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

I seek leave to incorporate my speech on the report on the delegation to Denmark and Sweden held on 16 and 27 October 2005. This report was tabled on 11 May last month.

Leave granted.

The document read as follows—

I am pleased to be able to table a report of the Parliamentary delegation, of which I was a member, to Denmark and Sweden in October, 2005.

I had the pleasure and honour of joining the delegation for an 11-day visit. The delegation was ably led by the Hon David Hawker, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and my colleague Senator Andrew Murray was also a member. We all worked well as a team and found the visit informative and productive.

For my part the visit included familiarisation tours of the Parliaments in both countries, studies of wind farms and a tour of the Vestas Wind Systems manufacturing plant in Viberg, Denmark while taking the opportunity to renew ties with the two Parliaments and their members, and gaining an understanding of the position both countries occupy with regard to European union issues and international affairs.

I also took time to meet parliamentary and other officials on issues relevant to my work as a Tasmanian Senator, such as pulp mills and childhood obesity.

Fortuitously the visit coincided with the birth of Prince Christian to Danish Prince Frederik and Princess Mary, formerly of Tasmania. We arrived a day after the birth and on arrival as a proud Tasmanian Senator I presented the hotel we were staying in with an Australian flag. The delegation members dubbed me the Ambassador for Tasmania. We were delighted to have an audience with her Majesty Queen Margrethe II of Denmark, and I had the opportunity to laud the wonderful attributes of Tasmania.

This was indeed a pleasure for me, as Chairman of the Federal Parliamentary Australia-Denmark Friendship Group. Last year I was able to secure the Australian Flag flown in the House of Representatives on the day of the marriage between Princess Mary and Prince Frederik. I had the flag presented to the Royal couple through the good help and assistance of the Danish Consul-General, Jorgen Mollegaard.

I commissioned a 30cm by 40cm frame on behalf of Tasmanian Federal MPs, using the expert work of fine furniture centre “1842” owner Trevor Jones. Rare Tasmanian timbers have been used to make a picture frame gift from Tasmanian Federal Liberal MPs for the Christening of the son of Crown Prince Frederik and Princess Mary of Denmark.

The timber is the same as the stands of trees presented to the Danish Royals as a wedding gift by Prime Minister John Howard on behalf of the Australian Government in May last year, and comprise mainly Huon Pine (lagarostrobus franklinii) timber with the rare species of Cider Gum (eucalyptus gunnii) and Snow Gum (Eucalyptus pauciflora) found near the Lagoon of Islands on the property “Dungrove” in the Central Highlands of Peter and Anne Downie. The limbs of the rare timber were taken from dead trees.

The gift was presented to the Danish Royal couple in time for the Christening and naming of their baby on January 21 this year.

Huon Pine is famous the world over while the Cider and Snow Gums are rare species from the cool climate areas of Tasmania. The Cider Gum is not normally commercially available so I am grateful for Peter and Anne Downie to make the dead limb available for Trevor Jones’s work.

I also thank Mark Leech—Forestry Consultant—for assisting to locate the special timber for Trevor Jones. Trevor is a graduate of the Tasmanian School of Fine Furniture (2004) and together with his wife Robyn own and manage Launceston’s largest commercial art gallery.

Trevor has kindly crafted the frame at his own time and cost and I am highly indebted to both he and Robyn for their generosity. We all hope the gift will build the relationship.

Mr President, I had also previously raised the idea of a sister city relationship between Tasmanian cities and Copenhagen to help strengthen trade and cultural ties in light of the Royal link to Tasmania, but more about that later.

The visit provided a valuable opportunity to strengthen relations between our parliament and the parliaments of Denmark and Sweden.

In recent years, government-to-government and people-to-people relations have been growing as we have found many issues of common interest which we share with these Scandinavian countries. These include promotion of free trade, combating of terrorism and improving the environment.

The delegation’s visit sought to ensure that the parliamentary dimension to our relationship with Denmark and Sweden also received a boost. It also provided an opportunity to gain a better understanding of key issues currently under consideration within the European Union.

Danish and Swedish parliamentarians with whom we met emphasised the importance of strengthening contacts between parliamentarians, as a way to promote broader cooperation on issues where we share similar approaches.

The delegation was impressed by the strength of the parliamentary committee system in both Denmark and Sweden. Parliamentary committees in those countries play a vital and very active role in scrutinising both legislation and government administration.

From discussions held with Danish and Swedish parliamentary committees, it was evident that there are a range of issues on which we can share information and ideas. These include security, immigration, the ageing population, work-family balance, labour market reform and the environment, to name a few.

The delegation was also impressed by the fact that the Danish and Swedish parliaments both determine their own budgets. This helps to reinforce the independence of their Parliaments. The delegation’s visit also preceded last year’s successful visit to Australia by the King and Queen of Sweden.

During its time in Denmark, the delegation was fortunate to visit the Foulum Agricultural Research Centre—a most impressive centre on the largest Danish island of Jutland. There the delegation met with a range of Danish research scientists, and an Australian research scientist Dr Mark Henryon, who are working on a range of interesting projects aimed at improving agricultural production and ensuring better environmental outcomes.

