Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

What I do know as a parent—what I did see evidence of in my married parent status—was the contributions made to my children by me as their father, and their mother. I saw my children over their developing life draw different things from each of us. I saw us make different contributions and I have to say, Senator Rice, that I am not persuaded by the view of an eight-year-old child. I could make the case that, perhaps, their considered contribution may well come at some later time in their life. No eight-year-old I have met could fairly consider the complications of this issue. These children deserve the very best chance to develop in life and to draw upon the strengths of their parents of different genders.

I can quote you much of the correspondence I have been given. You related a dozen or so episodes there of people who have contributed to persuading you to support this legislation. I could, equally, bring some of the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of emails that I have received over recent times from married couples—traditional married couples; men and women—who have urged me as a legislator to resist any moves to change the long-centuries held definition of a man and a woman. It is no accident—again, for me it is an article of faith and for others it is a natural extension—that it takes the man and the woman to create the child. The child, certainly at birth, and for a considerable period of time afterwards, is naturally in a physical sense nourished by their mother. We did not create this. This is an act of nature. But for the many millions of Australians who may well be agnostic on the issue of same-gender couples—let's just for the moment park up sexual descriptions; let's just sit them outside the chamber. Let's refer to two adults who may hold strong affection for each other—I challenge that not.

Many millions of Australians do not want to see the institution of marriage disturbed. At the same time, they are agnostic about measures that might be taken by their legislators, by their governments, or in the progress of public opinion about being able to establish conditions upon which that union may function as a matter of law and equality, without intruding on this long-held institution of marriage.

Four years after the loss of my wife, I met my current partner, Christina. We have now been together for almost five years. We have not, at this point in time, felt the compulsion to get married. Indeed, I would challenge anyone who challenges our love, affection and respect for each other and the commitment that we make as partners in life.

Senator Rice interjecting—

Dear oh dear, I tell you—through you, Mr Acting Deputy Chair—these quips do your cause no service at all. We do not feel the compulsion to take on the title of marriage, and that does not diminish the relationship that Christina and I have. In fact—be it that we are a widow and a widower—in many respects we still feel married with our partners gone. We are still dealing with the commitments for life that we made—a man to a woman, and a woman to a man.

In closing my contribution—I find it fascinating that someone can be laughing over in the corner on a subject that is probably the most important to have come into this chamber since I have been here! In closing, I say this: this institution has more stakeholders than simply the acronym that has been provided by my colleague. It is for children; it is for children yet to be born who have a right to a mother and a father. They have a right, as nature dictates—or convictions held by others from other sources—to grow up in a balanced environment where they can gain the gifts provided by a father and a mother.

I am in accord with my party's policy on this position. There is no conflict either in the policy of the National Party, in the policy of my state Liberal National Party or indeed in the policy of the federal Liberal Party. If we want to draw upon people's contributions, I represent a party in the state of Queensland that has some 14,000 members who, every day, caucus on matters of importance with people who are not even members of our party—they are family, they are neighbours, they are employees and they are employers. Their views are filtered down through a whole system—a very fair and democratic system—to arrive at a central point eventually, and some policy settings take many years to develop. So there is strength in the collective argument of their position, in my view. For a very, very long period of time, every time their minds are turned to this question, they have consistently argued and placed policy that marriage is between a man and a woman, and it should remain unaltered.

I stand here representing my party, and my view will remain unaltered, but not as the basis of being a slave to party policy. Mine is simply a deeply held conviction that I have based on my 58 years of life's experience. Accordingly, I recommend my colleagues resist this legislation in this place at this time.