Jan McLucas (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Carers) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am in continuation from my contribution from last night and, as I indicated to the chamber last night, I will be supporting the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012.

Today I want to talk about a group of people who need understanding and support as they come to understand who they are and how they relate to others. They are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex young people, particularly those living in rural and regional areas, who simply do not know where to turn for support and advice. As the country again talks about gay issues, this time through the lens of marriage equality, it is these young, gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people who hear the language of exclusion and rejection, who hear words that trivialise them as making mere lifestyle choices and who hear words that question their very being. As our country's leaders—as people who fill the newspaper columns, the TV screens and the radio waves, who tweet and Facebook—we must be responsible. We must choose our words carefully. Ill-chosen words certainly hurt, but at their worst they damage irretrievably.

Along with the thousands of emails we have all received, one stuck in my memory. Jay—not his real name—is now 17. He lives in a regional Queensland city. He is bright; he gets As for maths, Bs for chemistry and As for art. He is a sporting leader in his school. He says that he has, 'an amazing bunch of friends who love me. The reason why they love me is because I stand for what I believe in'.

Just over a year ago Jay came out. Unfortunately—and this is, very sadly, the reality for many young people—his parents did not take it well. He says in his email to me, 'In the society we live in today, to be gay is only frowned upon by the older citizens ranging from twenties onwards. Can you not realise that the younger generation are ready to accept what should have already been accepted?' He rightly objects to being stereotyped as sexually deviant and as camp. He is a resilient, thoughtful young man who said, 'I honestly want to be able to settle down with someone I love in the future, receive the benefits I deserve as a human being who is in a relationship and have a family with kids I'll cherish'.

Jay is not alone. There are many young voices that call for recognition and respect for themselves and their circumstances. There have been myriad government and community reports over the last 20 years about the life experience of young men and women coming to grips with their sexuality, particularly in regional Australia. Terribly sadly, we know that in regional areas the outcomes for some have been tragic. It is our job to respect and include people whose sexual orientation may be different from our own. It is our job to make sure that our language is respectful and understanding; that it includes and does not exclude.

This bill is about people; real people who love and cherish. I leave the last words with Jay: he says, 'Stop being so close minded and factor in people like me when you make your decision. I am only 16'—he was at the time—'and I have more of an open mind than most other citizens'.

Sue Boyce (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to put on record my support for the intention of this Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012. I would also like to put on record my view that the Labor government, knowing that this bill will be voted down, is indulging in the worst sort of cynicism by bringing this debate on now. In the past, Prime Minister Gillard has refused to introduce legislation—for an example, on asylum seekers—when she did not have majority support. In this case, Ms Gillard has allowed the legislation to go ahead knowing it will be defeated. 'Hypocritical' is a word that comes to mind.

I have been very concerned by some of the speeches made in the past few days, trying to position gay people—or, for that matter, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender or intersex people—as 'other'. The big news is that gay people are just people: there are good gays and bad gays, rich gays and poor gays, gays who want to get married and gays who do not, gays who like footy and gays who do not, gays who want children and gays who do not.

I urge those senators who have not already done so to have a look at the Personal Stories section on the Australian Marriage Equality website. It absolutely proves that gay people are just people. There are photos on the website of young couples and old couples, tattooed couples and couples in business attire. The only thing these couples have in common with each other is their happiness at making a public and loving commitment. I would also add that this happiness gives them something in common with other, heterosexual, couples in Australia—but, and this is a huge 'but', not all heterosexual couples. Many married and de facto heterosexual couples are not in loving, happy relationships. Not all children in Australia are raised by a loving and kind mother and father. I know this may come as a surprise to some of those who oppose marriage equality, but it is true.

What also is not true are some of the ridiculous statements I have heard made as reasons to oppose marriage equality. My pick for the most ludicrous piece of pseudo-research is that lesbians have extraordinarily high rates of sexually transmitted disease because they are all wildly promiscuous, especially with men. That left me very puzzled. I would also query research suggesting that gay men and women have shorter lifespans than other Australian men and women. Even if this were true, so what? We can think of a number of reasons why this might be so. But, also, Indigenous Australians have shorter lifespans than other Australians and I do not remember that being used to advance a case to prevent Indigenous people from marrying. Certainly when the first national marriage act was being debated, in 1959, Aboriginal people in most Australian jurisdictions needed 'permission' to marry. And, of course, in earlier times, and still in some cultures, arranged and forced marriages were and are the norm.

It is interesting to note that in 1961 the Attorney-General at the time of the passage of the Marriage Act, Sir Garfield Barwick, said the main purpose was to:

Produce a marriage code suitable to present day Australian needs, a code which, on the one hand, paid proper regard to the antiquity and foundations of marriage as an institution, but which, on the other, resolved modern problems in a modern way.

I would argue that the bill before us today does a better job of resolving 'modern problems in a modern way' than changes that were made to the act in 2004 which added the first-ever legal definition of marriage in Australia as:

… the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

It is telling that, at the time that this amendment went through, the government in 2004 said:

… this definition will remove any lingering concerns that people may have the legal definition of marriage may become eroded over time.

However, of course, many of our attitudes and beliefs change over time—if you like, are 'eroded' over time. I think the very liberal Sir Garfield Barwick would have been completely disbelieving to be told that in Australia in 2012 there is a woman Prime Minister openly living in a de facto relationship without comment. My view is that once civil marriages became accepted in Australia then governments in particular lost the right to use religion based beliefs to mandate the gender of those wishing to marry.

I would like to turn to the apparently vexed question of gay married couples having children. Right now, gay de facto couples can have children, as can married and de facto heterosexual couples and some singles. So it does not make sense to me to use children as an excuse to shut gay couples out of marriage. I will agree with some Christian advocacy groups that children are best raised by two parents in a loving and stable relationship. But that is not exclusively a man and a woman. Their gender and their marital status are, to me and to millions of Australians, completely irrelevant.

I would like to share a story about two married women I knew in Melbourne more than 20 years ago. One woman had three sons, the other had two sons. They knew each other because their sons attended the same local school. Gradually, over a period of years, these two women fell in love. Eventually they left their marriages and set up home together with their five sons. One of these women told me that she had known 'from the beginning' that there was something wrong in her marital life. She and her husband had even consulted a priest about their problems but had been told to persevere, and she had for many years.

These two women are just one example of the many, many non-heterosexual people who marry to try to meet their family's and their community's norms. I cannot accept that those five boys were not better off with two loving, lesbian parents than continuing as the children of two loveless, unhappy marriages. And I cannot accept that those two women should not have the right to marry, if they wish.

I support marriage equality for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex people. I also support the right of all religions to decide, as they can and do right now, the criteria for solemnising marriages in their churches and temples. During a Senate inquiry into the many marriage equality bills, one legal centre commented:

While marriage takes various forms across many different cultures and has assorted religious histories attached to it, marriages performed by the state are civil, not religious, in nature. It is imperative that religious interests are not privileged over the rights of all citizens to nondiscrimination and to be treated equally under the law.

But it is worth noting that 63 per cent of Australians currently getting married are married by a civil celebrant. If, as I have posited, gays are 'just like us', then it would be a minority who would wish to choose a church wedding if some religious groups were to make this available. I would add that there are already a handful of individual churches that do solemnise gay unions to the extent that is lawful.

One email that I received from Victoria thanking me for my open support of marriage equality read:

I may never wish to marry but to be told that I cannot access one of the most valued aspects of our culture says that I'm not truly a full member of that culture …

The desire to proclaim to your friends, your family and the community at large that this person is special to you beyond all measure is a very human one, regardless of whether that person is the opposite gender to you or not. No government has the mandate to declare a part of their electorate to be less than human. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex people are people just like us and they deserve the same rights to choose to marry just like us.

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Marriage Amendment Bill (No.2) 2012 and I would like to congratulate members of my party, especially Senator Hanson-Young for her leadership on this issue over a number of years and bringing this bill before parliament. It has been mentioned in debate in previous days that this may not be the last bill that we see.

I have enjoyed listening to the debate in the last few days and to people speaking from the heart. Of course there have been some speeches that I have not enjoyed; however, it has been a great opportunity to put politics aside in some senses and listen to what people really want to say. I think that is what a lot of Australian voters want to hear from their parliamentarians.

I thoroughly enjoyed listening to Senator Faulkner the other night—I even tweeted how much I enjoyed his speech, and the passion and the eloquence that he displayed on this subject. In particular, he talked about how this debate is about one simple thing—that is, governments discriminating against people. It is as simple as that: it is about discrimination. It is not necessarily about religion, sexuality or sexual behaviour; it is quite simply about governments treating all their citizens equally.

While that is obviously true, it is instructive to scratch a little below the surface and see perhaps why governments or the parliament may not pass this bill. What are the reasons behind our lack of support for same-sex marriage in this country? I will get around to that shortly but first I want to highlight the words from the very fine man whose shoes I have stepped into and perhaps let his words echo in this chamber one more time, although spoken by me.

Bob Brown spoke on the 7.30 Report last night. It is well known that Bob has been in a loving relationship with his partner Paul for some years. Bob said on Q&Ajust prior to his departure from federal parliament that as, a 26-year-old practising Methodist, a Christian, he used to self-administer electric shocks to try and change his sexual behaviour and desires. I know that this is something that he feels very strongly about. I would like to read Bob's words on how he sees this debate: simply, it is about leadership. Last night on the 7.30 Reportwith Leigh Sales, Bob said:

This is about leadership and Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull, Kevin Rudd, Wayne Swan all failed that leadership test. We're in a nation where the polls show 80 per cent of young people, a majority of Christians, four out of five Labor voters, a majority of conservative voters wanted this legislation passed, but that leadership of the nation failed and the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition take that fair on their shoulders. They're responsible for this failure in the Parliament today.

