Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support this enabling legislation for a plebiscite. The Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 will establish the framework for conducting a national plebiscite on the proposal to change the existing marriage legislation and provide every Australian registered on the electoral role with the opportunity to vote on the proposed date of 11 February 2017. This is in accordance with the election policy commitment which the coalition government made to the Australian public leading up to the recent federal election.

Marriage is one of the most important cultural and social institutions within our society. It has existed for centuries in custom, tradition and common law, long before the notion of parliament or legislation to regulate or codify it evolved. In our society, marriage is the very foundation of the family unit. It influences many aspects of our lives, such as having children and the way in which children are raised into adulthood. It is the widespread custom and social norm that men and women across our nation get married, establish a home and start a family. What other fundamental tenets of marriage, as it currently stands in our society, are likely to be challenged by proponents of marriage equality in the future?

I acknowledge that traditional marriage is not perfect. There are many issues with family breakdown, divorce and dysfunction. However, it is arguably the most stable social institution that we currently have. A strong functional family unit in which members care for each another is the best form of social welfare we currently have.

On Monday I had the pleasure of meeting Millie Fontana, a young lady who was raised by a couple in a same-sex relationship. I heard of how she first met her biological father at the age of 11 after emotionally struggling with not knowing her origins. I understood from our conversation that she is strongly in favour of all children having access to both of their biological parents—a father and a mother. Millie said to me that to intentionally deny a child a mother or a father where there is a conscious choice made by adults is unethical. Millie told me that children will learn to cope with their situation in life, but it is emotionally difficult, and in instances where the decision affecting a child's life is an elective choice made by adults, the rights and welfare of the child are not adequately taken into account.

I make the case that when contemplating such a radical change to marriage as we know it, which is an established social and cultural norm, a comprehensive national debate and plebiscite is justified to properly raise public awareness of and to debate and consider a range of issues relating to the proposal to dramatically change a longstanding custom and institution in our society. The issue raises many complex questions which ought to be addressed.

Concentrating the voting power in the hands of the 226 Australians elected to the House of Representatives and the Senate is not the preferred course of action when determining an issue of such profound national importance as marriage. Regardless of which way we as individual parliamentarians vote, a large section of our constituent electors will be disenfranchised. Therefore, it makes sense to give the Australian people the right of self-determination through a public vote.

To those who say that the debate will be divisive or hurtful or will lead to vilification: the debate can be robust and respectful. I have great confidence in the ability of the Australian people to conduct a mature and civilised debate. To borrow a phrase from the Speaker: debate can be robust, but it need not be rude or loud. It is possible to promote high-level arguments of an intellectual and academic nature concerning the legal, social, health and other consequences of changing the legislation. It is essential that the decision be an informed one that takes into account all of the foreseeable consequences and costs of the proposed change. On such an important issue as marriage, the Australian people should be given the right to vote on a proposed change that is likely to have significant consequences in the future, requiring existing legislation to be modified and potentially a raft of new legislation to be introduced.

Consider: if same-sex marriage legislation were to pass, then parliament would create legally married couples who—it is obvious—are physically unable to have children. Married same-sex couples will have the same rights as all married couples under the law. As it is biologically impossible for a same-sex couple to reproduce, having children in a same sex-marriage involves, by necessity, a third-party gamete donor, or surrogate. The legal and social consequences of these three-way relationships must be carefully considered.

A number of very valid consequential issues also ought to be considered, including the potential ethical ramifications surrounding the use of human reproductive technology as new technologies evolve in the future, which will enable biomedical scientists to perform procedures not yet in existence. I cite the example of new genetic engineering procedures, such as creating a child from the DNA of three parents, as was recently reported on page 16 of the West Australian on 29 September last month. The article reported that Dr John Zhang and his team from New York's New Hope Fertility Center used a technique known as spindle nuclear transfer, in which the nucleus from one of the mother's eggs was removed and inserted into a donor egg that had had its own nucleus removed. The resulting egg, with nuclear DNA from the mother and mitochondrial DNA from a donor, was then fertilised with the father's sperm. This is an example of how advances in medical technology can lead to complex ethical considerations when dealing with human life. The future cost of these procedures to the health system needs to be quantified and the question asked: to what extent should the public health system subsidise certain elective procedures which are incurred by choice and not by medical necessity?

Surrogacy is another consequential issue which ought to be considered, including the ethics surrounding commercial surrogacy and international surrogacy arrangements. What are the ethical and legal consequences surrounding the involvement of third parties in the family unit and overseas births involving foreign biological surrogates? Will the proposed change to the marriage legislation trigger unforeseen consequential issues which need to be regulated? The impact of the proposed change in legislation in terms of consequential social and legal complexities, with which society will be required to contend, ought to be considered, including the potential impact on children of the complexities of same-sex marriages that involve third parties.

The rate at which children are separated from their biological parents is a major consideration. Will the proposed change to the legislation result in more children being separated from their biological parents? It is valid to consider issues, including the placement, adoption and custody of children. The emerging issue of commercial adoption is very disturbing, as it can lead to the exploitation of vulnerable people in poverty. Many questions are raised. Should our society permit parents to give up their children for financial compensation? What are the rights of children to know the identity of and have contact with their parents? Are there health issues in storing and accessing genetic and medical records? The rights of children must be paramount. In an ideal society, every child has the basic human right to be raised by a father and a mother, unless there are extenuating circumstances. Unfortunately, this is not always the case even in traditional marriages.

Consider the foreseeable impact of the legislative change on Australian culture in terms of political correctness and potential legal action. Our language may have to change as everyday, customary expressions such as 'ladies and gentlemen' or 'mum and dad' may become politically incorrect. In some overseas countries, the anti-discrimination laws make it prohibitive to question or debate issues relating to same-sex marriage. What will be the impact on society in terms of psychological and mental health issues arising from more complicated relationships in an already complex society?

For those who argue that the plebiscite should not be conducted due to the cost, the question should be asked: what price do we place on democracy? The cost of conducting the plebiscite is likely to pale into insignificance when compared with the potential future costs to the health, education and legal systems if the proposed legislation were to be implemented. Public funding will be administered by the committees established for both the 'yes' and the 'no' cases, comprising parliamentary and community representation with appropriate standards of governance. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the public funding will most likely be used to promote high-level arguments of an intellectual and academic nature concerning the legal, social and other consequences of changing the legislation, with a high degree of accountability. Under this process, materials and content approved for publication using public funding will be required to be authorised by the respective committees. Given the parliamentary and community representation, it is unlikely that offensive material will be endorsed by the committees.

The Australian public needs to be made fully aware of the broad spectrum of consequential issues which are likely to arise from changing the existing definition of marriage. The public ought to understand the cost to the health system and the likely social and ethical consequences of their decision. Having the benefit of this knowledge, every Australian should then be granted the opportunity to cast his or her vote on this important issue. The proponents of same-sex marriage are yet to provide a compelling argument as to why civil unions are inadequate to protect their legal rights. Marriage is not a romantic notion; it is an important social institution that deals with progeny.

In summary, on a social issue of such importance to the family as marriage, I support conducting a plebiscite for the reasons I have just outlined. This legislation will provide every Australian registered on the electoral roll with the opportunity to vote on the proposed change to the existing marriage legislation. This is in accordance with the election policy commitment which the coalition government made to the Australian public. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context