John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron interjecting reminds me that I heard the other day that he is writing nursery rhymes these days for the children. They start off: 'Once upon a time and a half …' That is how he starts his nursery rhymes. But we will not go there.

The Greens and their allies get their supporters to bombard parliamentarians email accounts, and we get plenty of emails from both sides. But out in the regions, from Tweed Heads to Maitland and out to Broken Hill, their main concerns are jobs, maintaining services and getting a good drop of rain. Thankfully, talking to a friend at Wilcannia this morning, they have just had three inches of lovely rain out there. It is the best rain for a long time.

I want to go to Tamworth tomorrow night, and back home to Inverell on Saturday. I doubt if one person will come up to me and want to talk about same-sex marriage. They will want to talk about the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which was signed yesterday and is the result of excellent work by the Minister for Trade, Andrew Robb, and the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Barnaby Joyce. It is a great deal for rural Australia in particular, for the beef industry, the dairy industry, the lamb industry, the wine industry and many others. This agreement is significant for every person in Australia, because it makes our farmers competitive in our biggest export market. We get our competitive edge back that the New Zealanders have, a competitive edge against the EU, Canada and the USA.

The Greens claim they are friends of the farmers, so why did they shut down the live cattle trade? It is quite amazing. Why did they oppose my recent motion in this place congratulating the New South Wales government on its commitment to addressing the ridiculous native vegetation laws that are stifling food security? Instead of same-sex marriage, the business people of Tamworth and Inverell will be telling me what a magnificent small-business package this parliament has just passed.

I am disturbed by some of the things that are going on in this whole debate. I take offence that if you actually support the retention of the definition of marriage you are considered in some way to be homophobic. I looked up the definition of homophobic, and it says 'showing an irrational hatred, disapproval or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people or their culture'. I take offence to that accusation against those who do not support same-sex marriage. I have friends who are gay and in same-sex relationships. In fact, one that I know very well, and my colleague Senator Nash also knows very well, says that he does not support changing the Marriage Act. He does not support it at all. It seems that those of us who do not support changes to the Marriage Act 1961 are branded as homophobic, and I think that is just unfair. It seems that those on the other side of the argument are showing little tolerance for our opinion—there is a word to describe that, but I will not use that word.

I was amazed when a document from His Excellency Archbishop Christopher Prowse was dropped off at my office yesterday. One of my concerns is that, if a bill for same-sex marriage does pass both houses here, what will it do to people in the churches–the priests in the Catholic Church, the ministers in the Anglican Church, and the other denominations—if they refuse to marry same-sex couples, because of their strong religious beliefs? Will they be sued for discrimination? That is one concern I really have. The state should never intervene with the church as far as the rules of the church go. When people in the church do the wrong thing, of course the state must intervene.

I will give you some examples from this booklet I was reading:

In Colorado and Oregon, courts have fined bakers who refused on religious or conscientious grounds to bake wedding cakes for 'same-sex weddings'; in New Mexico a wedding photographer was fined for refusing to do photography for such a ceremony; and in Illinois accommodation providers have been sued for not providing honeymoon packages after 'same-sex weddings'

What will the ramifications for court actions if this is to proceed? I will go on:

In New Jersey an online dating service was sued for failing to provide services to same-sex couples, and a doctor in San Diego County was prosecuted after refusing personally to participate in the reproduction of a fatherless child through artificial insemination.

The courts are really getting busy, aren't they. British MPs have threatened to stop churches holding weddings if they do not agree to conduct same-sex marriages. This is quite scary. Returning to this page here:

The Deputy Chief Psychiatrist of the state of Victoria was pressured to resign his position on the Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission after joining 150 doctors who told a Senate inquiry that children do better with a mum and dad; in several US states and in England psychologists have also lost positions for stating that they favour traditional marriage or families based thereon.

Businessmen, athletes, commentators, teachers, doctors and nurses, religious leaders and others in several countries who have spoken in support of traditional marriage have been vilified in the media, denied employment or business contracts, and threatened with prosecution.

What is going on here? The institution of marriage has been around for thousands and thousands of years, in the Catholic Church, the Jewish religion, the Buddhist religion, the Islamic faith—you name it. In many respects those who wish to keep the status quo are being vilified, as per some of those examples I read out to you.

I support traditional marriage between a man and a woman. I will always support that. I will always believe that the best environment for rearing children is with a father and the mother—as those witnesses I quoted said at the Senate inquiry. I will not be changing my position. I have friends who are gay and I respect what we have done in this country with equal rights—Senator Lines stated some of those mistakes. If you are a politician in a same-sex relationship I believe your partner should have the same rights and entitlements in this place as my wife. I believe if you are going to have separations and slit ups in de facto relationships, the division of superannuation and assets should be done for same-sex relationships in the same way it is done for the traditional marriage of man and woman. I believe people in same-sex relationships should be treated equally.

I am not homophobic. As I said, I have friends who are gay. I actually sat at a dinner last Saturday night with two gay men at a table with me and we talked for a long time. But I do believe the tradition of marriage should be retained as between a man and a woman.

I know in some countries they are vehemently protesting about changes. Some of the Islamic countries do not have tolerance for same-sex couples. Some time back now I was talking to a member of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade who had spent some time in Turkey. In our discussions, I asked this person: 'What's the situation with same-sex people in Turkey?' The reply was: 'Officially, there are none.' That is the belief of their country. It is for them to believe that. I do not wish to comment on that. What I am saying is that many Asian countries, Islamic countries and others support traditional marriage. I believe that should be retained. But, if this legislation were to pass at some stage in the future, what are we going to do to protect the people who represent their religions—the priests, the ministers et cetera? If they refuse to marry a same-sex couple because of their beliefs and religion, because of the laws of their church, are they going to be sued for discrimination? These are the things that will come up if this legislation does pass at some point.

I repeat that I support the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. That is what I believe in. That is where I stand. I will never change.