He went on to say:

… people will remember that at the elections next year where it was the Greens who solidly stood up with the majority of Australians to get rid of this discrimination against people in marriage. And, you know, hearts are broken all over Australia today. We just saw a mother lamenting the discrimination which has been delivered by Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott against her child and partner, or potential partner, today in the Parliament. Look, it's - and Labor engineered this. They knew that if the Prime Minister were to go at the last Labor conference for a conscience vote rather than to take the lead and say, 'I am leading the country into getting rid of discrimination in marriage,' you'd get this result. The Christian lobby might be happy - they don't represent the churches or the majority of Christian voters. But it's a very poor outcome for democracy and that failure of leadership.

On the topic of leadership, my home state of Tasmania, which most people would be aware, was the last place in Australia to override laws that made homosexual behaviour illegal. Before parliament at the moment is a bill to legalise same-sex marriages and remove discrimination. I would like to say, firstly, to the Tasmanian Labor and Greens MPs who sponsored this bill—that is, Labor Premier Lara Giddings and Nick McKim—congratulations for showing that leadership and getting the bill through the lower house in Tasmania.

I would also like to say to the members of the upper house in Tasmania, the MHAs, that they had an opportunity to show leadership here and take the state forward. Aside from the very simple and important concept that we should not have discrimination anywhere in this country, let alone in the world, this is a chance to show leadership on that issue. It is no secret that Tasmania's economy needs a boost.

Given the importance of tourism to our economy—it is nearly 15 per cent of the workforce in Tasmania and it is a major contributor to gross state product, and like a lot of industries it is suffering under a high dollar and a fall-off in tourism numbers—being the first state in Australia to legalise same-sex marriages would provide a significant economic opportunity for the state exactly when it is needed. We know it is not just Tasmanians thinking about this; our South Australian friends across the 'great ditch' have also identified in state parliament the potential economic boom this could bring to their state.

A recent report based on the economic stimulus from the passing of same-sex marriage bills in places such as Massachusetts in the USA has shown that the potential stimulus to the Tasmanian economy alone would be $96 million over a period of five years, creating potentially hundreds of new jobs. This is in an industry that already fits in very well with the structure of our state in the way the economy has been set up. Thousands of small businesses, including a business I used to run in Tasmania, are set up for tourism and the opportunities that it can bring to the economy. This is a totally new area; it is an area most Tasmanians agree with, as shown by looking at recent statistics on support for same-sex marriage; and it is a clear and present opportunity to stimulate our economy. I just want to highlight again that this has also been recognised by the South Australian government as an area for their economy—and potentially for the national economy if you refer to the report that has analysed economic stimulus over the rest of the world in places where these bills have been introduced. So to Tasmanian MHAs—in particular those who at this point are undecided, such as Jim Wilkinson—I say: I would urge you to take the opportunity to take Tasmania forward in terms of both social progressiveness and the opportunity that this can bring to the Tasmanian economy.

I would then like to say that based on what the media were discussing this morning in Tasmania the bill in front of parliament may not go far enough and some gay people in the state oppose the bill because they do not believe it goes far enough. I spoke to a leading advocate—one of the campaigners—this morning, and he said that is simply not true. They are not aware of who has been lobbying the MHAs and saying this bill did not go far enough. It has unanimous support from the gay community in the state, and it has been structured and delivered with consultation with the gay community in Tasmania. It is very important. If we fail in our leadership today, I would be very proud if my home state were to take leadership on this issue, pass that bill and make history.

I would like to say a little bit about myself here. I am happily married at the moment, and I hope that stays the case into the future. I have not seen much of my family in the last few months, but I have lots of gay friends. I also have lots of Christian friends. I used to be a practising Christian myself until my early 20s, and I am very comfortable with the concept of my friends and other gay people having the right to marry. It is in no way a threat to me. I am very comfortable with myself, my own sexuality and my own marriage, and I really do not understand where the push-back comes from. But I have tried to understand this issue.

In 2010, the second time I attended an Australian Christian Lobby forum in Launceston, I thanked them for inviting me as a Green candidate—because it is always important that Greens attend these events. When I attended that event in Launceston in 2010, I made it very clear to people there that I did not expect to get any votes that night. I literally came along to listen to what they had to say and to put the view of a Green candidate across. I learnt a lot from my evening with a number of local Christians. There was a stage where I was talking about banning same-sex marriage as being discriminatory, and at one stage it got fairly heated and there was lots of heckling and a bit of yelling. I had the microphone, and I said to the room, 'There's a lot of fear in this room, and that surprises me coming from Christians, since I understand love is the main basis of their faith.' After that forum, a very prominent and respected pastor, Dr Andrew Corbett, came up to me and said, 'Would you go out to breakfast with me so we can discuss this,' and I said I would love to. So we went out to breakfast a couple of weeks later, and we talked for nearly 2½ hours on this subject. I thank Andrew for taking the time to speak to me. We agreed to disagree on many things that morning, but a couple of things did become fairly clear to me.

The first thing that surprised me from my understanding, having had a Christian upbringing and having Christian friends, was that there seems to be conditional love in terms of the Bible and what it says about same-sex marriage. I would like to say that I do respect many Christians, and on this point I do disagree with them. I do not in my heart understand why you should have conditions on love, because, as Senator Xenophon pointed out so eloquently last night, there is not enough love in the world at the moment, and what we should be doing is promoting it. I know that is a subject a lot of men, particularly, are uncomfortable with talking about, but that is a simple fact. When I turn on the television at night and I look at what is going on around the world, we need more of it, and we need to encourage more of it. If sanctifying and formalising people's love for each other through marriage enhances that then personally I do not see the problem.

I think it is advantageous to the church that we are having this debate today, because I think it shows the importance of marriage as an institution. One thing I said to Dr Corbett was that marriage as an institution is already under attack, and it is not under attack from the potential for gay people to get married. Nearly a third of all marriages end in divorce. I have had friends who have committed suicide who have come from broken marriages. One of my best mates gets depressed every time it is his birthday because that is the day his father walked out on him when he was 12. So marriage itself is something that needs to be worked at and it is an institution that I value, as Christians do, but I do not think the threat to that institution comes from same-sex marriage. It comes from our lifestyle. It comes from a whole range of things that we confront today as a society. I think it is a bit of a sideshow to say that marriage as an institution is under threat from same-sex couples getting married.

The third thing that became very obvious to me was that perhaps some Christians believe that being gay is environmental, conditional, not genetic—you are not born that way. Obviously I am not gay myself, so I cannot say for certain, but my understanding and feeling is that it is something you are born with. It is the way you are. It makes a lot of sense to me that, if you believe in compassion, you should give everyone the opportunity to be the best they can be and be accepted in society. I do believe am encouraged by some statistics we have had recently that some people in the church—some leaders in the church—are offering an olive branch on same-sex marriage and 53 per cent of Christians do support the concept of same-sex marriage.

I would say that I do believe religion is an issue, although a lot of people who oppose same-sex marriage are not religious. I accept that. There are a number of reasons I have thought of that might underpin that. But I say to the church that this is also an opportunity to show some leadership. There are a lot of statistics—one was recently sent to me by the Doctors for Marriage Equality—that show that marriage itself as an institution can have very beneficial effects on gay people in terms of their satisfaction, their health, all these things we have already discussed at length in this chamber. There is also a lot of evidence that civil unions are not as effective in preventing social issues as marriages are. I think that is going to be an important point. I think the country has moved on from civil unions. We have them in a number of states, but the country, in our opinion, has moved on, and we would like to see marriage itself as an institution proposed and supported in parliament as the way forward for same-sex marriage.

When I think back to that forum with that anger and fear that was so obvious to me, I think we have seen a really good example of that in parliament, in the Senate in the last few days with Senator Bernardi's comments. I was wondering at first whether Senator Bernardi made that up or he was speaking his views there, but I have heard before the line that potentially giving same-sex couples marriage could lead to quite extreme measures. I have heard that before, so I know that has been propagated for awhile. I do not know exactly who is propagating those lines, but it is highly offensive. In fact, I cannot think of anything more offensive you could say to a gay person than that giving them the right to marriage and to have equality in love is the first step towards encouraging bestiality and other extreme things. I really cannot imagine a more offensive thing you could say.

I have heard non-stop since I joined the Green party and in this chamber that the Greens are seen as being extremists and wacky. I do not think there is a better example of extremism, hatred and fear than what I heard from Senator Bernardi the other day. I hope the voters of Australia realise that that is what you are going to get if you vote Liberal at the next election.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Obviously I have hit a raw nerve. He is a Liberal senator. He wears your colours and he has got up in the chamber and made an extreme comment.

This has now become an international affair. I would like to read a quote from the Daily Mail and the Guardian in the UK, where it says:

Labour said his appearance at the event was 'astonishing' and accused the Tories of paying 'lip service' to equality.

…   …   …

A party spokesman said: 'We haven't organised this event and are not in control of who attends.

'We strongly condemn Mr Bernardi's comments which don't reflect David Cameron's or the Conservative party's viewpoint in any way.'

David Cameron was also on the record as saying:

I don't support gay marriage in spite of being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative.

I would like to finish on a positive point. We have a chance to show leadership. We have a chance to show the world and our voters that we do not discriminate in our law, that everybody is the same under the law and that we value everyone and we value their love that we have for each other. That is a very important message that we need to stay focused on.

