Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the request of Senator Siewert, I move:

That the order of general business for consideration today be as follows:

(a) general business notice of motion no. 742 standing in the name of Senator Siewert relating to marriage equality; and

(b) orders of the day relating to documents.

… Penny—my wonderful partner—has been absolutely critical in my life achievements. We have shared 28 years of married life—a partnership of love and support. We are proud of our status as a same-sex couple who were legally married in Australia, and I am resolute that all couples should be able to share this right.

Those words concluded my first speech in the Senate in August last year in the presence of my fellow Greens senators and my family, including Penny and our two sons. It was an immensely proud moment for me. But it was also a moment when, once again, the cruel reality of the lack of marriage equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians was highlighted. Penny and I are married. In fact, we are probably the only same sex-couple who have been legally married in Australia in this chamber today. Yet, if Penny, as a transgender person, were to officially change her birth certificate, we would be forced to divorce.

The law in our country has not caught up with the complexity and diversity of so many relationships within Australian society. The referendum result in Ireland last month was an incredible turning point for our collective humanity. To see a country so united where it had once been so divided is truly remarkable. Yet for us here in Australia it was a stark reminder of how far behind we are. Australia's lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer communities and their families deserve equal treatment under the law and in the community.

Time and time again, the Australian Greens have taken policies to elections affirming our commitment to marriage equality as defined as the marriage between two consenting adults regardless of sex, sexuality or gender identity. We know that it is love that makes a family, not biology, and that so many Australian children living in rainbow families enjoy the same nurture, love and care of their parents, regardless of the gender or sexuality of those parents. The law in Australia must catch up with this reality.

Last week I attended the Australian Human Rights Commission launch of the Resilient individuals: Sexual orientation gender identity & intersex rights national consultation report. This report is groundbreaking, but at the same time heartbreaking. Some of the key challenges faced by LGBTIQ people identified by the report include: a 'lack of cultural competency and understanding of the distinct needs of LGBTI people in the provision of public services, including education, health and aged care'; 'poor community understanding and visibility of the distinct issues that affect people on the basis of SOGII status, particularly in relation to gender identity and intersex status'; 'unacceptably high rates of marginalisation, bullying, harassment and violence'; and, most notably, the 'legacy of State-sanctioned discrimination is significant in its legitimisation of institutional and interpersonal discrimination across society.'

Governments have had a leading role in creating this culture so must also take a lead role in undoing it. The theme of the role that government can play is further emphasised in the first recommendation made by the report:

To ensure all Australians are treated equally and fairly by the law and government, the following law reform should occur promptly at a Commonwealth level:

1. Amendment of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) to equally recognise the partnership of two adult persons regardless of the gender of the partners.

I can add to these recommendations by the Australian Human Rights Commission report on legal change the stories of so many passionate and inspiring people that have been sent to me: stories of children wanting their mums to marry, of dads wanting their daughters to marry, of older gay men, who began their relationships when it was still illegal to be homosexual and who are now desperately seeking this final removal of discrimination, of trans parents seeking legal certainty for their young children and of the straight friends of LGBTI Australians who are putting off their own weddings in an act of solidarity. People have written to me this week with a simple message: they want marriage equality. One person writes:

I want my 4 year old boy to grow up in an Australia that is fair, lawful, united, prosperous and caring. I also want him to grow up in a country that he is free to marry the person he loves, be that a woman or a man

Another told me:

Equality is a right all those who live in a democracy should be entitled to.

Loving is more important than silly, antiquated laws, whose basis is at best, vague.

I want to share a few personal stories that people have sent me from my home state of Victoria. Harry is a 17-year-old gay man who painted a picture of the rich diversity of our Australian society today. When Harry was around 12 or 13 and working out where he fitted on the sexual orientation spectrum, he says that he was fortunate enough to have role models who taught him that being LGBTI is perfectly okay and nothing to be worried about. Harry is still too young to be thinking about marriage, but he shared the stories of three couples he looks up to, and how marriage equality will change their lives.

Harry's uncle has been in a relationship for over 10 years, and has proved that love has no gender or age. The whole family wants them to get married so that they are equal to the rest of the uncles and aunts. Harry also benefitted from the guidance of a queer youth worker. Her partner is a children's librarian, and they want to adopt a child and get married. They desperately want things that heterosexual couples take for granted, and were even looking at moving to Canada or another country to get married, but they decided they could not leave home. Harry says:

It pained me to see these two people who would make the most strong and loving family being denied the chance to live their lives in the way they deserved.

Another two mothers that Harry knows are raising three beautiful children and have had to enter into a very complex legal arrangement to be able to get the same rights as heterosexual couples. Harry describes them as 'the most amazing family'.

