Robert Oakeshott (Lyne, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

I certainly welcome the motion that was put before the House previously and, as part of an ongoing reflection of consultation with community, this is another opportunity to do that. From my perspective on the topic of same-sex marriage, there are times to lead and times to follow the community. Picking when and why is very much the challenge for all of us in a representative democracy in our Westminster parliamentary system. At all times, right or wrong, a member of parliament should make their own best judgments. On an issue like pricing carbon through an emissions trading scheme, I have chosen to lead community with the national interest in mind. On the issue of same-sex marriage, I am choosing to follow community, again as a matter of judgment and again with the national interest in mind.

Ordinarily I believe in the classical and conservative exposition of representative democracy, that we are elected to exercise our judgment as a vote on the basis of fact and reason tested in debate. We are dealing with customs and traditions in this case that have been built in Australia over a long period of time under the rule of law.

This conversation certainly tests the moral code of not just 150 MPs but of all Australians. After consulting widely and listening closely I still have not heard a satisfactory consensus about what the state's role itself in marriage actually is, nor what it should be. I note, for example, that there are even incursions from traditionally right-wing, conservative proponents such as Tim Wilson from the IPA identifying jurisdictions like France where the state's only involvement is to maintain a register of accredited marriage agencies and it is then up to each religious or cultural institution to determine their level of comfort with the definition of marriage, essentially, and somewhat controversially, removing the statue law of the Marriage Act and relying on a long history of common law interpretation of our norms, traditions and cultures.

The fact is in our jurisdiction and in my electorate as well there is a deep cultural conviction that the state's definition of marriage does matter. Yet at the same time we seem somewhat universally comfortable allowing this same state to interpret that definition broadly for the purposes of administration and interpretation of modern society. As an example I quote from a bill before the House right now—the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill—which states:

'Marriage' includes people who live together in a relationship as a couple on a genuinely domestic basis even where they are not legally married.

That is somewhat of an oxymoronic definition.

Marriage is interpreted widely in common law and defined broadly by many statutes and, as far as I can find, narrowly defined in only one statute, that being the Marriage Act. This reflects a process of law reform over decades, based on a growing public rejection of discrimination in age, gender, race and sexuality. Successive parliaments have removed the substantive legal discriminations against de facto couples, whether heterosexual or homosexual.

In 2008, laws on defence, migration, taxation, superannuation, social security and workplace relations all changed to accommodate this principle. Legally sanctioned same-sex marriage is seen by many as simply the last extension of this principle, but for others that I also listen closely to, it is where they draw the line. They see same-sex marriage as an offence to our language and history and an affront to Australian custom, laws and traditions. Despite the reality of same-sex couples legally adopting and having children, some see same-sex marriage as offending nature because children cannot yet be conceived without the biology of both genders.

Unfortunately, even in this place there have been disgraceful attacks and distortions in this debate. I refer to an event in the Great Hall of Parliament House on 16 August which saw a personal attack on one of our colleagues, a member of parliament's individual and private circumstances. More disappointing in my view was that other members of parliament present chose to bear witness to that attack on a fellow member without objection or without clarifying that the issues that were the basis of the attack had nothing to do with or without changes to the Marriage Act. Alongside this, in my view at that same event there were irrelevant, misleading and emotive fears presented as if they were plausible that marriage may become the province of paedophiles or close relatives of the same sex. This is nonsense that diminishes this important debate.

In my community it is roughly a split on the ground. It is anecdotal; about two out of five are strongly opposed, about two are indifferent and about one is strongly in favour. For the proponents I will continue to listen closely, but there is plenty of work on the ground still to do. (Time expired)

See this speech in context