Ursula Stephens (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I begin by saying I certainly believe this is a debate about national leadership. I very much believe that. The debate about same-sex marriage is about the function and purpose of the law in relation to marriage. It is not a discussion that goes to personal motivation and attitudes, as much as those supporting the bill would like it to be. Earlier this week you might recall that we debated the issue of the role of the state in the protection of the national interest in personal privacy. The state has a role to play there just as it has in this instance.

Like everybody who has spoken in this debate, I believe that every person in Australia deserves the right to have their needs met fairly and without discrimination. We have all come to this debate with values, experiences and ideals, and they have been contested across the chamber. Most people have made very worthy contributions to this debate, and I particularly want to commend Senator Dean Smith on his contribution.

I note the New South Wales government has signalled that it will introduce a similar bill into the New South Wales parliament in the event that the bill before us does not pass into law. I can only say that my experience of people contacting me from my home state of New South Wales has overwhelmingly been to ask my support for maintaining the status of marriage as it is currently defined in the act. It is significant, too, that everywhere same-sex marriage has been debated it starts with a focus on the issues of fairness, rights and justice and with majority support. But then people soon start to realise that there are deeper issues involved.

We have heard many claims, including the claims this morning, in the debate that the current law unfairly singles out people in same-sex relationships by not allowing them to have the same status as people who are married. That this is a denial of a 'right' that perpetuates discrimination, homophobia and depression is simply not true. What is true is that prejudice, fear and discrimination are not the results of the absence of legislation. They exist, despite the fact that the federal law in Australia has already been changed to give same-sex partners the same legal rights as those who are married and, as we have heard this morning, an increasing number of states to register their unions. There were 84 pieces of legislation amended in 2008. The Marriage Act is the only remaining piece of legislation, so that is not an issue of substantive discrimination. The remaining issue is, as I said, the definition of marriage.

Changing the law so that marriage includes same-sex unions would be a change to what marriage means to society. Marriage has a place in the law because a relationship between a man and a woman is the kind of relationship that may produce children. That is why marriage is linked to children; it is for the sake of children, protecting their identity and their care by their parents. The state would have no interest in the permanence and exclusivity of marriage if it were not for the fact that marriage may produce children.

I have spoken here, in the past, about the challenges that the use of reproductive technology, in separating reproduction from the biological relationship between a woman and a man, has created. In that situation, the law determines a child's parents if circumstances arise that might create any ambiguity. There are people in this chamber who have had personal experience of that. And, of course, I acknowledge these days that there are many different kinds of households who nurturing children, including those that could only have occurred through the use of reproductive technologies. We have heard passionate stories about them in this debate.

In all circumstances where children are nurtured, it is the state that has an ultimate in loco parentis interest in the welfare of children. It is for that reason that the state is involved in legislating to ensure the identity and status of children. In the same way, the state has an interest in marriage because the relationship between a man and a woman is capable of generating children. The state has an interest in the exclusiveness and the permanency of marriage because it needs to protect the identity and status of any children who result from the marriage, in the first instance, and to preserve their rights to know and to have access to both biological parents. The state supports marriage because children may result from it, and the state lacks a reason to legislate to promote relationships that do not produce children. So altering the definition of marriage to include relationships that are not the kind of relationship to generate children removes the primary basis and justification for the state's interest in marriage.

If children happen to be in a same-sex household, nothing actually alters the fact that they will always have come from outside that relationship, as loving as it may be, either through an earlier relationship or through the use of some other biological parent or some technology. If the law were to be changed so that marriage included same-sex relationships, then marriage would no longer be about children. It would be about adults only. That is the passionate argument that we have been hearing from people on both sides of the debate. It would be about putting the desires and wants of adults above the needs, wants and interests of children.

Through the state, society discourages married people from failing their obligations to each other and, hence, to their children, through property settlement requirements and child support arrangements, and it monitors these. The state records the births of children, the deaths of their natural parents and marital dissolution, all in the best interests of children. Similarly, the state tracks the complexities of assisted reproductive technology, the use of donors and surrogates, again for the sake of children.

I know that emotions run very, very high in this debate. I know that the senators who have spoken so passionately and personally about their desire for marriage equality are very genuine in their relationships and in their advocacy for change. My personal view, however, is that the traditional concept of marriage is consistently found across cultures throughout history. Marriage has always been understood in every society throughout recorded human history as being between a man and a woman. These arguments are not negated by marriage breakdown, the early death of a parent, the adoption of children, de facto relationships or the practice of step-parenting. We all acknowledge that we do not live in a perfect world, but, frankly, tragedy just does not justify the redefinition of marriage.

Gay couples in New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and the ACT are able to register their same-sex partnerships on a relationships register that provides public recognition and affirmation of their relationships. The move for same-sex marriage is therefore largely ideological because, as Senator Smith said: 'The right is to have our relationship recognised, the right is not to marriage.' No-one is done a real injustice when we positively honour and uphold marriage as it is currently understood. In a liberal democracy, people can form other types of relationships; but 'marriage' is a term reserved for a particular kind of relationship that brings with it obligations to people beyond the two parties. No-one is disadvantaged when a society retains a distinctive name for these lifelong, faithful, exclusive and potentially procreative relationships between men and women.

I have to say, though, that the drafters of the bill go to lengths to explain that this bill protects religious freedom by permitting a minister of religion, a person authorised under a state or territory law or a marriage celebrant to perform a marriage between same-sex couples and will permit that marriage to be recognised in Australian law. They want us to know that amendments to section 47 of the act will reinforce the existing provisions that ensure that a minister of religion is under no obligation to solemnise a marriage where the parties to that marriage are of the same sex. Frankly, that completely misunderstands the concerns of those seeking to support the status quo. The ethical considerations, the rights of children and the support for societal institutions provide the basis of genuine concerns about the consequences of such a bill passing into law.

While those who support the bill have accused people like me of discrimination, of cowardice and of homophobia, there continue to be community concerns about the notion of same-sex marriage and I am happy to represent those concerns in this debate. There are though sociological, anthropological, historical and bioethical issues at play here. These are all as legitimate as the spiritual and religious arguments that we have heard through the debate. I will not be supporting the bill.

Gary Humphries (ACT, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Materiel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to start by addressing the very unfortunate comments of Senator Whish-Wilson in this debate where he attempted to attribute the comments the other night of Senator Bernardi to the Liberal Party as a whole. I would have thought it was extremely obvious with what has happened in the last 24 hours that Senator Bernardi did not speak for the Liberal Party when it came to this legislation. So for Senator Whish-Wilson to in some way suggest that a vote for the Liberal Party represents a vote for the comments made by Senator Bernardi is disingenuous in the extreme.

I have three reasons to oppose this legislation but there is one reason that I am not opposed to this legislation. That is one ground I do not rely upon to oppose this legislation. I do not oppose it on the basis of some personal view about the appropriateness or otherwise of a same-sex relationship, whether acknowledged in the law or not. Like I think everybody in this place, I have gay friends and acquaintances. In the past I have employed gay members of staff. Nothing that I say in the course of this debate should be taken as a reflection on the value of their relationships. I rejoice that I live in a liberal democratic country where people have the freedom to make choices about their lifestyles and, as a small as well as large 'l' liberal, I wish that it will ever be so. That freedom is very important. But it has been said in this debate—both today and previously, and I heard Senator Stephens make this point—that the question here is not about the recognition at law of a same-sex relationship, the question is whether that ought to be elevated to the point of marriage.

It may surprise some advocates for this legislation that not all gay people believe that same-sex marriage is necessary for them to feel validated in their relationships. The arguments I put for my opposition to this legislation are, firstly, I am concerned about the legal confusion that remains as the basis for this legislation. I sat through at least part of the inquiry into the legislation through the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee as its deputy chair. I asked a number of witnesses with a legal background what was the constitutional basis on which the federal parliament might legislate for marriage.

Of course, the argument here is that in 1900, when the Constitution was put together, no doubt the men in beards who largely were responsible for that process would have assumed without even thinking about it that the Commonwealth power in section 51 of the Constitution over marriage was a power over the marriage of a man and a woman. So the question arises as to whether, if this concept has changed now to something other than the marriage of a man and a woman, the Constitution still confers power on the Commonwealth to make such a law. I am not only one raising this legal confusion at the present time. I see that a number of state parliaments have been entertaining legislation to enact laws with respect to same-sex marriage. Clearly at least in their view there is an argument that that power does not belong to the Commonwealth. The Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law, in the course of the inquiry, said that the case for the Commonwealth having the power to legislate for same-sex marriage was arguable but subject to some doubt. Other witnesses said flatly that there was no power for the Commonwealth to do this.

Normally if the Commonwealth proceeds to enact a law which is proven subsequently not to be well based constitutionally, the consequences can be messy but not irretrievable. When the Malaysian solution was struck down by the High Court, the greatest harm that was done was to the pride of the minister and, with respect, not much else flowed from that fact.

But in this case there is a very different set of circumstances that arise because if people undertake the act of being married under a law of the Commonwealth which is subsequently found not to be a valid law those marriages obviously fail. I think it is unacceptable for the Commonwealth to put people in the position of undertaking a ceremony of marriage when we do not know whether that act is in fact underpinned by the law of the land. This matter could be resolved by an amendment to the Constitution and I would invite those who advocate for same-sex marriage to consider proposing such an amendment to make it clear that that power exists. But in the meantime it is unsafe to pass legislation which may not survive challenge in the High Court because of the implications for those who undertake the ceremony believing that they may have a legal right to undertake a marriage.