It hurts Harry to think that, no matter how strongly committed he might be to a male partner, he is not able to be an equal in Australian society. But now he sees marriage equality as within reach. In year 12, he started a support group for LGBTI students at his school. He says the enthusiasm and positivity shown by students, staff and parents has been incredible. It showed him that nobody should be denied recognition based on who they love or how they identify their gender. It means so much to Harry that the tide has turned and the majority of Australians, and possibly a majority of parliamentarians, are now allies of the LGBTIQ community which he belongs to. He concluded his letter to me:

We can't change the minds of those who don't support marriage equality, but we can give every Australian the rights they deserve.

Wise words from someone so young. Then there is Jenny. Jenny wrote to me with a different perspective but the same sentiment. Jenny has been in a relationship with Maria for over 10 years. She says their relationship is based on a deep love for each other, which is strengthened by mutual respect and love for their child. They run a family business and spend the rest of their time doing all the things that other parents do like school pickups and activities with the kids. Their eight-year-old son often asks why they cannot get married and how much he would like it if they did. This is not a question that he should have to ask. Maria is Spanish. In Spain, marriage equality has been allowed for many years now. It seems completely irrational that they can get married in Spain but not in Jenny's home country of Australia. She ended her story with a plea to all of us:

Please consider the damage that is being done to us as people and, especially, to our son. Please vote for equality.

I also heard from Jeremy Wiggins, a community health worker, a partner and the father of two-year-old twin girls. Jeremy is a transgender man with a birth certificate stating he is female. He cannot marry his partner because they are, on paper, a same-sex couple. Jeremy wrote to me:

We are the marginalized families that are locked out of the marriage debate. We want for all human beings in Australia to be able to have their love recognized equally before the law, regardless of their gender or sexuality.

I request that you consider that marriage equality is about family values and is about a modern interpretation of what a family or relationship is and that no matter your gender or sexuality, this law should be afforded to all people equally.

I have so many more stories echoing Harry, Jenny and Jeremy's. I thank everyone who has shared their stories with me. Your contribution really matters. The motion we are debating today is for Harry, Jenny and Jeremy, their friends and family and all LGBTIQ people.

The Australian Greens have a long and proud history of standing up for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer Australians and our families. I believe that collaboration and the development of a cross-party bill is the best way to secure the equality that so many Australians deserve. I am privileged to be the Greens LGBTIQ and marriage equality spokesperson at such a significant time in our nation's history. As I stand here today, I want to thank those who have consistently stood up for equality and to end the discrimination faced by LGBTIQ Australians and their families, including Christine Milne, Bob Brown, Sarah Hansen-Young and Adam Bandt, and I want to applaud those who have now joined the struggle, especially those senators who will today stand up for the first time in this chamber and call for marriage equality. I hope my fellow senators will be considerate this afternoon and allow time for as many of their fellow senators as possible to contribute to this important debate. The partnership of Penny and me shows that love is love and is to be celebrated. The sooner we legislate for marriage equality the better.

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

I quite deliberately did not prepare the framework of my contribution this afternoon because this issue is so important that I wanted it to be delivered by me as naturally as possibly. I respect the remarks made by the previous speaker and I acknowledge that there are large numbers of people in our community who are anxious in relation to this question. I too had a long and successful marriage—32 years—until I lost my wife. We were blessed with four children from our union, and I can say to this chamber that the institution of marriage was significantly important to us from the very beginning. We entered into a married relationship on the basis that it was a commitment given from each to the other, as a man and a woman, with the primary intention of being blessed, as we were, with the four children that we have and, subsequently, many grandchildren. The quest of marriage as an institution allows a belief that has to do with much more than just the union of the man and the woman. It is naturally accepted that, from there, efforts would be made by that man and woman to have children to celebrate their love and commitment. It does not matter whether you are persuaded by an article of faith, which is the case in my circumstance, or whether you are driven by an argument of nature, a child cannot be delivered without the union of a man and a woman—perhaps through modern techniques. I do not want any inference drawn on those who struggle with issues of fertility in the development of their families.

I said to someone not long ago that, just as I became good and competent at being a father, my children had left home. Just as my wife and I, in different ways, became competent at looking after our children in their formative years, they got a year older. Then, as we nurtured them through to their teens and became competent at dealing with children of that age—in my case, we were blessed with two boys and two girls—they grew into the next phase of their lives, and so on and so forth until they left the comfort of our home to make their own lives. Indeed, they went on to be married and have children of their own, in the case of three of my children. So as we discuss this, I accept, Senator Rice, the importance of the feelings and the aspirations of same-gender couples who also want to make a commitment of this nature. I urge people making a contribution to this debate to understand that there are other stakeholders in the question. It is not just about the two grown-ups; it is about the children. Again, I do not want anybody to suggest that I am reflecting upon—

An honourable senator: You are! That is exactly what you are doing.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order. The standing orders require senators to be heard in silence.

