House debates

Wednesday, 24 August 2011

Constituency Statements

Same-Sex Relationships

10:38 am

Photo of Paul NevillePaul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak to the resolution put forward by the member for Melbourne that members consult their electorates about the matter of same-sex marriage. It is a very vexed issue for many on the other side of the chamber and I understand the tremendous pressure that has been brought to bear on members of the Labor Party regarding the Marriage Act. Nevertheless, the member for Reid has been on the record as saying he does not believe there is overwhelming public support for same-sex marriage, despite proponents' claims, and I believe he is correct. I also believe Australia has far more pressing issues which warrant the parliament's attention at this time; issues like the cost of living, the burden of new taxes, the management of our immigration and, indeed, the economy.

Nevertheless, last year by way of resolution the member for Melbourne asked every parliamentarian to go back to their electorates and gauge the level of support for same-sex marriage, and I did just that. I have always found my newsletter was a very good way to get feedback from my constituents, so I placed it in my Christmas newsletter. The results may be disheartening for the member for Melbourne: only 14 people were supportive of same-sex marriage; 595 opposed it. That is roughly two per cent of the respondents in Hinkler being in favour of same-sex marriage. Quite frankly, I was surprised. Even though it is a conservative electorate, I thought the result would have been closer. Along with this I received 232 letters from my constituents in the form of an open letter to the Prime Minister protesting against any move towards same-sex marriage.

Like the vast majority of my constituents, I believe marriage is, and should remain, the union of a man and a woman. It seems there is a great push in some sections of society for change for change's sake, that what was good enough for centuries is no longer good enough today and that a culture's symbols, traditions and ceremonies should make way for the holy grails of political correctness and individual gratification. I read a column by Miranda Devine on Sunday, 14 August, a very interesting piece lamenting the fatherless society which we are creating. There are a couple of sentences that resonated with me very strongly:

Tolerance has gone back to front. Now we have to downplay traditional marriage for fear of causing offence. No-one can be a wife or a husband anymore; everyone is a partner.

From time immemorial—and certainly in the Judeo-Christian tradition of 30 or more centuries—marriage has been the framework from which other aspects of orderly society have been regulated. Inheritance, the transfer of wealth in past times, the alignment of nations and international treaties have all revolved around marriage, but one overriding factor in Western society is that marriage always took place between a man and a woman. It is a framework recognised by society, by law and by the church, which sees it as a sacrament. It is the formal expression of love and commitment between two people in which children are conceived and raised. Back in 2004 when we debated the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill, I argued that no minority group had the right to attach traditional symbols to their own situation and turn the institution of marriage into something it is not, and I hold that view today.

Do not get me wrong; I am not homophobic and I am certainly against all forms of discrimination. I strongly believe that Australians should be able to live their lives without prejudice, discrimination or bias. I have staunchly defended the rights of same-sex couples—whether they are in a physical relationship or not—to be able to transfer property and enjoy superannuation and insurance rights and the like, but I do not believe that the legal union of a same-sex couple should be classified as marriage, and I do not believe that protecting the traditional status of marriage is somehow discrimination; that is a ridiculous proposition. At a rally in Sydney on the weekend the New South Wales Greens MP, David Shoebridge, said that the push for marriage equality was now a mainstream issue with 'the majority support across Australia'. This is certainly not the case in my electorate of Hinkler and I would suggest not in Queensland as a whole.

Comments

No comments