The second point is one that has been picked up by earlier comments, that we are now dealing only with the symbolism of this relationship, not with the substance of rights. For many centuries the church administered marriage and the church conferred rights on people by virtue of their decision to marry each other. In recent centuries the state became involved because it saw that some people were being denied rights that could only be conferred by marriage, and a state version of marriage was enacted. In much more recent years the state has decided to remove the special attributes and rights that are attributable to a marriage and confer them on other sorts of relationships, such as people in de facto heterosexual relationships and, indeed, other forms of relationships including same-sex relationships.

I asked witnesses before the Senate inquiry if they could identify any rights which a person in a same-sex relationship did not enjoy today with respect to such things as superannuation or anything else that were enjoyed by a person in a married relationship and the witnesses indicated they needed to take the question on notice to go and find something that they considered might not put people in the same position. In fact, substantively we have removed discrimination on that basis. So the only thing that remains is the symbolism of the title 'marriage'. I believe that the state should now return that institution back to religion, back to the churches who administer it. If the state wants to sanctify or sanction or give special status to other relationships, it should find another term for that. It should leave marriage in the purview of the church, or religion to be more precise, where it belonged for at least a millennium.

Finally, I want to address an issue which has been raised in the course of the debate particularly by the Greens. It is the criticism of the fact that the coalition has not afforded members and senators a conscience vote on this issue. I want to remind senators that until a few months ago it was the position of both major parties — perhaps it was the position of the Greens as well; I am not entirely sure — that there should be a party position on this issue to which every elected member of that party had to subscribe by virtue of being a parliamentary representative of that party. From 2003 at least, I think, that was the position of the Australian Labor Party. At the last election every member of the Labor Party stood for election on the basis that they were using their vote in the federal parliament to ensure that a traditional definition of marriage, as between a man and a woman, would remain.

I accept the Labor Party has changed its position. I regret that on reasons of keeping faith with the electors but that is a matter for them. But I do not wear criticism from the Australian Greens about that matter because they know that if the Labor Party imposed a party line on this matter and did not allow a conscience vote in all likelihood the position of the Australian Labor Party would be that they would support unanimously — so every man and every woman in the parliamentary party would be voting in favour of — same-sex marriage, because that clearly is the majority viewpoint within the Australian Labor Party. It was reportedly only the intervention of the Prime Minister at the Labor Party conference earlier this year, which was heading towards a party line in favour of same-sex marriage, that prevented the party having that position. If the Labor Party had had a position in favour of same-sex marriage and every member had had to support that position, would the Greens have been complaining about that? I very much doubt it, because it would have delivered them the numbers to pass this bill. They would have been very happy with that position. They are unhappy about the fact that the coalition does not have a conscience vote because the Labor Party does have it, and it does not give them the numbers to pass this legislation, so it is as simple as that.

I am comfortable standing behind the position that I took to the last election and I note that of all the members that the ACT elected to the federal parliament, all of whom said at the election that they would oppose same-sex marriage, I am the only one who still holds to the position that I took to the electorate and I believe this reflects what is an appropriate compact with the people of the ACT from that election. I urge the Senate to reject this legislation.

John Madigan (Victoria, Democratic Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to make clear from the start that marriage between a man and a woman is a unique social institution. It is in essence different from a same-sex union. Redefining marriage to include same-sex unions is to completely empty the concept of marriage of any real meaning. Marriage has been understood throughout history and until now in Australian law as protecting the commitment of a man and a woman to live exclusively and permanently as husband and wife and, more importantly, to protect the children of that relationship.

This reflects the view of marriage not only in Western society but across societies and cultures of the whole of recorded human history. Whilst some ancient civilisations acknowledged homosexual activity, they did not pretend it was marriage. Marriage remained the union of a man and a woman. It has been suggested that the law as it stands is unjust in discriminating against same-sex couples by not allowing them to marry. If instead of marriage we use an example of a more recent institution, democracy, would it be suggested that the law as it stands is unjust in discriminating against non-Australians by not allowing them to participate in federal elections? Are non-Australians the same as Australians: human beings with equal worth? Of course they are, but they cannot stand for parliament. Are non-Australians less capable of choosing an elected representative? No, certainly not, but they cannot vote in elections. Do non-Australians have less desire for the principles of freedom or justice? No; they often desire that more than we do, but they cannot serve in our defence forces or on juries.

We have laws and rules determining under what conditions someone can participate in our democratic procedures, and upholding those principles is not discriminatory to non-Australians. To do otherwise, to change the most fundamental rule that non-Australians cannot fully participate in our democracy, would be to destabilise our democratic system, and the term 'democracy' would eventually become worthless—in fact, meaningless. That is what is happening to marriage. The very basis of the institution is threatened with becoming meaningless by changing its most fundamental rule that marriage is between a man and a woman.

It may appear to be unjust to discriminate against people on the basis of age, religion, race or sex, but there are many circumstances in which we do discriminate, and quite logically. Age is relevant when it comes to drinking or driving or buying cigarettes. Age and, as mentioned already, citizenship are relevant when voting or when claiming a pension. Sex is obviously relevant in targeting particular healthcare programs such as breast or prostate cancer. Race is relevant when administering programs to promote the interests of Indigenous people, and gender is relevant when determining marriage.

Whilst I believe that all human beings should be treated justly and with dignity, it is not discrimination to maintain that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is simple recognition of the unique character of that relationship. It is an insult to suggest, as some have done in the context of this debate, that those Australians who support the traditional understanding of marriage are guilty of a prejudice similar to racism. I am offended by the slurs that have been aimed at some fellow parliamentarians simply because they, like me, do not accept the arguments of those who support this bill. I am as offended as those same accusers would be by accusations that their support for this bill is less about love and quality and more about the deliberate undermining of our social structure. The suggestions that by upholding the timeless institution of marriage we are somehow bigoted and narrow-minded is the epitome of the expression, 'The pot calling the kettle black.'

I am appalled at the vilification of individuals simply because they have expressed the opinion that they are entitled to express under our democratic beliefs. Senators Joyce and Boswell, as well as Joe de Bruyn of the SDA and others are attacked because they stand fast in the defence of their principles. Under the guise of compassion for the desires of same-sex couples, we have endured a non-stop campaign of denigration against those who have refused to buckle under the weight of an attack designed to pour scorn and guilt on those who have the temerity to refuse to deny their principles. An expression or, more rightly, a principle we have all heard in the defence of freedom of speech, often from the Left, is that 'while I may disapprove of what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it'. In this debate I have heard Senator Joyce defending that principle and I have heard Senator Boswell defending those rights. I heard Senator Abetz defending those values with a dignity that should be a lesson to many here. While they and others will fervently dispute the position of those supporting this bill, they would just as surely fight to the death for your right to say it.

What do they receive in return for their steadfast position? Reasoned debate? Respect for their rights? No. They receive vilification, venom and the vilest accusations against their characters. Their statements are twisted or distorted. Is this what we should expect in this chamber even in a debate as passionate as this? If the argument for same-sex marriage is based on love and respect, dignity and equality, then may I suggest that some of those proposing that we accept this bill need to practice a bit more of what they are claiming to preach.

Retaining the definition of marriage as it now stands in the Marriage Act is not unjust, nor is it unfair discrimination. It is a requirement of justice and the common good that we treat different cases differently. Marriage between a man and a woman is different from other relationships. It is a unique relationship which involves a commitment of the spouses to pledge permanence and exclusivity to each other and which has a special link to children. It is different from friendship. Marriage is different from same-sex unions because no matter how we define marriage, children can only come into existence with the genetic material from a man and a woman. Children can only naturally come into the world from the union of a man and a woman; in any other circumstances, the procreation of children has to be artificially engineered. No other kind of relationship, including relationships between same-sex couples, siblings, close friends, parents and children and so on can be described as marriage because, unlike marriage, they are not unitive and procreative in their very nature.

The second point I would like to make is that love is not and should not be a basis for any legislation. Slogans such as 'equal love' and 'love does not discriminate' are based on a sentimentality that has little to do with love. Marriage, in the legal sense, is not about recognising love. Nowhere in the Marriage Act is the word love even mentioned. The reason the state is involved in marriage is because it is a partnership with social consequences. Marriage is less about the rights of adults than about the rights and responsibilities those adults have towards children of the relationship. While love is not mentioned in the Marriage Act a substantial section is devoted to the legitimation of children.

A more traditional understanding of love is about responsibility. Augustine of Hippo spoke of love being an 'act of the will'. Love is what kicks in when infatuation fades. It is about getting on with the real business of love which involves duty to others. Love is what does the hard yards when the rosiness of infatuation fails. Unfortunately, marriage, as highlighted in popular media, focuses unrealistically on the romantic aspects and has allowed the shedding of its many obligations. The result is that marriage has been reduced to little more than banal sentimentality.

If love is the only criteria, then the sexual orientation of the two people in the relationship is irrelevant. It is not the role of the state to legislate for love. It cannot be measured; it cannot be enforced. If marriage is just about love or if it is about love together with sexual expression then it cannot be limited to a man and a woman. Two men or two women might love each other, or any number. A combination of men and women may love each other, as in polygamous and polyamorous unions. These permutations and combinations are not marriage. Using love and sex to define marriage reduces marriage to an ambiguous relationship which can mean whatever the parties choose it to mean. This sort of ambiguity leads to confusion and instability. Is this the path we wish for our society?

