Kate Ellis (Adelaide, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Early Childhood and Childcare) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 and I would like to take the opportunity of thanking the member for Throsby for putting forward this bill and therefore allowing this debate. There are some people and some commentators out there who love conscience votes. They love knowing that they are hearing individuals' own rationale, that they are hearing not just party key lines but the thinking that has gone behind a decision. Over the past eight years I have been through a couple of conscience votes. But I find them gruelling. My No. 1 priority in this place will always be representing the electors of Adelaide and their views. That is what I have always strived to do. Whether it be on the River Murray or on their health and education needs, standing up and giving a voice to the people of Adelaide is the key role that I have been elected to undertake.

The thing that I find so hard is that there is no one clear view of the people of Adelaide on this issue. I have heard from hundreds, if not thousands, of local constituents. Church groups have organised a really strong email campaign. Many of their members are opposed to this legislation. Individuals have come out at the various street-corner meetings held across the electorate with a variety of different views—some for, some against and some in the middle. In fact, at a recent street-corner meeting in Walkerville a man came along pleading with me, saying why couldn't we, instead, put forward a piece of legislation changing the name of the Marriage Act to the 'Tarriage Act', under which you could either get married or get 'garried' depending on the nature of your relationship. All different ideas and all different views have been put forward to me.

But I have also heard from those strong and incredibly brave individuals who have come to share with me their personal stories and why this matters so much to them—as young people, realising that they were somehow different, how they felt excluded, and what would have helped them and made them feel less like they did not fit the mould.

I have read through all of those emails and all of those perspectives, and I have considered them and I have respected them. It is true to say though that there has not been a consistent view. For each who has passionately argued in favour of change, there has been another who has argued just as passionately for the status quo. In those circumstances, whilst I am incredibly grateful and proud of the ongoing dialogue that I have with our local community on so many issues, and have appreciated all of the representations and encouragement, where there is no clear agreement, where community opinion is divided, as are party views, as are individuals' opinions, all I can do here today is to follow my conscience. And whilst I am incredibly reluctant to ever let down my constituents, those who have a different view to mine on this issue I hope will at least see that I respect their views and that ultimately it has been my pledge to our community in Adelaide to stand before this parliament with integrity at all times. When we are in this place at those times when we are subjected to criticism, when we are in the midst of controversy or of the tough politics that sometimes go on in this place, the thing that I turn to for comfort and for confidence is knowing that I have spent my time here with integrity, that I have done what I believe in, that I have stood up for what I know to be right. My view and my personal integrity mean that I will be supporting this bill here today.

In a question of inclusion or exclusion, I choose inclusion. For some, this debate has been about theology. We have heard quite a lot about that. For others, it has been about entrenched ideology. Some have had their views determined by legal principles. To me it has come down to something that is much simpler than that—it has come down to the issue of people. I look to the people that I know, real people in real relationships that are formed based on real love, and then the decision actually becomes a far simpler one. I honestly believe that our nation and our world would be a better place if we formally recognised and celebrated loving and long-term stable relationships, no matter the genders involved. It is as simple as that.

We have all got those particular stories, or particular individuals, that have shaped our views. For me, in particular, it is one of my oldest and dearest friends, Michael, and the beautiful relationship that Michael has had with the wonderful Rob ever since our days back in university, which sadly, was now some time ago. They love each other. They support each other. They inspire each other to be better. They have been together for over a decade. They have travelled the world. They have changed careers. They have explored lifelong dreams. Yet their relationship is not formally recognised. I look at that in comparison to the fact that I could have gone and married any bloke who was silly enough to have me over those many years since university. But they have a meaningful, true love relationship. That, to me, is something that is incredibly important.

That is just one story, but there are literally millions of those stories—of loving unions that been excluded from our structures, that have been shut out from recognition. I for one cannot stand here today when the member for Throsby has provided us with this opportunity to argue to further entrench that exclusion—I cannot do it.

There are a number of issues that I would like quickly to bring up. One is that some people have said to me that I should oppose this bill so we can uphold the institution of marriage. I find that a pretty confusing proposition because, as many people have argued, marriage has changed over the years. Marriage has continued to adapt to the community, to the society, and to the values that we hold dear. I for one, would like to think that if we want to see marriage as a relevant and strong force in the future of this nation, then we want to ensure that it remains modern and that it represents the values of our community, and they are values of equality. If we want to make sure that, in fact, we protect marriage moving forward, then we must hold up and celebrate loving, stable relationships.

The other thing that I would like to briefly touch on today is that I make my contribution to this debate as we also celebrate National Suicide Prevention Month. I cannot make this contribution without also focusing on the fact that we still have too much discrimination. We still exclude people too much. We have too much making people feel that they are broken if they are different.

We as leaders in this country, we as the decision makers of this parliament, must do absolutely everything we can so that, when young people come out, at whatever age that may be, they are told that that is okay, that it is something that we value in our community and that they have a loving future before them that is accepted by this nation and by this parliament.

Sadly for the member sitting alongside me who has put forward this bill, I do not suspect that it will get anywhere close to passing this parliament at this time. But it is important that we keep putting forward our views and that we keep arguing for equality. It is important that we keep making perfectly clear to all that love is a good thing, that stable relationships are such an important and positive force in our community that we should recognise and celebrate them, because what it actually does is encourage them.

Sitting suspended from 13 : 01 to 16 : 00

See this speech in context