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

the competency or the capacity of same-gender people to raise children. In fact, on a case by case study, there would be arguments that children in the care of same-gender parents—I use the term 'parents' carefully—or a child in the custody of two same-gender adults, in many instances I accept that you could compare and find that for each case where those children are well-nurtured and loved, and developed accordingly, there would equally be 10 man-woman marriage relationships where the children were worse-off. There is no question about that. That is a matter accepted by everybody. As a police officer, I went into hundreds and hundreds of homes where the man and woman, married or not, did not deserve to have those children in their care. So the question is not about the necessary competency. Taking vows in marriage does not reflect the competency of the two adults to provide an appropriate home for children. But developing children have the right to have parents of different genders, in my view. The evidence that Senator Wright failed to—

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Rice!

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

Senator Rice, my apologies. My sincere apologies, Senator Rice.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But you were right, Senator Rice!

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

I do not know what the frivolity is in this contribution of mine—

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not know what the seriousness is!

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

You do not know what the seriousness is? That is a new low in this place, I would have to say.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a new low!

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to 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.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of marriage equality, and I ask how much longer will LGTBI couples have to wait to be treated as fully equal citizens in my country? I believe in, and I stand for, human rights. I believe in, and I stand for, human dignity. I believe in, and I stand for, fairness. I believe in, and I stand for, justice. For as long as we do not change our laws to enable marriage for all of our citizens, we deny these basic human rights. I believe that children are entitled and have a right to a safe, secure loving environment, however that is provided; whether it is provided by a grandfather, a grandmother, a sole parent, a mother and a father, two men or two women, that is the entitlement of a child.

Australia has always been a leader in fairness and equity: the eight-hour day, the 38-hour week, our arbitration system, outlawing the death penalty, our pension system, our living wage, votes for women, no fault divorce and abortion. Yet, on this issue of marriage equality, we are stuck. We are not an overtly religious country; we have a separation of powers. We are not a conservative country. Yet on this very basic issue of human rights, on marriage equality, Australia is becoming the outlier.

Ireland's recent referendum—an overwhelming 'yes' vote—has reignited passions for marriage equality here in Australia. The conservative voices have been saying, 'Let us have a referendum here,' but of course Australia does not need a referendum to act on marriage equality. Ireland's constitution required a referendum. What is required here is for the parliament to act—for a majority of its 226 elected representatives to vote to support marriage equality. And it seems we are prevented from doing so.

The conservatives are pushing for us to wait. 'Wait for what?' I ask. We have been waiting far too long on this issue. The issue of marriage equality has been on the agenda for more than a decade. Overwhelmingly, Australians support marriage equality—one in every four Australians. Australians who identify as Christians support marriage equality. Fifty-seven per cent of Liberal voters support marriage equality. There is strong support from Labor and Greens voters. The strongest group of supporters are young Australians who have grown up in communities that support and want marriage equality; this group absolutely supports marriage equality, with the support as high as 86 per cent. No matter how you slice the numbers——by age, by voting preference, by religious affiliation—the support is there. But here in the Australian parliament just 226 elected representatives cannot or will not get it done. Given its strong support—86 per cent—amongst young people, the vote for marriage equality is inevitable. But come on—let us make this vote a reality sooner rather than later.

In Ireland just over 62 per cent of the population voted for marriage equality—and this is in a country where homosexuality was still illegal in 1993 and divorce was only legalised in 1996. It has come such a long way in a relatively short period of time, and yet, by comparison, Australia remains stuck, despite community support for marriage equality. It is just the Australian parliament, this place, which continues to isolate itself from the community and state jurisdictions.

State and territory governments have moved as far as they can. In 1994, the ACT was the first jurisdiction to legally recognise the unions of same-sex couples. In 1999 in New South Wales they introduced the recognition of same-sex couples in a variety of legislation. In WA, same sex couples had a de facto status in 2002 and the same in Queensland in 2002. The Northern Territory in 2003 recognised same-sex couples. And in 2004, LGBTI rights laws in Tasmania were described as perhaps the most extensive and noteworthy in the world. In 2007 in South Australia and in Victoria, same-sex couples were recognised. And yet the Australian parliament still remains stuck on this issue, when the state and territory governments have changed all of their laws that relate to same-sex couples. And around the world Australia is being left behind, with marriage equality laws being proclaimed in both progressive and conservative countries, with such laws in Nepal, Slovenia and Paraguay imminent, and, just recently, with Mexican courts ruling out of order the concept of marriage as just between a man and a woman.

So whilst those on the conservative side of politics tell us to continue to wait, I say: wait for what? This issue of marriage equality will not go away. The time to act is now.

I do not understand what the issue is. Marriage as a ceremony can be performed almost anywhere in Australia—in a church, a registry office or a winery, or on the beach. Extending this right, the right of marriage, to the LGBTI community does not change that. It does not affect the partnership between a man and a woman who choose marriage. It does not affect children.

I wanted my children to be brought up meeting people who were different and who had different views from me. I wanted them to be open. And they have a whole range of friends, as have I. That is the sort of upbringing that I wanted them to have—to be open and to choose to do whatever they thought suited them.

As to the relationship between a man and a woman, it is not threatened if we bring in marriage equality. Doing so does not undermine the church. It simply extends the same right of marriage to all. And, like all couples, some will choose marriage and some will not, but let us not deny this right to choose marriage equality any longer.

