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

They do have beautiful food in the north-east, Senator Boswell, and I know you have been there and appreciate it very much indeed. This delay and uncertainty is yet another blow to the north-east, particularly noting the recent and impending job losses in the region.

I note also with concern a number of contracts on the AusTender website that have been awarded to a New Zealand company, Prepack, for ration packs for the Australian Defence Force. My initial investigations discovered contracts valued in the order of $16½ million over a number of years. Why are these products being sought from overseas to the further detriment of home-grown producers and facilities? What are the implications of these and similar contracts for the facility in Scottsdale? I have asked the minister to consider the merits of sourcing this produce directly from Scottsdale. Surely this facility at Scottsdale and other relevant facilities around Australia are strategic assets. To be obtaining ration packs and food from overseas when Tasmania, in particular, is meant to be the food bowl of this great country, Australia, is a great disappointment indeed. I think some explaining is required by the government.

I acknowledge the collaboration of the facility at Scottsdale with the University of Tasmania and the CSIRO with respect to research and the importance of appropriate nutrition for our soldiers of whatever colour, shape and size across the globe and undertaking the work on behalf of our citizens. I wish to recommend a significant and further investment in both the research and production capacities of the Scottsdale facility, which would also provide additional jobs there. Now is the time to grow the capacities, with a new and fresh asset ready to use. I have briefed the mayor, Barry Jarvis, and his council and I know they are very supportive of this call. I have also written to Stuart Robert, our relevant shadow minister.

Today I have also written to Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd, who is responsible for our overseas aid program, and said that the additional capacity at Scottsdale may also be of use in Australia’s delivery of foreign aid as we continue to play our part in striving to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, which has bipartisan support. Ration packs and other foodstuffs developed with the latest technology to ensure maximum nutritional value should be part of our foreign aid provision from Australia, if they are not already. Those affected by natural disasters—such as those seen recently in Pakistan with the dreadful floods, or in Haiti with the earthquakes, or in Indonesia with the consequences of the volcano eruptions—would particularly benefit from ration packs of this kind. In any case, it is my view that the Scottsdale facility should be a key supplier of such aid, with parallel benefits for the Australian Defence Force and the Scottsdale community. I asked Minister Rudd to consider this proposal and indicated that I look forward to hearing from him. So I call on the government to recommit to the facility and to consider the calls I have made in my address to the Senate tonight.

There is a second matter I wish to raise. Tonight I stand in support of marriage. Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. Although this definition was only formally inserted some years ago into the Marriage Act 1961, it is neither recent nor arbitrary. The definition is derived from the common law. The common law ultimately reflects the fundamentals of human biology and the deep interests of the community in regulating sexual relations between men and women in order to guarantee the best possible environment for raising children.

It was on 31 March 2004 that I drafted a letter to the then Prime Minister, John Howard. That letter was signed by some 30 coalition colleagues. The letter sought support to codify in legislation the current common-law definition of marriage, because up until then the Marriage Act 1961 did not include such definition. I will not go through all of the letter but in its conclusion I wrote the following:

Marriage is a bedrock institution worthy of protection. Marriage is an enduring institution, having been with us for thousands of years and across cultures and religion. It is a social institution which benefits the family members and society. It provides for stability in society. It specifically benefits the children and is designed to ensure their welfare is maximised. There should be no doubt about its definition.

I referred to the quote by Prime Minister John Howard at the time on the John Laws 2UE program on 8 March 2004 where he said:

I think there are certain benchmark institutions and arrangements in our society that you don’t muck around with, and children should be brought up ideally by a mother and a father who are married. That’s the ideal. I mean, I’m not saying people who are unmarried are incapable of being loving parents. Of course they are. I mean I believe in the maximum conditions of stability for people who have children.

That letter had the intended effect, and that was to ask the government to draft an amendment to the Marriage Act to ensure that that definition was inserted. Subsequently, later in 2004, that was done with bipartisan support—with the support of the Labor Party—following the Marriage Forum in this parliament. That was hosted by the National Marriage Coalition together with the support of the Australian Christian Lobby—I noticed Lyle Shelton in the gallery here tonight and I acknowledge his great work, service and leadership for the ACL—and of the Australian Family Association and many others all around Australia. The Great Hall was booked out, with more than a thousand people there and hundreds more outside wanting to express their view that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. It had the desired effect: the definition was to be included.

Each element of the definition inserted into the Marriage Act 1961 on a bipartisan basis in 2004 is essential to its nature. That traditional definition includes these components:

… the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

Altering any of these components would radically alter the definition so that it could no longer be said that the changed definition was of the same thing. For example, removing the reference to the voluntary nature of marriage might accommodate those cultures in which marriage is a contract arranged by others into which a man and a woman are obliged or even coerced to enter, regardless of their own will on the matter. However, including coercive unions within the definition of marriage would alter the nature of marriage substantially. I note that the Attorney-General just yesterday launched a consultation into how to prevent coerced or servile marriages. There is no suggestion that we change the definition of marriages in Australia to accommodate cultures where coerced or servile marriages are acceptable.

Similarly, removing the requirement for exclusivity to accommodate polygamy would alter the nature of marriage. It is noteworthy that in the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009, introduced by the Greens into the last parliament and decisively rejected by 45 votes to 5 in the Senate, the requirement for exclusivity in marriage was to be discarded.