The current Marriage Act is not concerned with love; it is concerned with responsibilities. No responsibility is more serious than the responsibility for children. When considering marriage, the wellbeing of children should be front and centre. Marriage between a man and a woman protects the rights of children. It respects the right of children to know and live in a relationship with both their biological mother and father. Marriage between a man and a woman provides children with access to their genetic, social and cultural heritage.

While the situation of individual marriages may not always be ideal, children have the best opportunities when they are raised by married biological parents. Yes, there are numerous examples of childless marriages or marriages that end in separation as well as the numerous single parent families in our society today. However, none of these started with the premise that a child would be conceived, be born and grow in the absence of one or both biological parents. The same cannot be said for same-sex relationships. Same-sex relationships undermine the rights of the child to know its biological identity and to form relationships with its biological parents. They deny a child the right to know its mother and its father. Raising children in a same-sex relationship is a recent phenomenon, and we do not know the future consequences for the individual or for society. I believe this is a matter of serious social concern and we ought to err on the side of caution rather than launch the greatest social experiment of our time.

Same-sex unions are far from being the sole contributors to the phenomenon of surrogacy, but the legalisation of same-sex marriage will almost inevitably increase the recourse to surrogacy. Surrogacy is another means of denying the child its rights to its biological, cultural and social heritage. Equally disturbing is the recruiting of poor women in countries such as India to act as surrogate mothers for First World couples. The horrors that some of these women face were outlined in a recent article in the Age newspaper. Such practices exploit poor and vulnerable women and create a class of culturally and biologically displaced children.

The proposed changes to the Marriage Act are an inversion of the purpose of the state sanctioning marriage as a means of protecting children. The introduction of same-sex marriage will make adults rather than children the focus of the legislation. The focus will be on the desires of adults and children will be reduced to chattels. What I suggest is that the proposed changes to the Marriage Act are less to do with sanctioning love, but rather a massive social experiment.

In the recent past, marriage was often used as a vehicle for ideological and social manipulation. Communist nations denounced marriage as a bourgeois institution for the oppression of women and children. Those attempts may have gained short-lived success—under duress—but ultimately failed. However, what those regimes hoped was that by manipulating and distorting the concept of marriage they could shape society in a manner reflecting their respective ideologies. To destroy or distort marriage was to destroy the moral and social obligations incumbent upon raising a family and thereby to destroy the very nature of society.

We now see marriage again recruited at the service of propaganda. Moves for same-sex marriage are not about recognising equal love—that is not the purpose of the Marriage Act. They are about suggesting that same-sex relationships are the same as heterosexual relationships. We can delude ourselves into believing many things, but our delusions should not be allowed to shape reality. The reality is that marriage, as traditionally understood for centuries across all cultures, can only be between a man and a woman.

I will conclude as I began—that is, to restate that marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, with a focus on responsibility for the raising of children. To define marriage in any other way is to undermine those who have lived these ideals and to betray the fundamental right of children to know and live with their biological parents. As such I will not be supporting the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) Bill 2012.

Lin Thorp (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Equality before the law is surely a fundamental tenet of any great society—a society where every citizen feels truly valued and respected, where every member of our community is able to go about their day to day lives in the comfort and knowledge that they are looked upon no less than any other person because of inherent traits of their humanity; a society that promotes social cohesion and justice for all.

Governments, parliaments and courts should never be in the business of denying citizens their basic right to be treated equally among their peers. The struggle for equal rights, for full recognition of citizenship and to wipe out the scourge of discrimination has never been an easy one. Every milestone that has been reached has come with bitter opposition. More often than not several attempts to remove discrimination have had to be made before change has come about. The entrenched forces of the status quo are often hard to weed out and it takes community campaigns and dedicated crusaders many years to realise the outcome of their cause.

In 1902 Australia become only the second country in the world to grant women the right to vote at a national level and the first to allow women to stand for parliament. At the time much of the opposition to this change centred on the fear that a happily married man would be effectively given two votes—that of his own and that of his wife. After all, a woman could not be expected to show an understanding or appreciation of such important matters as voting. No, she could be expected to dutifully follow the instructions of her husband. Many feared this would put single men at a disadvantage.

Yet at the same time that enfranchisement was expanded to women, it was specifically removed for indigenous Australians and those citizens with Asian, African or Pacific Islander background with the exception of Maori people. The legendary Tasmanian politician King O'Malley reasoned at the time:

An Aboriginal is not as intelligent as a Maori. There is no scientific evidence that he is a human being at all.

We have seen great strides forward since that time. In the last 110 years our nation has removed discrimination and equalised our laws in many fields. We have repeatedly risen to the challenge and resolved debates that posed many questions about our core values and the manner in which we organise our society. Many of these changes overturned thousands of years of doctrine that ran to the bedrock of the foundations of our society. Today too many of us take these cherished rights for granted. For example, in 1907 the judgement that established the right to a basic wage was handed down. In 1946 the Australian people voted in a referendum to allow the Commonwealth to grant through legislation a basic set of economic rights—that the sick, the elderly, the infirm, the unemployed, war veterans and widows should not be forced to live in poverty due to circumstances out of their control.

We also played a significant role in the international development of human rights. In 1967, just 45 years ago, we finally decided to right a heinous wrong and treat our native populations as human beings with the full right of citizenry. It took us 66 years of Federation to recognise their connection to country that had been evident enough to them for more than 40,000 years. Then, like today, popular opinion was overwhelmingly on the side of change. Indeed, if anything, the change in public opinion forced political decision makers to catch up.

In 1972 we signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In 1975 Australia ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Whitlam government successfully passed the Racial Discrimination Act, a piece of legislation that received bitter resistance then, and it would appear there are some, even to this day, even in this parliament, who would like to see it revoked.

In 1981 we established the first Australian Human Rights Commission. In 1983 we ratified the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and in 1984 we passed the Federal Sex Discrimination Act. In 1991 Australia adopted the First Operational Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which granted individuals a right to complain directly to the UN Human Rights Committee if they believed their rights had been violated. The first Australian to do so was a Tasmanian, Nick Toonen. The United Nations Human Rights committee ultimately agreed with his complaint that Tasmania's criminal code violated his right to privacy by criminalizing his sexual preference. In 1992 we passed the Disability Discrimination Act and appointed a Disability Discrimination Commissioner.

Today we are considering yet again whether we should remain in the past and continue to practice discrimination against those in our community who we deny the right to marry. Do we continue to discriminate simply because it has until now been that way, or do we open our hearts and support yet another change in our laws to promote equality, tolerance and respect—another step towards a fully inclusive society that we can all be proud of? I can find no logical argument for continuing to impose legislative discrimination specifically to deny the human rights of our fellow citizens.

Denying marriage equality is discrimination, plain and simple. There is no way around this basic truth and it must end. I implore the Senate to look at our history of adaptation and change and to grant and not deny our fellow citizens their rights.

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This debate is not about the right to love or the right to be loved, because both rights are undeniable and irrevocable. The debate is about the definition of 'marriage' under the Marriage Act. I strongly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and I strongly believe that the definition under the Marriage Act should not be changed. I oppose this bill.

Mark Furner (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak against the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 and I do so in support of the Prime Minister's position in opposing any changes to the Marriage Act and to reiterate her position when she was quoted as saying:

My position flows from my strong conviction that the institution of marriage has come to have a particular meaning and standing in our culture and nation and should continue unchanged.

During the debate and leading up to the debate I have listened to the opinions and the delivery of responses to the opinions of people, whether they be pro equal marriage or opposed to it, and it disturbs me that some of those views and opinions have been expressed and stereotyped in a sickening manner towards people whether they are pro or anti equal marriage.

When it comes to stereotyping I also use as an example the issues associated with the rallies in Sydney recently where people turned to stereotype Muslims who were involved in those rallies. Not every Muslim in this country is a terrorist or an activist or is involved in that sort of activity. As a government we have certainly condemned the actions of those extremists involved in those particular rallies in Sydney recently, and I would think that we are mature enough as a government to recognise and respect the views of everyone who has a position and an opinion when it comes to marriage equality. Once again, regardless of whether those opinions are in support of marriage equality or against marriage equality, we should respect those opinions.

Consultation started on this issue last year when a motion was put in the lower house that people should go out into their communities and consult widely with people from a range of areas—churches, the public, organisations et cetera—about this particular issue of marriage equality. Although that was not a motion that was binding on the Senate, I took it upon myself to do that. As I travelled around my five duty seats and beyond, I found a wide range of views, and I would suggest that overwhelmingly those views were against marriage equality and supported the true condition of marriage between a man and a woman.

In fact, because I have a strong relationship with the Muslim community in Brisbane, I met with a number of Muslims and I attended a mosque and spoke to the leaders there. Just recently I received an email from Imam Yusuf Peer, the chairperson of the Council of Imams in Queensland. He says:

Emphatically, Islam forbids same sex marriage and regards it as a violation of the commands of God.

Marriage is universally known to be between a man and a woman, not between a man and a man or between a woman and a woman. Marriage in Islam, as in all divine religions, does not mean sexual enjoyment only but also the establishment of a family on hygienic and safe foundations.

Sexual and reproductive acts are exclusive to the two parties who come together in holy matrimony, and therefore Same-Sex marriage is not considered legal in Islam.

So when we hear proponents, whether for or against same-sex marriage, relating this to Christianity, unfortunately they are wrong—it relates beyond Christianity to other religions in our society.