Ricky Muir (Victoria, Australian Motoring Enthusiast Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just like to quickly thank Senator Hanson-Young for giving up her timeslot for me to read my thoughts into Hansard. I am about to read an extract from a speech I recently made in relation to important social issues such as marriage equality and mental health. I apologise to those who have already heard it, but I think it is important for me to put my views on the record here in parliament permanently, forever.

Recently, I had a meeting with a Victorian constituent, Amber, from ReachOut. This meeting was essentially in relation to the spread of the drug ice, how it is affecting local communities and how to prevent the spread of this drug that destroys so many lives. Quickly, from there, the meeting progressed into a broader discussion covering mental health issues and the services that traditionally had not been available but which now are—although a lot of people are not aware of them.

We put a lot of effort into looking for a cure for mental health issues, but it seems that sometimes the cure could be found by allowing people to know that it is normal to experience different emotions and that it is normal to be different, and to know that you are not alone and that there is help ready and waiting if you chose to seek it and that it is definitely not something to feel ashamed of.

It is said that the No. 1 cause of death for people under 24 years of age is suicide. This is a completely alarming statistic and leads me to the question of what can be done to prevent so many young people taking their lives every year. While I do not have the answer, I encourage everybody in this great chamber to consider this question and to start conversations about it.

I think a good starting point is for us to acknowledge that everybody is different, that we all like different things, that we all have different tastes and that we all lead totally different lifestyles. We need to become more aware and accepting of this and learn to not pass judgement so quickly, to embrace each other's differences and to be respectful of them. An issue that is prominent at the moment is this issue of marriage equality. I have heard both sides of the story and read many emails and articles in relation to it. I understand that everybody has a different view and I am respectful of that. Beyond Blue has recently revealed that rural same-sex couples are six times more likely to suffer from depression, anxiety, self-harm or suicidal thoughts. For me, especially being a rural person, this greatly concerns me as I honestly believe that a life in the most remote corner of our great country is just as important as a life anywhere else.

Marriage equality is an issue that seems to arise around election cycles, and it would seem that the hopes, aspirations and wellbeing of many Australians are used for political point-scoring. This, alone, was the very reason I have actually kept my views in relation to marriage equality quiet until now. The next election is set for a bit later in 2016, but you just never know around this place. Instead of waiting for an election cycle and using this issue to gather votes rather than outcomes, I thought it would be better to come out with my views now. On Wednesday, 10 June, I attended a mental health information night hosted by ReachOut.com in the rural town of Heyfield in Gippsland, Victoria. On that night, I publicly declared my position on marriage equality and put my view on the record. It was an interesting place to put my view on the record, being a rural town. I did not know if five people or 200 people were going to turn up or if I was going to be presented with protesters. But I thought the issue was that important that I was happy to put my view on the record there.

It is said that country people are not yet ready for this change, but many rural folk of all different backgrounds tell me that they are. They are people like myself. Since making my stance public—and it got well-known on social media—the majority of my emails and my correspondence and the people I have spoken to since are still in support. The ratio by far outweighs the people who are speaking negatively about it. There are many people living within rural communities who are already in happy, meaningful and fulfilling same-sex relationships. There are also many people who are completely aware of and supportive of this who are in heterosexual relationships. I do not think it is up to large lobby groups or political parties to tell us what we are or are not ready for. The reality is that the majority of people that I have spoken to or who have contacted me seem to overwhelmingly accept the lifestyles of others and do not feel threatened by a change to the Marriage Act.

When I stood as a candidate for the AMEP, one of the core values of the party that stood out to me was that we believe in minimal government interference. The topic of marriage equality is a standout example of how I interpret this value. We know that people can be attracted to the same sex through no choice of their own and that they are born this way. We know that people hold on to this feeling and even try to hide it for many years—even for a whole lifetime—and I have a massive amount of emails from such people saying so. We know that homosexual people force themselves to be in heterosexual relationships, which can cause marital issues further down the line.

We know that same-sex couples are still at times perceived in public in a way that can cause great amounts of stress and depression. But does it really affect any of us if the Marriage Act is amended to allow marriage equity? In my view, no, it does not. It will just give those who are already in a same-sex relationship or who are genuinely attracted to the same sex the option to have their union recognised, the same as everybody else, if they choose to get married. It does not mean everybody in a same-sex relationship is going to run off and get married. It just gives them that option to get married if they choose to do so and to be recognised, just like the rest of us. It will not affect those who are in a heterosexual relationship, but it will, hopefully, be a step in the right direction in accepting that we are not all the same and that all people have the right to live their lives without judgement.

