Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very proud to speak to this legislation today as a co-sponsor of the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015. I do this because I believe this is the right thing to do. It is the right thing by me, by my community and by my nation. It will make Australia—and my community—a better, more inclusive place.

On Friday, 4 September, the Wangaratta Chronicle featured the local Anglican bishop, John Parkes AM, in both front page and editorial commentary. The headline was 'Bishop breaks ground' and the editorial was headed, 'Bishop's breath of fresh air'.

This regional paper in the seat of Indi was highlighting that Wangaratta's Anglican bishop has become Australia's first senior Anglican cleric to publicly recognise that same-sex marriage has become inevitable. In common with the rest of the country, many people in the seat of Indi are expressing an urgent sense of the need to reconsider the Marriage Act 1961 along the lines of this legislation. Around two-thirds of the Anglican diocese of Wangaratta lies within the seat of Indi. The bishop has invited his clergy and people to enter into a respectful discussion of marriage equality with each other and with the wider community.

Bishop Parkes' own position is that he hopes for a clear theology of Christian marriage and the blessings of relationships. He said he did not think that such a thing would be 'a betrayal of the Gospel or the end of the world.' The bishop has backed up his views with a substantial six-page document available on the diocese of Wangaratta website.

I raise this matter in the chamber today as a significant example of leadership—leadership that is coming from my electorate of Indi—on this most important community and social issue. I thank the bishop and his colleagues for their well-founded theological contribution to this debate. I commend the fresh thinking indicated in the bishop's contribution to this national discussion.

I believe a distinction can rightly be made between civil and religious marriage. In Australia, however, civil and religious celebrants both act on behalf of the state in precisely the same way: as agents to ensure that appropriate requirements are met and appropriate commitments are made. A religious ceremony does all of these things in the presence of God, asking and receiving God's blessing on the commitment made and the intentions offered. It is up to the various churches and religious traditions to decide for themselves whether and how they may care to respond to these developing understandings and acknowledgement of marriage equality within their own institutions and for their own people. This is a matter for them. No-one is going to force them to do anything.

The Parliament of Australia, however, is here to speak for the whole community and to legislate for the whole community, exercising basic principles of justice, equality and fairness, with appropriate safeguards and protections in place for groups who would not care to move in this way themselves.

It needs to be remembered—and I am happy to do so in this place—that there are many Christians profoundly supportive of marriage equality and who would deeply wish to have the religious or sacramental as part of the public commitment that they would wish to be able to make to each other in the presence of God. This, then, is not able to be characterised as a secular versus religious debate. It is much more complex. In any case, the ground is shifting all the time. The task of the parliament today is to legislate for justice, equality and fairness for all without discrimination.

In closing my comments today, I say to my colleague opposite that I believe that commitment is important, I believe that commitment for a lifetime is important and I believe that a lifetime commitment with legal obligations is one of the foundation blocks of our society. It is this that I am asking for for all my constituents, not just some.

This legislation is a call for all in our community. It is a call which says to all in our community, 'You belong, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. You are important. You are welcome. You can make your commitment—you can make a lifetime commitment with legal obligations in front of your family with the blessing of this parliament.' In particular, I say to Fleetwood and Ivy, 'I'm standing here on your behalf and on behalf of all rural Australians who support marriage equality.'

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I appreciate this opportunity to make a contribution in this debate. It is certainly an issue that has been the subject of extensive comment and, as we know, even controversy. I acknowledge that the views being expressed in this parliament and to me in Bass are sincere and deeply held on both sides of this debate. Some people, as we know, believe that changing marriage policy is desirable and they want it to happen much quicker than it is at the moment. Another large group believes that the current definition of traditional marriage should be retained.

In reflecting on these polarised views, I acknowledge that some aspects of marriage have certainly changed over time. Things like arranged marriages and racial restrictions on marriage have been, quite rightly, struck down. Coverture has also been struck down. Feudal customs, where a woman's rights are subordinated under those of her husband upon marriage, have no place in civilised society. Can I also say, light-heartedly perhaps, that, with a strong wife and two daughters in my home, I sometimes wonder whether coverture has moved too far in the opposite direction! But I digress.

The reason I make that point, though, is to suggest that, whilst marriage has adjusted over time, none of these changes transformed the core meaning of marriage as the union between a single man and a single woman. That has been a feature of every culture across human history. So what is being proposed undoubtedly is a major social change in the lives of many people in my community. I say that not to diminish the other perspectives, which I respect, but simply to emphasise that, for a large component of my community, that core meaning of marriage is as precious as the issue of same-sex marriage is to those who advocate for change.

On 13 July 2015, my local paper, The Examiner, reported on this matter as follows:

LESS than half of Northern Tasmanian voters support same-sex marriage, an exclusive poll reveals.

I have added this information to the substantial feedback that has been provided to me in recent years via surveys and correspondence and meeting with people on both sides of this debate. Undoubtedly, there is strong advocacy on both sides of this issue, but we should make decisions on key social policy issues based not on who is the loudest but on reliable evidence. We must also respect competing perspectives on this issue.

In recent months, I have, I regret to say, received emails, letters and messages critical of opposing views, often in very highly emotive and even pejorative terms. We must respect the views of same-sex marriage proponents, just as we must respect the views of traditional marriage supporters who back the current and longstanding legal definition of marriage. Put simply, the rights of one group cannot be advanced by suppressing the rights of another group. It is not as simple as giving proponents of same-sex marriage the change they desire without in the process trampling the liberties of those on the other side of this debate. Even legal scholars arguing for same-sex marriage recognise that fundamental point. It is worthwhile reading the amici briefs of Douglas Laycock and others in the recent US Supreme Court decision in Obergefell and Hodges.

So the best way to resolve this issue is via a people's vote, which the Prime Minister has foreshadowed for after the next election. The overwhelming feedback I have received is that the Australian people support this approach, not having an outcome imposed on them, as the Labor Party has said it will do. A people's vote after the next election will accurately determine Australia's views on this major social change. It will give constituents in my electorate of Bass and elsewhere around the country the opportunity to express their view.

There is no way that I or any member of this parliament can reflect, through our individual votes, the views that I have just expressed—of those two large and diametrically opposed groups in my community and, I am sure, elsewhere around the country—particularly on an issue of this nature. All voters should have their voices heard on this issue and the people should and will decide, not politicians or a slim majority of judges, as was the case recently in the United States. I thank the House for an opportunity to make a contribution in this debate.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13:36 to 16:01