Throughout the debate on this legislation there has been an assertion that there is discrimination against sexual orientation and gender identity. In fact, some states have discrimination laws stating these attributes are protected. Opposing same-sex marriage is not an exercise in discrimination nor is it a hurtful belief. If people have genuine beliefs as to what marriage is and its role in the regeneration of society, the people holding these beliefs should not be subject to accusations of discrimination and homophobia. I actually went to the online dictionary and looked up the definition of homophobia, and it states 'intense hatred or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality'.

I personally—and I am sure this is the same for every senator and every member in this parliament—do not hate or fear gay people, lesbians or people who are involved in their choice. It disturbs me that people label those who hold the opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman as being homophobic—because we are not. I do not fear gay people and I do not hate them. I think they are people just like you and me. They have a choice as to what their desire is in relation to their sexual orientation. That is their choice and that should be respected.

As a prior union official I dealt with many discrimination cases in my nearly 20 years of looking after members' interests. Throughout my career I dealt with many matters of discrimination, including sexual discrimination, sexual harassment and discrimination on the grounds of matrimony and race. One case I recall that relates to this particular issue was when a gay man working for an airline company approached me with concerns and his fellow workmates were also concerned about his treatment in the workplace. I made the suggestion that they should firstly raise it with their management and try to reach a solution in that manner, as a disputes procedure in most awards and agreements apply. They tried that and it did not work. So it then became apparent that the only way to fix this was to have the dispute escalated and have some involvement with the union.

I personally got involved with that dispute. It was a difficult dispute because it was union member against member. The union member who was discriminating against the gay man was also a member of the same union. Nevertheless, on the right side of law—that is, protecting those who are discriminated against—we found ourselves in a situation where we were defending the gay man and not the supervisor who was discriminating against him. In the end the supervisor was relieved of his position as a supervisor in that company and the dispute was resolved.

I will not cover some of the commentary that has already been dealt with. Senator Madigan spoke about discrimination in other forms. There are many, and I am familiar with those in the Queensland Anti-Discrimination Act as well.

The other point I wanted to turn to was human rights. I have heard—though have not been convinced—that proponents of same-sex marriage believe this is a human rights issue. In fact, Father Frank Brennan, AO, former chairman of the National Human Rights Consultative Committee and an expert on discrimination, made reference to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, which came into effect in Australia on 13 November 1980. Article 23 of the ICCPR provides that:

1. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

2. The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized.

3. No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

4. States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children.

The European Court of Human Rights has, in the past three years, twice stated that there is no human rights for same-sex marriage.

Father Frank Brennan has also written:

Instead of stating 'All persons have the right to marry', the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides: 'The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognised.' The Covenant asserts: 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.'

He also says:

I believe our parliamentarians should maintain this distinction, for the good of future children, while ensuring equal treatment for same sex couples through the legal recognition of civil unions.

In considering whether to advocate a change to the definition of marriage, citizens need to consider not only the right of same sex couples to equality but even more so the rights of future children.

The State has an interest in privileging group units in society which are likely to enhance the prospects that future children will continue to be born with a known biological father and a known biological mother who in the best of circumstances will be able to nurture and educate them.

That is why there is a relevant distinction to draw between a commitment between a same sex couple to establish a group unit in society and a commitment of a man and a woman to marry and found a family.

I think we can ensure non-discrimination against same sex couples while at the same time maintaining a commitment to children of future generations being born of and being reared by a father and a mother. To date, international human rights law has appreciated this rational distinction.

So, I have not been convinced on the arguments that same-sex marriage should change as it currently stands, and I still hold a fundamental view that the institution of marriage should be between a man and a woman.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be brief in my address on the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012. I realise that this is a sensitive issue. We have heard all sides of the debate for a long period of time now in the Senate this week.

I will not be supporting this legislation. I believe that a marriage is between a man and a woman, and I say that on grounds referring to Senator Furner's remarks. I believe that marriage is a sacrament of the Christian faith; but not only of Christianity—there are also the Jewish and Islamic faiths, as Senator Furner said.

I support, totally, equal rights for same-sex couples. We have had politicians who have a same-sex partner, and those partners deserve the same entitlements as my wife. I believe that when it comes to separations, distribution of assets and superannuation that they should be treated equally. That is certainly the case in Australia. However, I do believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, and I will not be supporting the legislation.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will be supporting the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012 that is before the Senate. I will not speak at length; I think that all of us here appreciate the fact that this bill will fail. I think that this is essentially the direct result of the conscience vote that has been applied to only one side of the chamber.

Some in this chamber may see this as a second-order issue. Some will say that blue-collar people are not interested in these moral issues. I disagree. Similar things were once said about the apology to the Stolen Generations. However, once the apology was made it became a defining moment in the history of the 42nd Parliament. In that case, Labor saw the need and Labor acted. It highlights the fact that in the great public debates, attitudes change.

So let me explain the context in which I approach this bill. I take the view that our party has been involved in Australian parliamentary politics now for over 120 years. Throughout that time we have relied upon a fundamental premise of operations. That was summed up by one of Labor's earliest parliamentary representatives, George Black, when he talked about Labor's role as being 'the making and the unmaking of social conditions'. I know there is a view in some quarters that the same-sex marriage campaign is part of some elaborate left-wing plot to shake the foundations of capitalist society. It is argued that the legal recognition of same-sex marriage will undermine the family and social morality. I just do not share that anxiety. And, frankly, I do not think that the Left is that clever, to actually pursue these grand conspiracies!

This is a bill that involves the redefinition of the role of a secular institution—that is, the state regulated institution of marriage. It does not involve any issue of religious freedom. It is about the decision of the state to recognise the decisions of individuals to participate in that secular institution.

When it comes to morality, no-one in this place has a monopoly. The concept of role models has been given particular emphasis in the debate around this bill and these issues. But, of course, there is no monopoly—not only in terms of morality but on when it comes to making the perfect family, making the perfect parent or making the perfect citizen. And we certainly cannot legislate for perfection in human relationships.

Times will change and cultural mores will change. What I am certain of is that social institutions will adapt, as they have throughout human history. Marriage as a social institution has changed dramatically over time—on questions of race, for instance, and on questions of age. Similarly, the state's attitude to marriage has changed. We no longer allow the marriage of 12-year-olds and, of course, we no longer sanction violence in marriage. It takes a particularly ahistorical amnesia to ignore the march of progress.

However, while society is constantly changing, there are values that, in my judgement, endure. In the 18th century the proponents of the Enlightenment argued that human rights were inalienable. In modern political theory it is affirmed that the state does not grant human rights but has the task of preserving them and that a state that does not fulfil its responsibilities is rightly ostracised. One of the lasting legacies of the Enlightenment has been the seminal documents of modern political thought—for instance, the Bill of Rights penned in 1789. It has long impressed me that in the 18th century political leaders, such as Thomas Jefferson, had the greatness to see the pursuit of human happiness as a self-evident right. These are sentiments that to my mind are as relevant today as they were in the 18th century.

If the pursuit of human happiness was a legitimate aspiration of the state back then, surely we can have the wit and wisdom to see that the same principle should be pursued in matters such as the state regulation of marriage. For me, parliament should be the place from where we contribute to the building of a society in which all are equal and in which diversity is respected, a society in which citizens have equal rights and responsibilities. There is a special role for Labor in this mission. While we have no franchise on ethical behaviour, Labor does have a responsibility to defend civil rights. It can be said that Labor has not always fulfilled its responsibilities—and when we have done so we have let this country down as a consequence. When Labor does not speak, the voiceless go unheard. When Labor does not act, the friendless suffer the most. Our history affirms this to be so. Whatever our failings on this matter, though, Labor does have a great history of extending social and human rights.

At the ALP National Conference in December last year I supported the national platform change on this matter. A month ago I reaffirmed my position to the relevant policy committee of the Victorian branch of the ALP on this matter. I made the following point, which I wish to reiterate here today:

Labor has a strong record in progressing the cause of the excluded, the marginalised and the vulnerable, dating back to the earliest days of our movement.

Labor legislated against discrimination on the basis of race, disability, age or sex.

That legacy has continued in the life of this government, through 84 pieces of legislation.

I digress here. I think we should acknowledge the extraordinary work of Robert McClelland in that achievement. I went on to say:

This great Labor tradition—our efforts to end discrimination in our workplaces, in our communities and in our homes—I believe extends to marriage.

I will therefore be supporting this bill.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make a brief contribution to this debate on the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012. I would like to place on record my views on this bill and all the other bills currently before the parliament seeking to change the definition of marriage. In short, I strongly support the coalition position that marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

Marriage is an institution. It is an institution with a special status in the context of our very longstanding societal values. It is the institution in our society which provides the framework for the creation and nurture of children. I want to place on record that I support the view that children deserve to have the opportunity, all other things being equal, to grow up with both a mother and a father. I understand that not everybody shares that view, but certainly that is very much my view and it is a view which informs my judgement in relation to bills like the one we are debating here today.

Back in 2004 the coalition enshrined in the Marriage Act the definition of marriage, as it has always been understood for time immemorial, as a union between a man and a woman. That is a position we have reconfirmed in the lead-up to every election since, as did the current government at successive elections. I understand that there is a diversity of views on this issue across the community. I very much respect those members of the government who, in the context of what has been a pretty robust debate, have actually stood up for what they believe in when it comes to the importance of maintaining the value and the definition of marriage as it is currently enshrined in our legislation.