I am not a religious man. However, I was raised around religion, and some of those values have stuck with me through the years. Values such as: if you cannot say something nice say nothing, be respectful, be forgiving. But the one that always stands out to me—and, apparently, was a commandment—is not to judge. I am a family man. I ride dirt bikes, camp and four-wheel drive. I race cars and I love getting my hands dirty. I love to live my life without judgement, and I like to return that favour. If marriage equality were put to a conscience vote and my vote were the deciding vote, a change to the Marriage Act would occur. If a decision to put the question to a plebiscite were to be on offer, I would support this too to allow the people of Australia to make their vote count. In conclusion, as I said in Heyfield that night, I am proud to put on the record my support for marriage equality, and I am even prouder to stand here in this chamber and say so.

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

I rise to speak on this subject, and I will just point out that Senator Lines said that 62 per cent of all the Irish population voted for the same-sex marriage referendum. Just 33 per cent of the voting public of Ireland rolled up for that vote—a bit over three out of 10. They have optional voting, and those were the statistics. I just want to correct that record from Senator Lines.

This is where I stand on this issue that the parliament will deal with in good time: in my travels around the state, the issue of same-sex marriage has rarely been raised with me. In fact, I have never had anyone come into my office in Inverell to raise their point of view one way or another.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No gays in the village!

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

Senator Cameron interjecting reminds me that I heard the other day that he is writing nursery rhymes these days for the children. They start off: 'Once upon a time and a half …' That is how he starts his nursery rhymes. But we will not go there.

The Greens and their allies get their supporters to bombard parliamentarians email accounts, and we get plenty of emails from both sides. But out in the regions, from Tweed Heads to Maitland and out to Broken Hill, their main concerns are jobs, maintaining services and getting a good drop of rain. Thankfully, talking to a friend at Wilcannia this morning, they have just had three inches of lovely rain out there. It is the best rain for a long time.

I want to go to Tamworth tomorrow night, and back home to Inverell on Saturday. I doubt if one person will come up to me and want to talk about same-sex marriage. They will want to talk about the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, which was signed yesterday and is the result of excellent work by the Minister for Trade, Andrew Robb, and the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Barnaby Joyce. It is a great deal for rural Australia in particular, for the beef industry, the dairy industry, the lamb industry, the wine industry and many others. This agreement is significant for every person in Australia, because it makes our farmers competitive in our biggest export market. We get our competitive edge back that the New Zealanders have, a competitive edge against the EU, Canada and the USA.

The Greens claim they are friends of the farmers, so why did they shut down the live cattle trade? It is quite amazing. Why did they oppose my recent motion in this place congratulating the New South Wales government on its commitment to addressing the ridiculous native vegetation laws that are stifling food security? Instead of same-sex marriage, the business people of Tamworth and Inverell will be telling me what a magnificent small-business package this parliament has just passed.

I am disturbed by some of the things that are going on in this whole debate. I take offence that if you actually support the retention of the definition of marriage you are considered in some way to be homophobic. I looked up the definition of homophobic, and it says 'showing an irrational hatred, disapproval or fear of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people or their culture'. I take offence to that accusation against those who do not support same-sex marriage. I have friends who are gay and in same-sex relationships. In fact, one that I know very well, and my colleague Senator Nash also knows very well, says that he does not support changing the Marriage Act. He does not support it at all. It seems that those of us who do not support changes to the Marriage Act 1961 are branded as homophobic, and I think that is just unfair. It seems that those on the other side of the argument are showing little tolerance for our opinion—there is a word to describe that, but I will not use that word.

I was amazed when a document from His Excellency Archbishop Christopher Prowse was dropped off at my office yesterday. One of my concerns is that, if a bill for same-sex marriage does pass both houses here, what will it do to people in the churches–the priests in the Catholic Church, the ministers in the Anglican Church, and the other denominations—if they refuse to marry same-sex couples, because of their strong religious beliefs? Will they be sued for discrimination? That is one concern I really have. The state should never intervene with the church as far as the rules of the church go. When people in the church do the wrong thing, of course the state must intervene.

I will give you some examples from this booklet I was reading:

In Colorado and Oregon, courts have fined bakers who refused on religious or conscientious grounds to bake wedding cakes for 'same-sex weddings'; in New Mexico a wedding photographer was fined for refusing to do photography for such a ceremony; and in Illinois accommodation providers have been sued for not providing honeymoon packages after 'same-sex weddings'

What will the ramifications for court actions if this is to proceed? I will go on:

In New Jersey an online dating service was sued for failing to provide services to same-sex couples, and a doctor in San Diego County was prosecuted after refusing personally to participate in the reproduction of a fatherless child through artificial insemination.

The courts are really getting busy, aren't they. British MPs have threatened to stop churches holding weddings if they do not agree to conduct same-sex marriages. This is quite scary. Returning to this page here:

The Deputy Chief Psychiatrist of the state of Victoria was pressured to resign his position on the Victorian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission after joining 150 doctors who told a Senate inquiry that children do better with a mum and dad; in several US states and in England psychologists have also lost positions for stating that they favour traditional marriage or families based thereon.

Businessmen, athletes, commentators, teachers, doctors and nurses, religious leaders and others in several countries who have spoken in support of traditional marriage have been vilified in the media, denied employment or business contracts, and threatened with prosecution.