While these scientists noted that there are contacts between our countries, they said we would greatly benefit from more formalised contacts between our research institutions.

The delegation visited Sweden shortly after the announcement that two Australians Robin Warren and Barry Marshall had been named as Nobel Laureates. We were fortunate to visit the Nobel Museum in Stockholm and found out that its Centennial Exhibition was not scheduled to visit Australia. The delegation urges the government to examine whether it may be possible to bring the exhibition to Australia given Australia’s proud association with the Nobel Prize.

To return to the possibilities which exist for trade between our nations, especially Denmark. I have said before in this place that I have always believed in the trade and cultural possibilities and opportunities presented to us through the royal marriage of Tasmanian Mary Donaldson to Crown Prince Frederik.

Like the rest of us, I was enthralled by the Danish royal visit last week to Australia and my home state of Tasmania in particular. Quite clearly, Australians could not get enough of the royal couple, and obviously the population of Denmark is equally fascinated and charmed by the homeland of their new fairytale princess.

Tasmania must seize the economic, trade, social and cultural opportunities arising out of the magic of Mary. Here is a right royal opportunity to strengthen our ties with Denmark, with which we already enjoy some trade links, and certainly to strengthen our ties with the European Union, of which Denmark is a member state.

I have urged the Hobart City Council and the Tasmanian government to explore sister city status with the authorities in Copenhagen in light of the natural development of the close relationship born out of the royal Danish wedding. I am sure a sister city relationship with Tasmanian cities and Copenhagen or other appropriate Danish cities would be a natural product of the marriage. There is also no reason why this international relationship cannot be extended to other major centres, such as Launceston, Devonport and Burnie in my home state, with regional centres in Denmark.

I believe a sister city relationship is a natural product of the royal relationship. Our two countries share similar values and democratic principles, and we are similar in economic terms, with low inflation of around two per cent and a similar projection of annual GDP growth for Denmark of just over two per cent. With a total mass of 43,094 square kilometres, Denmark has a similar temperate climate to Tasmania and our south-eastern mainland region. It has a population of 5.4 million and shares its border with Germany.

Already tourism and trade figures between Australia and Denmark have surged as a result of the royal wedding in Copenhagen two years ago. There were initial reports that the tourism flow between the two countries jumped by up to 80 per cent, while Danish exports to Australia jumped by up to 40 per cent. In 2003-04 total Australian exports to Denmark grew by 34 per cent over the previous year to $166.7 million, while total imports from Denmark had grown by 11.3 per cent to $856.6 million.

There are numerous possibilities. For instance, Australian wine exports to Denmark increased from $11 million in 1999-2000 to $38 million in 2003-04.

To this end, on March 30 this year I hosted a lunch at Parliament House for His Excellency Klavs Holm, the Danish Ambassador to Australia, where he spoke on the impact of the Danish Royal Family on trade and investment.

While on the trip last October I was astonished to discover that in Sweden the Uppsala museum holds a stuffed Tasmanian Tiger dated 1808. I have advised the Tasmanian Museum and Art Gallery to ascertain if this is the oldest preserved Tasmanian Tiger in the world. Initially, the Tasmanian museum thought the date was related to the explorer. However, the museum at Uppsala has different advice. Inquiries continue. We were hosted by County Governor Mr Anders Bjorck at Uppsala and he advised me of a tour by the museum to Australia and I invited him to Tasmania. I will say more about this in due course.

I also was fascinated during my visit to Sweden to look at wind power plants and pulp mills. We met with the Forestry and Environment Commissions in Sweden and they reported no significant consequences from pulp mills in their country. We were advised that in Sweden four pulp mills share a large lake with large population centres around it

Mr President, I join with Speaker David Hawker and members of our delegation in thanking the Danish and Swedish parliaments for the warmth of their welcome and for the informative program they developed for the delegation’s visit. Also special thanks to our Ambassadors to Denmark and Sweden, Matthew Peek and Richard Rowe, and their staff for the tremendous support provided to the delegation. We are also grateful to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Parliamentary Library and the Parliamentary Relations Office for their contributions to ensuring the success of the visit.

I also take this opportunity to thank the delegation’s Deputy Leader, the Member for Chisholm, Anna Burke, and the other delegation members for their work and commitment throughout the delegation.

I would also like to convey my thanks to delegation secretary Andres Lomp whose excellent work in supporting the delegation was a significant factor in the success of the visit.

I commend the report to the Senate.

Tonight I stand to congratulate the Prime Minister, Philip Ruddock and the coalition government on the upholding and protecting of the institution of marriage. The Howard government was right to strike down the ACT Labor government’s civil unions law. The Greens, Labor and Democrats disallowance motion that was introduced and debated today was lost. I am proud and humbled to be part of the Howard government and the majority which supported the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The ACT law is marriage by another name. It was a thinly disguised attempt to undermine both the institution of marriage and the federal Marriage Act. If we send our minds back to 2004, both major parties at the federal level supported an amendment to the Marriage Act to enshrine marriage as being between a man and a woman. In my view, this was a profound and historic commitment to a centuries old bedrock institution which ultimately protected and nurtured children. It removed confusion about marriage. It removed the possibility of confusion about the definition of marriage. It stemmed from growing concerns and confusion about the definition of marriage in 2003 and early 2004 following certain Federal Court decisions. I started researching this issue in and around that time and could see the need for an amendment to our federal Marriage Act. I drafted a letter to the Prime Minister which was signed by 30 coalition colleagues.

