Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

The government will not support this suspension motion. The government does not accept that there is discrimination in the Marriage Act 1961. The Liberal Party, the National Party and, indeed, the Australian parliament have a longstanding policy position in support of the current definition of marriage in the Marriage Act as a union between a man and a woman. Equally, the parliament over many years has worked very hard to remove all discrimination against couples of all make-ups, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual couples. Where there has been discrimination in the past, that discrimination has, appropriately, been removed in recent years. What is in the Marriage Act is a definition of what marriage is. It is a definition which, for time immemorial in our culture, has been understood to be a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others with the intention to last for life. That is a position which has been the longstanding policy position of the coalition. But, as I have indicated, it has also been a longstanding position of this parliament. Indeed, when that policy position was formalised in the Marriage Act in 2004 it was done with bipartisan support. The Labor opposition at the time supported the initiative of the government at the time to formalise that particular position in the Marriage Act back in 2004 or thereabouts.

This is obviously a political exercise on the part of the Greens. I understand that. The government is not going to be a party to it this morning. We do understand that there are diverse views across the community in relation to this. We also know that in recent years this issue has come before the Senate on a number of occasions. I have been in the Senate now for just over eight years and I have already voted on this on at least two occasions that I can remember—probably more. On each occasion, the Senate has reconfirmed the position in support of the current definition of marriage as it is enshrined in the Marriage Act. I suspect that if the matter is dealt with in this parliament again, and the parliament again confirms that longstanding policy position, that will not prevent its coming back again in the next parliament. That is why, in our very good, very respectful and very constructive discussion in the party room yesterday, we came to the view that perhaps the best way to facilitate a more permanent resolution of this issue is to give the opportunity to the Australian people either in a plebiscite or in a referendum to pass judgement to resolve this question. That is a matter that the coalition will deal with in an orderly and methodical fashion between now and the next election and will determine a position on.

In the meantime, the coalition went to the last election—and, indeed, to every election since the definition of marriage was enshrined in the Marriage Act in 2004—promising to support that current definition. Yesterday we decided to keep faith with the commitment that we made to the Australian people. That is why for this term of parliament we will maintain the position as a policy. The effect of that means that, under the Westminster system, every member of the executive will have to support the formal position of the government. But we also understand that there might have to be an opportunity after the next election to resolve this on a more permanent basis by giving the opportunity to the Australian people to pass judgement on this question.

Today we obviously have some important business to conduct. We have the Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015 to be dealt with. This is a very important initiative designed to boost important public investment in potentially life-changing medical research on a fiscally sustainable basis into the future. We ask the Senate respectfully that we get on with the business of the day and that the Senate not support the suspension motion initiated by Senator Di Natale.