What is going on here? The institution of marriage has been around for thousands and thousands of years, in the Catholic Church, the Jewish religion, the Buddhist religion, the Islamic faith—you name it. In many respects those who wish to keep the status quo are being vilified, as per some of those examples I read out to you.

I support traditional marriage between a man and a woman. I will always support that. I will always believe that the best environment for rearing children is with a father and the mother—as those witnesses I quoted said at the Senate inquiry. I will not be changing my position. I have friends who are gay and I respect what we have done in this country with equal rights—Senator Lines stated some of those mistakes. If you are a politician in a same-sex relationship I believe your partner should have the same rights and entitlements in this place as my wife. I believe if you are going to have separations and slit ups in de facto relationships, the division of superannuation and assets should be done for same-sex relationships in the same way it is done for the traditional marriage of man and woman. I believe people in same-sex relationships should be treated equally.

I am not homophobic. As I said, I have friends who are gay. I actually sat at a dinner last Saturday night with two gay men at a table with me and we talked for a long time. But I do believe the tradition of marriage should be retained as between a man and a woman.

I know in some countries they are vehemently protesting about changes. Some of the Islamic countries do not have tolerance for same-sex couples. Some time back now I was talking to a member of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade who had spent some time in Turkey. In our discussions, I asked this person: 'What's the situation with same-sex people in Turkey?' The reply was: 'Officially, there are none.' That is the belief of their country. It is for them to believe that. I do not wish to comment on that. What I am saying is that many Asian countries, Islamic countries and others support traditional marriage. I believe that should be retained. But, if this legislation were to pass at some stage in the future, what are we going to do to protect the people who represent their religions—the priests, the ministers et cetera? If they refuse to marry a same-sex couple because of their beliefs and religion, because of the laws of their church, are they going to be sued for discrimination? These are the things that will come up if this legislation does pass at some point.

I repeat that I support the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. That is what I believe in. That is where I stand. I will never change.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity, once again, to stand in this chamber and express my support for marriage equality in this country. I respect the contributions that have been made by each of the speakers before me here today, but I must say I am not persuaded by the arguments from Senator O'Sullivan or Senator Williams in relation to marriage. Just for the record, when Senator Williams was saying that no-one in Inverell would talk to him about marriage equality, I interjected, 'No gays in the village!' Well, there would certainly be gays in Inverell; there would certainly be gays in Tamworth; there would be gay, lesbian and transgender people in most country towns around this nation.

My interest in this area is not of long standing, not like some of the debates that have been going on in here for a long time. When I became a senator just over six years ago, I received a telephone call from one of my constituents in Greystanes, in the western suburbs of Sydney. That constituent was a woman with a gay son who pleaded with me to give her son the right to marry. She put to me her son's history—being brought up and educated in a public school in the western suburbs of Sydney, facing homophobic ridicule and violence. It was heartbreaking to listen to what had happened to that individual Australian.

I then had another such encounter when I was in Albury-Wodonga for a committee hearing. A middle-aged man approached me when I was having a cup of tea at the local cafe. He recognised me and he said, 'Hello, I just wanted to indicate to you that there's this debate about marriage equality. I'm gay, I've lived in Albury-Wodonga all of my life, I've suffered all this discrimination; I've got a partner, I've been in a relationship for over 10 years, I would like you to support my right to marry my partner.' This reinforced my views that discrimination has no place in this country—absolutely no place.

I understand the position that Senator O'Sullivan is putting, but I vehemently disagree with some of the conclusions that he has come to. You see, I am an atheist. I do not believe in God. And I think what has been missed out in this debate is the role of the church in trying to deny some of our fellow Australians equal rights in this country.

I received some correspondence from the Most Reverend Anthony Fisher. He is the Archbishop of Sydney, in the Catholic Church. I did not ask him to write to me, but he wrote to me anyway. He wrote to me about the proposed vote on same-sex marriage. At the top of the letter, under what must be the insignia of the Archbishop of Sydney, there is the line 'Speaking the truth in love'. The letter goes on to tell me that the debate we are having is 'in the context of the Irish referendum'. Well, Archbishop Fisher, the debate is not in the context of the Irish referendum. The debate is in the context of human rights. The debate is about people having access to the same rights as others in this country. It is not about what happens in Ireland. It is not about what happens in Spain. It is about what happens in Australia and the need for everyone in Australia to have the same rights.

The last time we had this debate, I remember being told about the 'sanctity' of marriage—again, putting marriage in a religious context—and that you are not really married unless you have a marriage sanctified by the church. That is a load of tosh. That is not correct. It does not apply to many, many millions of people in this country, and nor does the proposition that you marry to procreate, that you marry to have children. That does not apply to many, many people in this country. For medical reasons, for reasons of choice, these are issues that do not enter the heads of some Australians who are married.

