Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to contribute to the debate and to place very firmly on the record that I concur fully with the definition of marriage as outlined in the Marriage Act 1961—that is, marriage is a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. In response to the comments made by Senator Milne, it was only this week in this place that we recognised, on the motion of, I think, Senator McEwen, the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. It is against the law in Australia to discriminate not only on the basis of race, but that, of course, as we know, has been well and truly extended.

It was in 2009 in this parliament that discrimination was removed in relation to same-sex couples and I propose to go through the four bills that gave effect to the conclusion of discrimination. If people feel discriminated against, they have rights under the law and they have redress under the law. What were those bills?

The first was the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008. The effect here was in relation to PAYG instalment, tax system payments for small business for unclaimed superannuation and changes to various income tests determining a person's eligibility. The bill allows a same-sex couple to be recognised as being in a de facto relationship if they have a registered relationship under state or territory law. It strengthens the provisions over the superannuation bill which recognised registration as indicative of being in a de facto relationship and of course it removed any of that discrimination that would have occurred in relation to areas under its auspices, including superannuation.

The second is the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act 2008, the second bill which removed discrimination. What it does is extend the federal jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975 to include financial matters arising out of the breakdown of de facto relationships, including both opposite sex and same-sex relationships. Consistent with government policy, the legislation will not discriminate between opposite sex and same-sex de facto couples—nothing in the legislation does so.

The third is the Evidence Amendment Bill 2008, which proposed amendments to the Evidence Act in relation to recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, the Victorian Law Reform Commission and the Uniform Evidence Act. Therefore, a defendant's spouse or de facto, a parent or child of a defendant are included as protected witnesses, removing discrimination.

The fourth is the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Act 2008. The bill's first element, in a wider set of changes, was to end discriminatory treatment of same-sex couples in Commonwealth laws. The Senate committee which inquired into the bill combined consideration of this bill with its consideration of the family law amendment bill and the evidence amendment bill. All three included provisions designed to treat same-sex relationships in a similar manner to married and de facto relationships.

Let me make the point very, very strongly if I can. In this country, it is illegal to discriminate. Therefore, if a person in a same-sex relationship feels they are being discriminated against, they have the protection of Australian law to go and have that case heard. Therefore, I want to make the case very, very strongly that marriage, in my mind, is between a man and a woman, but this of course does not preclude, has not precluded, should not preclude and will not preclude other people in same-sex relationships from entering into unions, but they just do not meet the definition of marriage.

I have made the comment before in this place that there are 76 of us who enjoy the title of senator. There are not 77 and not a whole stack of other people out there. Are we in some way advantaged? No. Are others discriminated against because they are not called senator? No. But the term senator has a meaning. It has a legal framework and reference. It has historic connotations. We know that if you are an Australian citizen, you do not have a criminal record, you are silly enough stand and expose yourself and your family to this and willing to spend 80 odd hours a week either doing what we do or travelling, then you too can place as forward for selection, preselection or however you get here. If you are one of the 76, you are entitled to call yourself a senator. The day that you submit your resignation to the President of the Senate, you are then no longer eligible to call yourself by that title.

There is nothing unusual about titles, except to say in this circumstance that there are also criteria by which a person—a couple—can be referred to as married. That is what I support. In no way at all do I have any difficulty. I have friends in same-sex relationships. I have friends with children in same-sex relationships. I admire them. They very, very good parents. But in my mind, they are not eligible to be married. That is where my stance on the situation is.

Another point of interest is in terms of Aboriginality. We have a circumstance in Western Australia at the moment where a young man is at the Yongah Hill detention centre, which is to be called the Northam army barracks when I was a young man in Northam. This person would appear to be a Pacific Islander, but he is claiming to be a man of Aboriginal descent. There is great dispute and debate going on at the moment. In fact, Aboriginal elders are saying, 'We've never heard of him. We can't understand any circumstance in which he would be able to be that.' The simple fact of the matter is that this is another circumstance in which there are certain criteria by which a person defines themselves, for example, as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. I cannot call myself a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island descent because I do not fit the criteria. I am not being discriminated against as a result of not meeting that criteria. The simple fact is that I do not. Here again is this young gentlemen and there are those measures in which he is attempting to have himself defined in that way.

In the time available to me, I just want to make a couple of observations. A person wrote to me today. In fact, people write to us every day on this topic, don't they? One person wrote talking about bigotry, hypocrisy and all sorts of other things. This gentlemen seems to write us most days of the week. I do not have a lot of credence for what he has to say because I do not think there is very much of value, but he has the entitlement to have his say in terms of how we should be determining these issues. On the other side, a farmer from Victoria saying that he is sick and tired of being called a bigot simply because the he holds opinion based on—in his mind—history, which is that marriage should remain between a man and a woman to protect the children they create through their relationship. Therefore, that is the point he makes. I say this again: the reason that I raise them both is because both sides of the argument have their right in our country to have their say. There are not many things I agree with Senator Cameron on, but one of them is that I am absolutely unminded by what has happened in other countries and in other states, like the United States, Ireland or whatever. Those matters are totally irrelevant to our country. We will determine what is happening here.

One of the areas I decided to have a look at, because it has been put to me by people on one side or others of the argument, is that it is about the welfare of the child. I heard some debate go on earlier in this session this afternoon about the child and the rights of the child. I made it my business to actually see if there was anything definitive written. In the few minutes left to me, I want to reference the comments of a Dawn Stefanowicz, who is an internationally recognised speech and author. She is a member of the Testimonial Committee of the International Children's Rights Institute from Canada. She was presenting on 24 April. It the title of her commentary was 'A warning from Canada: same-sex marriage erodes fundamental rights'. These not my words; these are her words.

She is one of six adult children of gay parents who recently filed briefs with the US Supreme Court asking the court to respect the authority of citizens to keep the original definition of marriage, to which I have referred. She makes the point that:

I also live in Canada, where same-sex marriage was federally mandated in 2005.

She goes on to describe—and she describes it more fully in her book, entitled Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parentingthe difficulty that she has as an adult child from that relationship. She says again that she does not like to go public, because:

… we often face ostracism, silencing, and threats.

But what she does want to point out in her piece on 24 April is the consequences that have played out in Canada for 10 years. They are, to use her words, 'Orwellian in nature and scope'. She says that:

In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered "homophobic" (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.

Is this relevant to us in Australia? I do not know. Canada is a country with which we often likened. We are both, if you like, recipients of the Westminster system of law. We are fairly similar in many ways. The point that she is making very, very strongly is that children do need protection and should be considered in the circumstances. She makes the point that parents can never replace the missing biological parent or parents. She says:

Over and over, we are told that "permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights."

She goes on, but I do not have time in my 15 seconds left to outline what she says. I can say to you that what she writes is well worth consideration. I know that this is a debate that is to be had. It needs to be had maturely and we do need to consider all aspects of the argument.

Debate interrupted.