Slade Brockman (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017, introduced by my friend and WA colleague Senator Smith. I congratulate Senator Smith and all those who have sought to change the law in our great democracy and in a matter of days will succeed in their undertaking. Whilst we disagree on this issue, I have never doubted the blood, sweat and tears Senator Smith has had to shed over this issue. In fact, I congratulate all those who have contributed to this debate. It is at these times that we often hear the most interesting speeches in this place. My speech will not be as interesting as some but, as a senator, it is my responsibility to put my views on the record, particularly as they are contrary to the views of a majority of Australians and a majority of my colleagues.

This bill will pass parliament—and, given the clear will of the Australian people, it should. Obviously, this private senator's bill comes to the chamber with a genesis unlike any other. Though the decisions were taken well before I came to parliament, I was uncertain about the survey. I was wary of an idea that parliamentarians should in any way outsource their decision-making capacity to a survey. However, I think these circumstances should be seen as unique. That said, the survey was obviously an extraordinarily successful undertaking with a strong participation rate in what was a voluntary process. The Australian people have spoken clearly and unequivocally to alter the definition of marriage.

Mostly, the debate was reasonable and respectful. There will always be the internet trolls who post hateful things. We should never become inured to this or shy away from topics because of it; we must be able to have respectful debates on all issues. Whilst this debate has in the main been respectful, the media continue to struggle with these issues. They seek to create two camps, when, in reality, Australians fall along a spectrum. I have been described as an arch conservative, a staunch conservative—a label I find cartoon-like. It is all too easy for the media to leap on such labels as a short-form way of pigeonholing, and thereby dismissing, different points of view. This is then exacerbated by the trolls online.

I do believe that institutions and traditions are important. They are our links to the past, and the glue that binds our society together. We have become a society that has moved away from many traditions—probably most traditions—and clearly some of these are not missed. In my experience the casual racism, sexism and homophobia that were part of the Australian culture in the recent past have now largely disappeared. However, marriage is an institution that emerged long before codified laws or doctrinal religions and has a particular meaning and character not static but remarkably durable. It is also an institution that has been under significant pressure for a number of generations but has lasted.

It is in this context that I decided to support the traditional definition of marriage. I'm not convinced that not being able to attach a particular tradition to a relationship can be described as a human rights violation. Not being able to access an institution absent discrimination in the law cannot be viewed as equivalent to an act of discrimination or somehow devaluing other types of relationships. As a society, we have gone on a journey where today all relationships between people are treated as largely equivalent under the law of Australia. There may still be some areas that need addressing, and they will now be overtaken by the passage of this bill.

I do not believe that government or laws make any relationship more valid or more important. To me, the validity of a relationship is the bond between two people; and that is what I'm lucky enough to share with Rebecca. Nothing government does or does not do will ever change that. It cannot strengthen it; it cannot weaken it. I do not view and have never viewed anyone's relationship, no matter its form, as less than my own. However, as someone who does value tradition and institutions, I see marriage in its traditional sense as being something that is worth preserving.

Now a decisive majority of Australians have spoken, and this parliament will act. Traditions, customs and institutions can and do change, and that is what will happen with the passage of this bill. However, I do counsel all to consider with open minds the amendments proposed to this bill, particularly the amendments proposed by senators Paterson and Fawcett. We do not want the outcome of this debate to be an endless round of litigation targeting certain beliefs. That would do no-one any good except a few radical ideologues. I genuinely hope that those who benefit from this change derive the positive experience from it that they seek.

As I said in my first speech just a few weeks ago, whilst farmers are conservative, they do not fear change. I am someone who profoundly believes that the people get it right. Not on every individual occasion but across the broad sweep of history in open, free democracies, people get it right. I am therefore the first to admit that I may be wrong. One thing I'm sure about is that in these contentious debates we must fight against the trend towards the anonymous keyboard trolls. I say to all: not everyone who disagrees with you is your enemy, not everyone who takes a position contrary to yours takes it out of fear or hatred or dislike. Take people as they come to you, with a positive mind and an open heart. That is how I live my life.