It is my view that we should remove one of the last vestiges of discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgender people—that is, we should give them the right to marry someone they love. In the archbishop's letter about marriage, it says:

The Christian tradition teaches that every human being is a unique and irreplaceable person, created in the image of God and loved by him.

Well, Archbishop, if God loves a gay Australian, if God loves a transgender Australian, if God loves a lesbian Australian, why can't those Australians marry if they love each other? I just cannot understand the hypocrisy from the church on this matter. It is not everyone in organised churches around Australia who takes this view, but some do to the extent that you have got the Catholic Church writing to me and writing to the other politicians basically trying to stop changes that provide human rights to all Australians. I do not see that as the role for the church. I do not have a problem with people being religious; that is their right. But their religion should not end up forcing a view on me or on society that is wrong.

The view that the church takes, that you must be heterosexual and that you must procreate before you can have a marriage under the sacraments, in my view is nonsense. I do not accept it, and I cannot understand it. If people in the Catholic Church, or people in any religion, want to maintain their traditions, their sacraments, their views on marriage, no-one wants to disturb that. Senator Williams raised the straw man about churches being forced to marry gay couples. Churches will marry gay couples in Australia, let me tell you that. Eventually that will happen, but no-one will force them to do it. The legislation that is before the House of Representatives does not do that; what it does is basically provide rights to people who deserve the same rights as everyone else.

I just cannot accept the proposition that the separation of church and state that we should have in this country should not apply when it comes to people's right to marriage. It should apply. There should be a separation of church and state. I come in here for prayers every morning when the Senate is sitting. I do not pray, because I am an atheist, but the tradition is that you come to pray. It is a tradition that, if we are real about the separation of church and state, we should get rid of. But that is the tradition, and I come—I do not pray, but I come here for the ceremony and for the tradition.

But marriage is not a tradition. It is not a ceremony that has stayed the same over centuries. Marriage was used to gain social status. Marriage was used to stop wars. Marriage was used for many things that had nothing to do with people's religious beliefs or people's traditions, and we now hear about this inviolable position of marriage—well it is not true. Marriage changes constantly and traditions change constantly. I simply want a tradition in this country where if gay people want to marry they can marry. Senator O'Sullivan talks about being married for 32 years. I think that is a great thing. I have been married for 44 years. My marriage is not inferior to anyone else's marriage because I did not get married in a church. My marriage is not inferior because it was not done under sacraments. My marriage has been for 44 years and it is a marriage based on love. I have the right to a marriage based on love, and that should be the right of every Australian.

I support the proposition that this parliament, both the Senate and the House of Representatives, should deal with this issue. We should not run away from it and say there has got to be a plebiscite. The rules have always been there that we can change it, and we should change it for the better. We should change it so that every Australian is treated equally, so that every Australian is treated fairly and so that every Australian has the same right as everyone else, and that means that they should have the right to marry whether they are gay or lesbian. That is what I support, and the sooner we do it, the sooner we will become a mature country, recognising the human rights of all of our citizens.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this evening to contribute to the debate and to place very firmly on the record that I concur fully with the definition of marriage as outlined in the Marriage Act 1961—that is, marriage is a union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. In response to the comments made by Senator Milne, it was only this week in this place that we recognised, on the motion of, I think, Senator McEwen, the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. It is against the law in Australia to discriminate not only on the basis of race, but that, of course, as we know, has been well and truly extended.

It was in 2009 in this parliament that discrimination was removed in relation to same-sex couples and I propose to go through the four bills that gave effect to the conclusion of discrimination. If people feel discriminated against, they have rights under the law and they have redress under the law. What were those bills?

The first was the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008. The effect here was in relation to PAYG instalment, tax system payments for small business for unclaimed superannuation and changes to various income tests determining a person's eligibility. The bill allows a same-sex couple to be recognised as being in a de facto relationship if they have a registered relationship under state or territory law. It strengthens the provisions over the superannuation bill which recognised registration as indicative of being in a de facto relationship and of course it removed any of that discrimination that would have occurred in relation to areas under its auspices, including superannuation.

The second is the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act 2008, the second bill which removed discrimination. What it does is extend the federal jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975 to include financial matters arising out of the breakdown of de facto relationships, including both opposite sex and same-sex relationships. Consistent with government policy, the legislation will not discriminate between opposite sex and same-sex de facto couples—nothing in the legislation does so.

The third is the Evidence Amendment Bill 2008, which proposed amendments to the Evidence Act in relation to recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission, the New South Wales Law Reform Commission, the Victorian Law Reform Commission and the Uniform Evidence Act. Therefore, a defendant's spouse or de facto, a parent or child of a defendant are included as protected witnesses, removing discrimination.

The fourth is the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Act 2008. The bill's first element, in a wider set of changes, was to end discriminatory treatment of same-sex couples in Commonwealth laws. The Senate committee which inquired into the bill combined consideration of this bill with its consideration of the family law amendment bill and the evidence amendment bill. All three included provisions designed to treat same-sex relationships in a similar manner to married and de facto relationships.

