Philip Ruddock (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I note the support that has been given to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition by large numbers of the Labor Party. Let me just say first that I do believe very strongly that people in same-sex relationships should not be discriminated against because of the nature of their relationship. And, while the Deputy Leader of the Opposition took credit for the legislation introduced in 2008, I might say that would not have been possible but for the work I initiated as the Attorney-General in the period running up to 2007 when I sought to get the Law Reform Commission involved and sought to have departments look at the range of discriminatory issues that might well be addressed by a statute.

So I do not come to these issues as a person who is concerned to adversely discriminate against people because of the nature of their relationships. But I do speak to this bill with a degree of disappointment, because there was an expectation, particularly amongst a number of members on this side, that the matter would be addressed in a way that would allow those who are in favour of this type of legislation to be party to it. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition elected to press it, seconded by his deputy.

The fact is the engagement that we may have expected did not occur. These comments were made by the Prime Minister, who said it should be presented as a cross-parliamentary bill and should be co-sponsored rather than put forward by any particular party. The member for Leichhardt, a passionate supporter of this view, reiterated that. It was a matter that the Prime Minister's sister, a prominent advocate for same-sex marriage, said should not become a political football. So there is disappointment.

I have said that, in relation to legislation of this type, even though I may not be a supporter of it, those who are interested in the subject matter ought to be prepared to look at it in a wider perspective; and that has been denied. It might have been possible if there was to be some discussion. I have said—and it is known now that I did say it; I said it fairly publicly on Q and Athat we should have a willingness to look at the French approach, in which the state simply regulates relationships. They do not necessarily have to be marriages; they could regulate marriages alone and leave it to the institutions who believe that marriage is only between a man and a woman—the churches, the Buddhists, the Muslims, the Hindus—to legitimate those relationships within their form of structures. That is denied. The French approach, I think, could have been a useful matter for members to look at and take into consideration, but that has been denied.

We are very disappointed that this matter, we are being told, should be treated on this side as a conscience matter; while on the other side, their party councils want to tie their members into a particular view. I think the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was one of those who were proposing that approach to their federal body. So it seems to me that this matter is being addressed in a political context not in a context of good faith where those who have a strong view in favour of these matters might be able to play a part in helping to settle the form that legislation might ultimately take and garner broader support for it.

It is extremely disappointing to me and my colleagues that the opposition have taken the approach that they have, and we would encourage them to withdraw and to allow some discussions, with those who have an interest in these questions, to see whether there is a meaningful way forward which can be pursued with a degree of cross-party support.

See this speech in context