Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak today on this Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 [No. 2], which has been co-sponsored by the member for Melbourne and the Independent members for Denison and lndi. I am grateful to speak on the matter of marriage equality as I have not previously had the opportunity. I would agree wholeheartedly with the members for Denison and Indi and their sentiment, here, this morning. This matter should be dealt with right away so that we might save ourselves an odious debate that would not progress this nation any further.

We are fortunate to have a legal system that has as a core principle the right of every person to be treated equally before the law. But Australians in same-sex relationships are not equal before the law. The law does not allow them to marry. We do, however, have the opportunity to rectify this inequality, to ensure true equality for same-sex couples, by ensuring they are legally equal to heterosexual couples.

By amending the Marriage Act to define marriage as a union of two people we can make the right to marry—a right taken for granted by most Australians—available to all Australians. We can amend the act and put an end to marriage inequality. Marriage is a celebration of love and commitment, which is important to many couples, their families and their friends. It is a celebration that is denied to tens of thousands of Australians, thanks to a 'relic of legal prejudice' as the Leader of the Opposition so rightly put it.

Tens of thousands of families are discriminated against for the most personal aspect of themselves: who they love. We can change this, right here, in parliament by doing the job we were each elected to do. We can put this relic of the past where it belongs: in the history books. In this day and age, when countries around the world have moved ahead of us in marriage equality, it is disappointing that this government continues to refuse equality to same-sex couples in this country.

In my first speech I quoted the great Western Australian essayist Sir Walter Murdoch, who once said he felt 'like kneeling down daily and praying to be delivered from this shameful fear of change and praying that my country may be delivered from it'. Well, this country and its people have left its conservative leaders behind. The people of Australia have faith in themselves and in their communities and are willing to forge a progressive path toward marriage equality. This government is holding them back, and I pray that this country might be delivered from this regressive government.

A primary function of our parliament is to make and change laws, and it might be a surprise to some opposite that this is true even when it relates to marriage. This government has decided it cannot introduce a legislative change to parliament without first putting it to a non-binding plebiscite, the true function of which is to save the Prime Ministers' job. This non-binding plebiscite, a political tool, favoured by the government would not change the definition of marriage or even guarantee a debate in parliament on this important issue. What it would do, though, is open the floodgates for opinions to flow freely on other people's lives. This is principally what it is about: other people's lives.

Some of us, myself included, believe other people should be able to live their lives as they choose, as part of a peaceful community that is committed to basic order and rule of law and freedom to enjoy an equality of rights. Others, somehow, think they need to be involved in other people's lives, that they need to be the moral guardians of other people's lives and make decisions on what rights other people should have the privilege to enjoy. These people should stop it. They should stop prying into other people's lives and their loves and stop passing judgement on them.

To these prying moral guardians I say: it is none of your business, and it would help the accord within our community if you could stop encouraging others to broadcast opinions on other people's private lives. Some members opposite have presented the idea that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman for the reproduction of children, that somehow this is the 'right' view of marriage and all that it is. I disagree with this view. How small this view is, how terribly sadly small.

This government and many of its members, sadly, do not care for the collateral damage the public debate they have sought to encourage and fund will have. It will hurt many. It will hurt me, my husband, my sister and my friends. Basically, the proposed plebiscite debate will hurt anyone who has a life that is different from their traditional, idealised and, frankly, unreal view of marriage. Marriage has always been and will continue to be much more than an institution that requires conservative forces to protect it.

For the majority of people who decide to marry, they do so because of love and not to conform to some kind of restrictive definition. I support the right of same-sex couples to celebrate their love through marriage. I look forward to the day when Australia joins the long list of countries around the world where same-sex marriage is recognised. I look forward to the day when every Australian, regardless of their sexuality, can experience the same freedom to express their love and commitment that is afforded to the majority of people.

If this parliament is allowed to work as it should, that day, hopefully, is very close. I also believe—as the members do who spoke previously—in a representative democracy. We should be allowed, in this parliament, to do our jobs, not to put out for public opinion the rights of other people's lives.

Debate adjourned.

See this speech in context