Let me make the point very, very strongly if I can. In this country, it is illegal to discriminate. Therefore, if a person in a same-sex relationship feels they are being discriminated against, they have the protection of Australian law to go and have that case heard. Therefore, I want to make the case very, very strongly that marriage, in my mind, is between a man and a woman, but this of course does not preclude, has not precluded, should not preclude and will not preclude other people in same-sex relationships from entering into unions, but they just do not meet the definition of marriage.

I have made the comment before in this place that there are 76 of us who enjoy the title of senator. There are not 77 and not a whole stack of other people out there. Are we in some way advantaged? No. Are others discriminated against because they are not called senator? No. But the term senator has a meaning. It has a legal framework and reference. It has historic connotations. We know that if you are an Australian citizen, you do not have a criminal record, you are silly enough stand and expose yourself and your family to this and willing to spend 80 odd hours a week either doing what we do or travelling, then you too can place as forward for selection, preselection or however you get here. If you are one of the 76, you are entitled to call yourself a senator. The day that you submit your resignation to the President of the Senate, you are then no longer eligible to call yourself by that title.

There is nothing unusual about titles, except to say in this circumstance that there are also criteria by which a person—a couple—can be referred to as married. That is what I support. In no way at all do I have any difficulty. I have friends in same-sex relationships. I have friends with children in same-sex relationships. I admire them. They very, very good parents. But in my mind, they are not eligible to be married. That is where my stance on the situation is.

Another point of interest is in terms of Aboriginality. We have a circumstance in Western Australia at the moment where a young man is at the Yongah Hill detention centre, which is to be called the Northam army barracks when I was a young man in Northam. This person would appear to be a Pacific Islander, but he is claiming to be a man of Aboriginal descent. There is great dispute and debate going on at the moment. In fact, Aboriginal elders are saying, 'We've never heard of him. We can't understand any circumstance in which he would be able to be that.' The simple fact of the matter is that this is another circumstance in which there are certain criteria by which a person defines themselves, for example, as being of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander descent. I cannot call myself a person of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island descent because I do not fit the criteria. I am not being discriminated against as a result of not meeting that criteria. The simple fact is that I do not. Here again is this young gentlemen and there are those measures in which he is attempting to have himself defined in that way.

In the time available to me, I just want to make a couple of observations. A person wrote to me today. In fact, people write to us every day on this topic, don't they? One person wrote talking about bigotry, hypocrisy and all sorts of other things. This gentlemen seems to write us most days of the week. I do not have a lot of credence for what he has to say because I do not think there is very much of value, but he has the entitlement to have his say in terms of how we should be determining these issues. On the other side, a farmer from Victoria saying that he is sick and tired of being called a bigot simply because the he holds opinion based on—in his mind—history, which is that marriage should remain between a man and a woman to protect the children they create through their relationship. Therefore, that is the point he makes. I say this again: the reason that I raise them both is because both sides of the argument have their right in our country to have their say. There are not many things I agree with Senator Cameron on, but one of them is that I am absolutely unminded by what has happened in other countries and in other states, like the United States, Ireland or whatever. Those matters are totally irrelevant to our country. We will determine what is happening here.

One of the areas I decided to have a look at, because it has been put to me by people on one side or others of the argument, is that it is about the welfare of the child. I heard some debate go on earlier in this session this afternoon about the child and the rights of the child. I made it my business to actually see if there was anything definitive written. In the few minutes left to me, I want to reference the comments of a Dawn Stefanowicz, who is an internationally recognised speech and author. She is a member of the Testimonial Committee of the International Children's Rights Institute from Canada. She was presenting on 24 April. It the title of her commentary was 'A warning from Canada: same-sex marriage erodes fundamental rights'. These not my words; these are her words.

She is one of six adult children of gay parents who recently filed briefs with the US Supreme Court asking the court to respect the authority of citizens to keep the original definition of marriage, to which I have referred. She makes the point that:

I also live in Canada, where same-sex marriage was federally mandated in 2005.

She goes on to describe—and she describes it more fully in her book, entitled Out From Under: The Impact of Homosexual Parentingthe difficulty that she has as an adult child from that relationship. She says again that she does not like to go public, because:

… we often face ostracism, silencing, and threats.

But what she does want to point out in her piece on 24 April is the consequences that have played out in Canada for 10 years. They are, to use her words, 'Orwellian in nature and scope'. She says that:

In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered "homophobic" (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government.

Is this relevant to us in Australia? I do not know. Canada is a country with which we often likened. We are both, if you like, recipients of the Westminster system of law. We are fairly similar in many ways. The point that she is making very, very strongly is that children do need protection and should be considered in the circumstances. She makes the point that parents can never replace the missing biological parent or parents. She says:

Over and over, we are told that "permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights."

She goes on, but I do not have time in my 15 seconds left to outline what she says. I can say to you that what she writes is well worth consideration. I know that this is a debate that is to be had. It needs to be had maturely and we do need to consider all aspects of the argument.

Debate interrupted.