With those few words, consistent with my commitment to keep my comments on this particular piece of legislation brief, I reconfirm that I am opposed to this bill or any other bill currently before the parliament which seeks to change the definition of marriage. I very strongly support the definition of marriage as it stands.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Speaking to Marriage Amendment Bill (No.2) 2012, I am opposed to it. I have a deep-seated belief that marriage is between a man and a woman exclusively. Marriage is a specific relationship between a man and a woman that cannot be replicated, mimicked nor aped by trying to redefine some other form of relationship as marriage.

There are a range of relationships that people enter into in our broader community. Some of those relationships are private matters between the individuals concerned, and I tolerate them in so much as people have a free will to enter such relationships as they choose. But it does not mean that I have to accept or support those relationships.

Legislating to change the definition of marriage cannot and will not change my long-held beliefs. Nor will it change the views of many others who share my views. To decry my views is to seek to discriminate against me and my beliefs. I utterly reject the offensive language of some of those supporting the bill that people who share my views are 'discriminatory' or 'homophobic'. This is absolute nonsense of the first order and is a desperate resort to try and isolate those who do not share their views.

It is patently wrong to say that those in same-sex relationships are being discriminated against. Even within the context of international conventions and Australian law, there are no grounds to say that same-sex couples are being discriminated against. It is worthy of note that, under a Labor government lead by former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, some 84 Commonwealth acts were amended to remove any discrimination that might exist for same-sex couples living together. The Marriage Act was not identified as one of those acts. And as for human rights, there is absolutely no evidence that there is any breach of anyone's rights by retaining the current definition of marriage.

Whilst marriage over time has taken some knocks in the way different societies have treated it, it still remains the fundamental organisational unit around which society is organised and will remain so. No stable, credible alternative form of societal organisation has been found to it.

I am somewhat appalled at the prospect, if the bill were to be passed, of religious schools and institutions who do not subscribe to the alternative definition being the subject of vilification because they do not want to act contrary to their own beliefs. This transgresses the boundary of reasonableness and tolerance in a pluralist society. Whilst the sop from the proponents of the bill is to exempt ministers of religion from performing a marriage as defined under their bill, it does nothing to protect the extensive network of schools and institutions run by religious organisations to uphold their own values within the institutions without being subject to legal action and further legislation which conflicts with their mores.

I support fully the dissenting report by individual Labor Senators Furner, Polley, Bilyk, Sterle, Stephens, Gallacher and Bishop in the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee report dated 25 June 2012. I will oppose this bill.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern and Remote Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment Bill (No.2) 2012. Two of my wife's and my best friends are a gay couple who have lived in a loving, caring, committed relationship for over 35 years. No change of the definition of the word marriage will ever impact on that relationship. In their own eyes, in mine and in the eyes of most Australians, they are no less equal than any other Australians because of the definition of marriage. I believe that marriage is a union between men and women and for that reason and for other reasons that I will very briefly mention, I will not be supporting the bill.

I have listened to many of the speeches in this chamber over the last three days, many of those speeches from both sides of the argument have been thoughtful and sincere. In particular, I note two very fine speeches just this morning from Senators Humphries and Madigan. Because of time constraints on this bill, I will not be repeating the arguments of others.

Prior to the last election, we promised to restore fairness to returned servicemen with their pension issues, and people voted for us because of that promise. We made good our promise by introducing a private member's bill to honour that commitment we made.

We also promised at the last election that we would oppose a carbon tax if it were ever to be introduced by the Labor Party. We and all other Australians were assured by the leader and deputy leader of the Labor Party that there would be no carbon tax. People voted for us and they voted for the Labor Party on the basis of that promise that there would be no carbon tax. We, at the next election, will promise to repeal the carbon tax and, if we win, we will repeal it because we will make a promise and we will honour that promise.

We promised also before the last election and previous elections not to interfere with the time-honoured and Christian definition of marriage, and so did the Labor leader. People voted for us and they also voted for Labor senators in this chamber on the basis of that promise that both parties would not countenance a change in the definition. So today's debate is really not about fairness, equity or principles; it is a matter of trust. Australians expect that, if their leaders and political parties make promises, they will honour those promises. Today in opposing this bill, again we are honouring the promise we made to the Australian people; we are honouring our policy commitment, which I supported then and support now; and we are discharging a commitment we made for which people voted for us.

With the Australian economy in tatters and with $120 billion worth of unfunded promises, we find that for three days, instead of discussing those issues, we are discussing this issue, which, as I say, is nothing about principles, equality or lack of human rights for gay people; it is all about pure power. After the Prime Minister promised that her party would oppose this, the Greens have come along and said, 'We will withdraw our support for your government and you won't be Prime Minister anymore unless you allow this bill to go ahead.' So, for pure power reasons—it is all about power—just to remain as Prime Minister, the Prime Minister will trash any promise she makes where it does not suit her interest.

As I say, I will not be supporting this. I will be honouring the commitment that my party made. I will be honouring the policy we took—a policy which I agree with and which I adopted. I was happy to go to at least the last two federal elections making that commitment. It accords with my beliefs and I will not be supporting the bill.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, in speaking on the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012, I thank those senators who have contributed in a respectful and thoughtful way to what is a complex and highly contested issue. I am particularly proud that the Labor senators have handled themselves in such a respectful way in dealing with this issue; I think both sides have conducted the debate in an appropriate way. I also thank those Liberal and Green senators who sought to do the same thing. I think this parliament has a great history in recent years of dealing with these issues in a mature, respectful way, be they issues to do with euthanasia, the RU486 debate or what have you. I think we have dealt with it really well. I think this is, though, the first time where one of the parties has not been allowed a conscience vote. As we know, the Liberal and National parties have on this occasion not allowed their members to exercise a conscience vote. I am very proud that the Labor Party has given that right to its senators as well as, of course, its members in the other House.

I also want to make the point that I think this government's record of ending discrimination against gay and lesbian people is one of its proudest achievements. I know that when I was shadow defence minister I ran up against the terrible discrimination that still existed in the mid-2000s against gay and lesbian people inside the Defence Force. Issues such as housing, transfers and superannuation were all impacted by the terrible discrimination against the quite large numbers of people who made a contribution to the defence of this nation. It was a blight on Australian democracy, and I am pleased to say that the work led by then Attorney-General Robert McClelland saw an end to much of that discrimination and that the parliament supported an end to that discrimination in a bipartisan way. I think that was very appropriate.

I do want to briefly refer to Senator Bernardi's comments, because I think it is important that people make it clear that they regarded—certainly I regard—those comments as outrageous, hurtful, bigoted and reflecting a prejudice that has no place in a modern Australia. I think his remarks were terribly insulting to gay and lesbian people. Hundreds of gay and lesbian people work in this parliament, and I am sure they were all offended and hurt by the comments. Tens of thousands of Australian gay and lesbian people would be hurt and offended by those comments. That sort of denigration and lowering of the debate has done him no good and, quite frankly, has brought an edge to this debate that was absolutely unnecessary and, as I say, not reflective of the contributions other senators have been making.

Senator Bernardi has, unfortunately, a reputation for association with the lunatic fringe of the right wing of politics in this country. We have heard his comments on issues from climate change to the wearing of burqas to the attack on the religion of Islam, all of which have reflected a prejudice and an encouragement of some of the lunacy and hatreds that exist in our society and internationally. As I say, I think his support for some of those groups and their contributions has been quite outrageous.

I think the other point to make in that regard is that Mr Abbott, in dealing with that issue, failed the test of leadership. He never condemned Senator Bernardi's remarks in the way that he should have. I think the real question here is not why Senator Bernardi was dismissed, or why his resignation was accepted. The question is why he was ever appointed. Mr Abbott made him his personal parliamentary secretary—his representative—knowing the sort of view he has expressed over many years.

Nigel Scullion (NT, Country Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's why he sacked him.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, he appointed him knowing those views. These views have been articulated by Senator Bernardi on a range of subjects for many years, and Mr Abbott made the decision to make him his personal representative—his personal parliamentary secretary. I think the handling of the so-called resignation of Senator Bernardi again calls into question again Mr Abbott's judgement. I read that he really did not sack Senator Bernardi for what he said, but thought that the offence of interrupting Christopher Pyne on radio was serious, or that the issue of a lack of discipline was the cause of his having to go. I think it is of huge concern that it took Malcolm Turnbull and Joe Hockey to make clear their repugnance at the remarks he made and Mr Abbott did not seem to express the same comments. In fact, he praised Senator Bernardi, thanked him for his resignation and seemed more focused on the issues of the processes rather than on the original remarks.

I speak in support of the bill. It is a view I have come to over the last few years that we ought to support the right of gay and lesbian people to marry. I think that, like many in the community, I have been on a bit of a journey in this regard. I have been very focused for many years on the question of supporting equal rights for gay and lesbian people and I am glad to see we have made huge progress in that regard. I suppose, like many, I took a view that it was much more important that we resolved issues like fair entitlement to superannuation for people living in a same-sex relationships and their treatment under the law in a whole range of respects that had been denied to them. But I stopped short, as many of us have and do, on the question of whether we should allow gay and lesbian people to marry. I suppose I did it on the basis that I did not see it as a discrimination but more as a respect for those of religious beliefs who saw marriage through that light as very much a union between a man and a woman. My view was: 'Why not respect that? Why not allow recognition of same-sex marriages but not go the full extent of supporting gay marriage?' My view was that that was an appropriate balance of the views in the community and allowed the gay and lesbian people to have the proper respect for their relationship without going as far as the question of marriage.

