Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am proud to have listened today to the earlier contributions from both sides of the House and to also add my support to the member for Ryan’s private member’s motion—that is, to recognise and honour marriage as an exclusive union between a man and a woman, to celebrate the importance of marriage as an indispensable institution in Australian society and to encourage the Australian government to continue with policies that promote and strengthen marriage.

I can speak with fewer years experience than other members but, nonetheless, 11 years of personal experience of the joys of being married, during which our family has been created and developed. It has provided each one of us with a sense of our place in the world and certainly a knowledge of each of our personal identities and an alliance with each other. The Australian government does an excellent job communicating and upholding the fundamental importance of marriage in our society. Like other institutions, it suffers from human frailty on occasion. Nonetheless, marriage remains time honoured and well proven for social cohesion and the welfare of children.

On this side of the House, we do this in part by reiterating the importance of all children having the opportunity, wherever possible, to be raised with the care and affection of their mother and father. It is for these reasons that the government has always maintained the view—and I support this view—that, while the law should be respectful of the private life choices that people make for themselves, same-sex relationships cannot be given the same status as marriage.

We have heard much talk in the past few weeks about civil unions and the Crown’s recent overturning of the ACT’s radical civil union laws. The ACT government’s behaviour on this issue has been appalling, out of step with mainstream Australia and deliberately provocative in offending marriage as it is defined in legislation. We as law makers all have a duty to protect the rights of every one of our citizens. At the same time, there are institutions in this country that warrant and deserve defending and, in this case, that is the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

It would indeed be unreasonable for a person to say, on the basis of what has happened in recent weeks, that any member of the federal government is being homophobic, but there is no proactive discrimination occurring here. Australia does not set out to make life difficult for individuals on the basis of their private lives, and it would be wrong if any government did. All men and women in Australia are equal under our Constitution and our laws. I concede that there is different treatment under the law for different relationships. But this is not about discrimination against the individual and it is not designed to be. It sensibly distinguishes between marriage and other relationships and it should not be seen as discrimination or an infringement of rights. It is not.

Our legal system does not treat people differently on the basis of their sex lives, and that is why we are so fortunate to live in the best country in the world and a very successful democracy. As individual people, homosexual men and women have exactly the same legal rights as you or I. I am not alone when I stand here today and say that marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. If the ACT government had had its way then its same-sex civil union proposal would have simply meant marriage by another name. Marriage is the responsibility of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth made its stand clear when it objected to the ACT’s legislation. It was not satisfied with the ACT government’s response to the objections raised.

I express in passing my disappointment that many in the Labor Party have been exposed for their fascination with left-wing politics and their frank departure from supporting marriage as between a man and a woman. I further express my disappointment that no fewer than four ALP senators were effectively prevented from expressing their views on this matter when it came before the Senate. We all have a duty to defend what we believe is right and good, and we would do well to remind ourselves of the old values, which served us well in the past, continue to serve us well today and will serve us well into the future. With all of its imperfections, we owe it to ourselves and to the future of our functional and harmonious society to defend a wonderful human institution. I commend the motion to the House.

See this speech in context