Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Democrats) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Same-Sex Marriages Bill 2006 aims to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to allow for same-sex unions in Australia.

The bill will allow for both same-sex marriages and same-sex civil unions. While the Democrats understand that many same-sex couples prefer civil unions to marriage, these can not be legislated for at the Federal level without first removing the prohibition on same-sex marriage which was introduced in 2004.

Specifically, the bill reverses the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 by repealing the definition of marriage, which in 2004 changed the definition to that of a union between one man and one woman only; and repealing a section in the Act which prevents same-sex unions solemnised in a foreign country from being recognised in Australia.

In addition to reversing these 2004 changes, the bill:

• includes a “to avoid doubt” clause, stating that nothing in the Act should is intended to prevent the union of two people of the same sex;
• uses gender neutral language to accommodate unions between both heterosexual and homosexual couples, including making some minor changes to the words to be used by celebrants in officiating at marriages; and,
• amends another reference to husbands and wives in the Marriage Act, to replace a provision relating to minors who were adopted by “a husband and wife jointly” with the gender neutral term “two people jointly”.

Since our inception in 1977, the Australian Democrats have strongly advocated to allow people in same-sex relationships equal status to those in heterosexual relationships.

The Same-Sex Marriages Bill 2006 seeks to remedy Australian legislation by ensuring that same-sex unions are given equal status to heterosexual marriage thus removing a form of discrimination that is currently accepted by some politicians and religious groups.

In May, the Australian Capital Territory became the first Australian jurisdiction in which same-sex couples are legally allowed to pledge their love and commitment to each other in the presence of family and friends at a civil union which will entitle them to be treated the same way as a married couple under ACT law.

Since 2003, a registration system for same-sex couples has operated in Tasmania, which gives those who register their relationships equal rights to married couples.

Many other Western countries, such as Canada, the United Kingdom and our neighbour New Zealand, have enacted laws to provide for same-sex civil unions.

Yet, while our Prime Minister has claimed that he is “strongly in favour … of removing any property and other discrimination that exists against people who have same-sex relationships” he will not allow people of the same sex who are engaged in a loving and committed relationship, voluntarily entered into for life, to be afforded the same rights as married couples. In fact, the Government deliberately reinforced the inequity of same-sex relationships through its 2004 amendments to the Marriage Amendment Act 2004.

There were some justifications used for this, based on a narrow definition of what it means to be a family; that a family should consist of a dad, a mum, 3 kids, a dog and a station wagon. Senator Boswell said, “It is a union designed to provide a loving environment in which to create and nurture children… In order to protect our children, marriage undoubtedly provides the best environment for raising those children”. Former Senator Harradine agreed; “There is value in the current system of marriage… it provides a very stable environment in which to raise children”.

This argument fails to take into account the best interests of children who do live in a situation with two mums, or two dads. If a marriage is the best environment for children to be raised in, due to increased happiness, prolonged life expectancy and a lower rate of criminal involvement, then it is only fair that the children in a homosexual family should be privy to this as well.

In addition, heterosexual marriage is not necessarily always entered into for reproductive purposes. Those who are unable to or choose not to have children have the equal right to enter into marriage based on the fact that their relationship is between a man and a woman. The claim that marriage is primarily for reproductive purposes is clearly misleading.

We do not want to send the message that discrimination is acceptable in Australia to our children, or to other nations.

Those against same-sex unions argue that it would destroy the ‘sanctity’ of the institution. However, with the climbing divorce rate and decreasing rate of heterosexual marriage, an increase in its participation rates could possibly strengthen it. In countries which have recognised same-sex unions for a reasonable period of time, heterosexual marriage still exists and the institution has not fallen into disarray.

Marriage is not a fixed institution—it changes, evolves and becomes more progressive as times and social attitudes change. It was only three decades ago that we had the arguably flawed system of the ‘fault’ divorce; a system which was recognised to be unfair towards women and which brought into the court system matters that did not belong there. It is only natural that marriage and its governing laws evolve once again. In this decade, social attitudes have changed and same-sex relationships are an unavoidable, natural fact of life. It is unfair that this is not recognised by Australian laws, particularly because same-sex unions that have been legally performed overseas are not recognised here.

It is contradictory for politicians from both sides to claim they believe that the discrimination against gays and lesbians in Australian legislation should be amended, and that relationships should not face unfair barriers, when both major parties voted for the Marriage Amendment Act 2004 and have blocked many of the attempts by the Democrats over the years to remove discrimination against same-sex couples.

The Same-Sex Marriages Bill 2006 represents a significant step towards eradicating this discrimination at a Federal level. It will allow people in same-sex relationships to legalise their unions and gain the recognition, rights and status of people in heterosexual marriages.

I commend this bill to the Senate.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.