But I must say that view has changed. A couple of things have led me to that view. I have heard from friends of mine who have expressed the view as gay or lesbian couples that they wanted the right to marry and that it was important to them. I may not have understood how important it was to many of those people that they had that opportunity. Many others will choose not to seek to marry, but those who do want to see it as a real discrimination against them, and I have come to understand how strongly many feel about that. That has influenced my thinking.

But in the end I suppose it comes down to a balance of judgement. In preparing for this speech I actually reread some of John Stuart Mill because he, the great liberal thinker, had a lot to say on issues of liberty. I know it is generally more a reference for Liberal members of parliament than the Labor members of parliament to look at John Stuart Mill's writings, but in looking at them again they reminded me of the tests he recommended we apply when looking at questions of individual liberty—tests such as recognition of the desire to pursue the greatest happiness for people, the assertion of individual liberty, the principle of not interfering with a person's liberty unless they were doing harm to others and the opposition to any tyranny of the majority. All of these concepts, which were at the heart of his thinking, I sought to think through in terms of this debate. It brought home to me the importance of the principles at the heart of this debate and, for me, in the end it comes down to: what harm does it do to opposite-sex partners who are married to give the right to marry to gay and lesbian people? As a person who is married, I can see no harm. It seems to me it does my marriage no harm to extend to gay and lesbian people access to the right to marry. I know it upsets people's sensibilities. I know it upsets their religious beliefs or is in contrast to their religious beliefs but I cannot see how it does them harm. It seems to me that then to deny the liberty of gay and lesbian couples to marry cannot be justified. Why should they not be able to pursue happiness? Why should they not be able to have their relationships recognised in the same way? Why should they be denied the liberties that we straight people, for want of a better word, enjoy? When I think all those things through, I certainly come to the view that it would be discriminatory to deny gay and lesbian people the right to marry if they want to.

And so I have come to that view. It was certainly reinforced at a party last year to celebrate the engagement of one of my wife's nephews. One of the other nephews discussed with me the fact that he and his long-term partner, who live in a gay relationship, were considering travelling to Canada, where they would be allowed to marry. It struck me that this was a terrible situation where, to have the recognition they sought for their relationship, they would have to leave the country, to marry in a foreign country, without the attendance of their friends and family, a country they had never visited before—all in order to validate and have recognition of their relationship. I thought that is not a good place for Australia to be. It is not a good place to be where Australian citizens feel they have to go overseas, to a foreign country, in order to allow them the sort of recognition they seek for their relationship. That is just one of the interactions I have had with gay and lesbian people which confirmed for me that the balance of the recognition of their rights, of their liberties and of their love for and commitment to each other should not be denied because of the objections or the sensibilities of others in the community, however strongly held they may be.

I am pleased to support the legislation. I do not think this issue will go away. If this bill is defeated, I think the parliament will deal with this issue again in the next term of parliament. But I do respect the views of all senators on this issue and, as I say, with a few exceptions, I applaud the standard of the debate and the respect and tolerance that people have brought to the subject. But, for me, I think the rights of gay and lesbian people to marry are important—important to them and important to justice in our society, and the passage of this legislation would end the remaining legal discrimination against gay and lesbian people.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012. The time for the discussion has been somewhat limited but I wish to place on record my brief remarks, given the importance of this matter. I will be voting against the bill. I think it is important to recognise that this discussion is not about the comparative value of people in the gay, lesbian and bisexual community. It is about how we define marriage and why. It is also not an issue of human rights. Twice, in fact as recently as March this year, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled that same sex marriage is not a human rights issue.

Why should the government care about marriage? Hugh Mackay writes in his book titled Reinventing Australia:

Families are still seen as having the potential to provide the emotional security of permanent relationships, as well as a strong sense of identity arising from those relationships.... Family life is thought to teach us important lessons about loyalty, responsibility and compromise, and many Australians believe the quality of family life is an important index of the quality of life in the wider society.… Families are not necessarily expected to be happy, but they are still seen as one of society’s most precious resources.

The Assistant Secretary for Children and Families in the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Wade Horn, makes a similar case in the United States. He quotes the research by 12 different social scientists who conclude:

… marriage is more than a private emotional relationship. It is also a social good. Not every person can or should marry. And not every child raised outside of marriage is damaged as a result. But communities where good-enough marriages are common have better outcomes for children, women and men than do communities suffering from high rates of divorce, unmarried child bearing, and high-conflict or violent marriages.

So marriage and the family is an important part of the fabric of our community. I am on record a number of times—in the maiden speech in the other place and here, as well as through work I have done previously in the community and on committees in this parliament—saying that I support marriage and support families because of the value that they bring to our community.

For those who are concerned about the separation of church and state and that perhaps some of these views of marriage come predominantly from people of faith, they can go right back to Aristotle, who died in 322 BC. In his view, the social basis of political and ethical life is the free and relatively egalitarian relationship of husband and wife as partners in a common life founded on the cultivation and enjoyment of virtue. Aristotle contends that the dream of a man and woman to form a relationship of friendship and family is deep-seated, saying:

There seems to be a friendship between man and woman by nature.

And so this goes back a long way. It transcends a number of borders in terms of philosophy and religion, and it is an important aspect for our community.

There are precedents where government has made choices, and consanguinity is one that is well established in Australian law. There are also principles to consider here. A number of people have talked about the fact that the coalition is not having a conscience vote on this issue. That is because we went to the election with a promise and a commitment that we would support the current definition of marriage, and we believe it is important not to go back on that as a party. So we will be continuing.

The other principle that I wish to just briefly mention is the important principle of freedom of speech. There has been a lot of discussion about whether comments are appropriate, whether different views are appropriate and whether people should be leaving their world view—and that is particularly aimed at those from the Christian and other faiths—at the door of the parliament. I believe it is important that people recognise that everybody comes to this place with a world view. It does not matter which perspective you come from, you come with a world view. And part of the reason people come here is that they have been elected on the basis of their character, their integrity and what they can add value to, and part of that is their world view. They actually betray people they are supposed to represent if they do not bring those values into here. The important thing is that they should be free and that people in the community should be free to speak their mind, particularly when they are talking about an issue like this, when they are not inciting hatred or inciting harm towards other people, without being shouted down or without reverse discrimination being applied to them.

I think Australia is a poorer place for some of the outcomes we have seen, particularly with a situation like that of Victoria's Deputy Chief Psychiatrist, Mr George, who, along with 150 other doctors, took part in a Senate inquiry advising that children do better with a mum and dad. There is research that supports that, and some would argue that there is research that does not. But the reality is that that was his view. The fact that he was forced out of his position on the Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission and threatened with dismissal from his academic and medical posts is, I think, a sad reflection on the direction that free speech is being taken in Australia.

I think it is important that people do respect others and their rights to express a point of view. I would certainly encourage that with any future debate that occurs on any topic--whether it be one such as this or topics around policy or religion or other issues—people are free to speak their point of view without being shouted down or howled down in an unreasonable manner. I will not be supporting the bill.

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Sustainability and Urban Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this Marriage Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2012. The bill has been introduced by four members of the Labor Party and is very similar to legislation that was introduced and voted on yesterday in the House of Representatives that was quite overwhelmingly defeated by a margin of 98 votes to 42 votes. So I think it is probably worth making the point that, even if this bill was to pass this chamber, it would not succeed in the House of Representatives, based on that vote yesterday.

I am already on the public record as indicating that I oppose same-sex marriage and nothing in the debate that has occurred over this week has allowed me to change my mind in respect of that. As a result, I will not be supporting this legislation and I continue to believe that marriage as it is defined in the Marriage Act, as marriage between one man and one woman, is the appropriate definition of marriage.

I am comforted in that position by reading the dissenting report by individual Labor senators on a similar bill that was introduced by Senator Hanson-Young from South Australia. The senators make a number of points. Firstly, in 2008, discrimination against gay and lesbian couples was removed in the federal parliament in respect of federal legislation. Secondly—and it is worth quoting—they note:

In our view, changing the law so that marriage includes same-sex unions would be to change what marriage means. Currently marriage involves a comprehensive union between a man and a woman. Marriage has a place in law because a relationship between a man and a woman is the kind of relationship that may produce children. Marriage is linked to children, for the sake of children, protecting their identity. It is worthy to note that in California after their legislature experimented with same-sex marriage, the people of California voted against the revisionist concept of marriage.

The additional point that I think is worth making from this report is the issue that relates to human rights. They say at 1.10 in their report:

We do not take as a genuine claim the suggestion that same-sex marriage is a fundamental human right. The European Court of Human Rights has in the past three years twice stated that that there is no human right for same-sex marriage.

We are fortunate on this side of the chamber to have a conscience vote on this issue. This is the first time I have exercised my conscience vote. I feel comfortable that the decision that I have made is the correct one. But I think it is worth making the point that, even if the opposition did have a conscience vote, I do not believe the result of yesterday's ballot, or for that matter of this one today, would be any different. But I do congratulate the Prime Minister for her very strong stand in respect of this issue and the fact that she has put her authority on the line to allow a conscience vote for members of the Labor Party.

Like most of the people in this chamber, I have received lots of communications from members of the public about this issue. I think it is safe to say that the communications that I have received are running two to one against making the change sought by this legislation. Many of the letters, particularly by those who are opposed to the legislation, have been thoughtful and personal letters explaining in their own way why it is that they oppose this change. Often in these sorts of circumstances you get form letters. In this case they have been thoughtful letters explaining why they believe we should not change the definition of marriage.

Mr President, as I said, this has been the first opportunity I have had to exercise a conscience vote in this place. I went to the 2007 election indicating I was opposed to a change to the definition of marriage. That continues to be my position and I will be voting against the bill.