Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I've had the privilege of serving the people of Fisher and, more broadly, the Australian people for only 18 months. It's been the greatest privilege of my life, but with every privilege comes responsibility, and it is now my responsibility as the member for Fisher to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 and to vote in accordance with my conscience. I thank the Prime Minister for affording me that opportunity. I think it is fair to surmise that few bills will generate as much controversy and consternation amongst the Australian people as the one which is the subject of this debate. As a barrister, I acted as counsel assisting the coroner in respect of a number of road deaths north of the Sunshine Coast. The coroner, Maxine Baldwin, would often remark that, in her role, she needed 'the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon'. I find myself wishing today, as I often do, that I, too, had Solomon's wisdom as I prosecute my responsibilities as a parliamentarian. I closed my maiden speech in this place with a prayer written by Reinhold Niebuhr, a prayer which I should like to open this speech with today:

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,

courage to change the things I can,

and wisdom to know the difference.

The issue of same-sex marriage is a deeply personal one for many Australians and for many more Australian families. Many of us have a story to tell about same-sex marriage, and these stories illustrate and illuminate the complexity of the legislative challenge before us. Like many colleagues, in contributing to this debate I'd like to tell the House about my own experience and the experience of my family, which has brought me to my position today. This issue has perplexed me for a number of years. I'm a practising, committed Catholic. I do my best to go to church every Sunday. In fact, in my late teens, I joined a monastery, willing to give my life to God through the service of others. The teachings of the Catholic Church on the issue on marriage are very clear. The church teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, for life. There is no ambiguity in that stance. It is a stance which I shared for most of my adult life.

My daughter, Caroline, struggled through much of her teenage years with mental illness. She suffered from an insidious disease, an eating disorder, most notably anorexia and bulimia. My wife and I watched our beautiful daughter—our girls, their sister—fight her demons as she slowly became nothing more than skin and bone, in and out of hospital for long stretches of time over a number of years. She would wax and wane between sheer determination to regain her health and utter desperation, sinking into the abyss of feeling that there was no hope of an end to this internal conflict. As a dad, I'm very pleased and proud to say that my daughter is now in a much healthier and happier place. She has a terrific job and a wonderful partner who our family love very much.

What does this story have to do with same-sex marriage, you may ask? About three years ago, our daughter told my wife and me that she was attracted to women and that she had a girlfriend. My wife and I were shocked, probably more me than my wife. I didn't know what to say. Homosexuality went against what I had been taught to believe for many years. How could this be happening? How could this be happening to me and to our family? Whilst she'd had boyfriends, she has since told me that it never felt quite right, and that she felt that she couldn't tell us as we would not approve. She said she had always secretly been attracted to women, and I'm sure that this internal conflict would have, in some part at least, exacerbated her mental state. My daughter said something to me which was very prophetic in that initial discussion. She said, 'Dad, in the years to come, my generation will look back and judge your generation about how you deal with the issue of homosexuality in the same way that your generation considered your parents' generation in the way that they dealt with our Indigenous people.'

In this country, we do not discriminate against someone because of the colour of their skin, their religion or their place of birth. In law, we are all created equally, and so we ought not in law discriminate against a person by virtue of their sexual preference. In this lies the value of the distinction between church and state. It reminds us of our constitutional forefathers' foresight in ensuring that no faith should be recognised by the state as a sanctioned religion. The tenants of the Roman Catholic Church, or any church or religion for that matter, ought not and must never be permitted to override our civil laws.

When I stood for preselection for the seat of Fisher in April 2016, it was Liberal Party policy that we would take the issue of same-sex marriage to the people by way of holding a plebiscite. That was a policy introduced by the then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, and a policy which the current Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth, rightly continued. Nonetheless, the issue of same-sex marriage remained the subject of passionate debate within the rank and file of our party. I ran my preselection on the basis that I would support the will of the Australian people, as expressed in a plebiscite. I have maintained that position ever since. The plebiscite came in for a great deal of public ridicule from the left side of politics. Labor and the Greens sought to block it at every step of the way, including all the way to the High Court of Australia. In my view, from the beginning, they fought the plebiscite not because of some philanthropic motive; I believe that this was unfortunately yet another example of the Leader of the Opposition playing rank divisive politics.

In my view, many Australians wanted the opportunity to have their say. The fact that almost 80 per cent of Australians took part in a voluntary survey is testament to that fact. We were warned that a plebiscite or a postal survey would lead to ugly scenes of vilification. We were warned that this would be a demonstration of Australians at their worst. I'm very pleased and proud to say that those opposite could not have been more wrong about Australians. Australians are a generous, tolerant, respectful and open-minded lot. We are egalitarian. We have no social class structures. We intrinsically know the difference between right and wrong. We are a decent, harmonious, multicultural society who believe in giving our mates a fair go.

Australians supported marriage equality in strength and in numbers that surprised me. Over 61.6 per cent of Australians supported same-sex marriage nationwide and even more in my seat of Fisher, with 62.8 per cent support. I promised the Australian people that I would respect and support their decision and I intend to honour that commitment. However, I firmly believe that there are a number of amendments that should be made to the bill in order to protect religious freedoms. I will have more to say about those protections when I speak on those amendments later during the week. Suffice to say, I believe very strongly in the right to practice one's religion; the right of freedom of expression ought not be trampled by the majority. Almost five million Australians who voted no to same-sex marriage deserve to have a voice in this parliament and they deserve to have their rights enshrined in legislation. We need to put beyond doubt in this bill that their views are equally as important as those who supported this change.

This bill recognises that there is a distinction between a religious or church wedding and a marriage recognised by the laws of the Commonwealth. Churches of all faiths and religious ministers of all faiths will be permitted to lawfully decline to marry same-sex couples and decline to provide services and facilities such as church halls for same-sex couples' ceremonies and receptions. This, in my view, is right and proper. But the bill should provide greater protections, and I look forward to speaking about those in the debates concerning those amendments.

See this speech in context