The Howard government debated this matter and introduced the bill. Labor initially would not support the bill and sent the legislation to a Senate committee of inquiry, and I had the pleasure of being a member of that committee. The committee received a record number of submissions and the overwhelming majority were to support the government’s amendment. I hosted in the parliament in this capital city a public forum on the importance of marriage. It was organised by the Australian Christian Lobby in conjunction with the Australian Family Association and the Fatherhood Foundation. Over 1,000 people attended at very short notice. It was addressed by the Prime Minister, John Howard, and others. Labor could see that the community support for the amendment was there, and with an election not far away Labor subsequently decided to support the bill and subsequently it became law. That is a little history.

In March this year the ACT legislation was introduced and established an alternative system of marriage like relationships. Again, it created confusion in the distinction between marriage and other relationships. So what is the position of federal Labor? Sadly, federal Labor has played politics with the solemnity of marriage. Labor cannot uphold marriage as being between a man and a woman and at the same time support the ACT law. The two, in my view, are mutually exclusive.

The ACT has transgressed on federal law. It has infringed on federal law. Section 5(2) of the ACT legislation says it all, in my view:

A civil union is different to a marriage but is to be treated for all purposes under territory law in the same way as a marriage.

Yes, that says it all. It cannot be that a state or territory can usurp a federal law simply by using different words. Section 51(xxi) of the Constitution assigns marriage to the Commonwealth. It is not a matter for legislation by any state or territory. No number of weasel words by the ACT or any state can actually change that. The traditional institution of marriage is the real victim of the ACT law. It depreciates and demeans marriage. A gay union cannot and should not be equated with marriage. Section 24(1) of the revised ACT legislation states, ‘a union entered into by any two people under the law of a foreign country and that cannot be recognised as a marriage in Australia’ because of the federal Marriage Act 1961 ‘is a civil union for the purpose of territory law.’

There are no residency requirements under the ACT legislation, so any Australian same-sex couple married overseas could get their union registered in the ACT. The federal parliament’s marriage amendment in 2004 was specifically designed to stop the recognition of overseas homosexual marriages. It was designed that way to thwart what was happening with the Federal Court decisions that were causing the confusion.

What is marriage? Marriage is a bedrock institution. It is worthy of protection. Marriage has endured for thousands of years across cultures and across religions. It is a social institution which benefits the family, the family members and society. Marriage is not a fashion to be updated. It provides for stability in society. It provides a solidly built roof under which children are nurtured and grow. It specifically benefits the children and is designed to ensure that their welfare is maximised. There should be no doubt about its definition.

The only discrimination that can possibly be alleged is that against children by the ACT government. The rights of children seem to have been neglected in this whole debate. Of course the ACT legislation we have struck down is, in fact, an amended version. The original, introduced in March this year, was worse. It included the establishment of the age of 16 as the age of consent for entry to a civil union—that is, a person not entitled to vote, gamble or purchase alcohol. Of course our Attorney-General, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, wrote to the ACT government about their offensive legislation but, alas, they had their chance and their changes were entirely insubstantial.

In recent weeks the ACT government’s actions have been both provocative and offensive. Upon review of both the original draft of the bill and the revised and then passed Civil Unions Act, I wrote to the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General expressing my views and concerns. I have continued to express them and the need for action to thwart the ACT gay marriage laws. So of course I believe today is a good day, and a great day for the institution of marriage, for families and especially for our children.

During the past few weeks Rodney Croome of the Gay and Lesbian Rights Group has released a statement saying that my efforts were an attack on homosexual people. They were not. He said that they were an attack on the Tasmanian significant relationships register. They were not. Property and superannuation rights are preserved for those who remain in a homosexual relationship, and that is different to marriage; marriage is an entirely different matter altogether.

I want to thank the hundreds of people who have personally contacted me expressing thanks and appreciation for the Howard government’s steadfast belief in the institution of marriage. I want to acknowledge the work of the Australian Christian Lobby and the leadership of its CEO, Jim Wallace. I want to thank the Australian Family Association and their national representative, Mary-Louise Fowler; Mieke de Vries, the AFA representative in Tasmania; the Fatherhood Foundation; the many churches and the people in the ACT and around Australia. I want to thank them all, and all those people who have taken the time to express their views on what they see as the fundamental bedrock institution in society and the importance of marriage. I want to thank them for their time, their efforts, their thoughts and their prayers.

The Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard, said on 8 March 2004:

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 father who are married. That’s the ideal. I mean I’m not saying people who are unmarried are incapable of being loving parents. (Time expired)