Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I wish to anchor my remarks on this debate in a report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs entitled To have and to hold—strategies to strengthen marriage and relationships. I acknowledge the role of Joe de Bruyn in pointing out this report to me, because it was presented to the parliament in June 1998, before I was elected. The government members of the inquiry included Minister Andrews, Minister McGauran, the member for Flinders and the member for Canning. Labor members included the member for Barton, the member for Blaxland, the member for Denison, the member for Banks, the member for Chifley and the member for Wills.

I list those names because those members of parliament who contributed to this report did so in a bipartisan spirit, handed down a bipartisan report and demonstrated as eminent members of parliament that the issue of marriage does enjoy bipartisan support in this parliament and should be above politics. I was disappointed, therefore, with the remarks of the previous speaker, who sought to politicise this debate. Marriage is much too important an institution to be politicised in this way.

The report to which I have referred was about strengthening and supporting marital arrangements and preventing marital distress and consequent breakdown of marriages. The report found that international research shows that marriage benefits personal health and wellbeing. Yet, as my colleague the member for Werriwa has pointed out, every year there are 50,000 divorces and one in three marriages ends in divorce.

Marriage breakdown of course increases the prevalence of sole parent households. Research conducted by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling shows that sole parent families constitute one-quarter of all families nowadays but account for one-half of the poorest 20 per cent of families. What I am saying is that sole parent households are grossly overrepresented amongst the poorest families in our community. So we should be doing what we reasonably can to avoid mothers being deserted and placed in a situation in which three-quarters of a million children now live—that is, in sole parent households. The 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act 1961 took forward the common-law understanding of marriage to enshrine it in the legislation in these terms:

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

Labor fully agrees with that, and that is why we supported this legislation. It is important to preserve the uniqueness of marriage, but I point out that the Work Choices legislation puts unnecessary extra pressure on families. This was the Prime Minister’s barbecue stopper. Several years ago the Prime Minister argued that the biggest issue—the barbecue stopping issue—in our society is the need to strike a better balance between work and family life. What has the government done about achieving a better balance? It has taken us backwards through the Work Choices legislation by imposing extra pressures on families to work irregular hours, to lose penalty rates and, overall, to be in a situation where they have less control of their lives and less time for nurturing marriage.

I refer to comments made on the weekend by His Eminence Cardinal George Pell, who was asked about the industrial relations laws. He said: ‘I don’t particularly like the new IR laws because I am frightened they could force down minimum wages and, if that was the effect, I’d be very disappointed.’ He went on to say: ‘It’s yet to be seen how they will work out, but I am apprehensive.’ I do not want to politicise Cardinal Pell’s intervention, but he makes a very valid point. We do support the institution of marriage, but we do want to see a better balance between work and family life.

See this speech in context