Michael Johnson (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1)

recognise and honour marriage as an exclusive union between a man and a woman;

(2)

celebrate the importance of marriage as an indispensable institution in Australian society; and

(3)

encourage the Australian Government to enact policies that promote and strengthen marriage in our society.

I am delighted to speak on this motion. In 2004 some 111,000 marriages were registered in Australia. This compares with 106,400 marriages registered in 2003, and some 108,700 marriages registered in 1984. The number of marriages registered has consistently increased since the 2001 low of 103,000. In 2004 the Howard government sponsored an amendment to the Marriage Act which inserted a formal definition of marriage, that definition being that ‘marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life’. I spoke in this House at the time of that amendment of my very strong support for this definition and of marriage in general.

Again today in the parliament, in the House of Representatives as the federal member for Ryan, I want to place on record once again my firm position on this matter. I believe that marriage must be the legal and emotional union between a man and a woman, entered into freely and voluntarily, to the exclusion of all others. Therefore, the efforts of the ACT government to undermine the institution of marriage by seeking to pass its own bill were a cause of grave alarm. Last week, the Executive Council advised the Governor-General, Michael Jeffrey, to issue a disallowance motion of the ACT’s Civil Unions Act 2006, in accordance with section 35 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988. In the government’s view, the ACT’s Civil Unions Act represented a serious affront to the institution of marriage.

I strongly share these views of the federal government. In my opinion, if a civil union is to be treated under the law for all intents and purposes the same as a marriage, and is afforded the same practical elements, then it is essentially a marriage. The ACT Civil Unions Act not only gave civil unions the same legal and practical rights as marriage, but in the same breath failed to give same-sex couples the same responsibilities as married couples. But whereas marriage is a lifelong union, not easily broken, civil unions under the ACT act could be broken simply by sending a letter to the Registrar-General and not withdrawing it within a mere one month. This is an absurd position to take. It highlights the conceptual flaws and inconsistencies within the ACT bill.

There is absolutely no question in my mind that marriage must be promoted and protected by society and governments alike. Marriage is one of society’s most fundamental institutions. Marriage is a bedrock institution. I view marriage as an institution on which the very continuity, strength and stability of our society rests. This is because marriage is connected to the procreation of children and the raising of families. Children come from marriage, and families stem from marriage. Damage the institution of marriage and you damage society at large. Diminish the institution of marriage and you diminish society at large. Undermine the institution of marriage and you undermine the foundations of family life. International evidence, such as the experience of Spain, has shown us that once same-sex marriage is allowed the institution of marriage is significantly eroded to the point where a child raised in a household with a mother and father becomes the exception rather than the norm. Assault the institution of marriage and you assault the fabric of our community and our society as we know it today. We do not want the Spanish experience exported to Australian shores.

It follows that, if marriage is an unchallenged expression of commitment, trust, loyalty and love in a union between a man and a woman, marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples. Moves by this government to protect marriage as a fundamental institution of Australian society should not be viewed as in any way discriminating against the gay and lesbian community. In fact, the Howard government has been a strong supporter of removing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation from within the law and in the workplace.

One of the very sad things about our modern world is that many marriages break down and couples feel they need to leave each other and carve out separate lives. We can all think of the many reasons that contribute to the breakdown of marriages. If marriage breakdown is not sad and regrettable of itself, then certainly one of the terrible consequences of marriage breakdowns is that where there are children involved it is invariably the children who suffer all kinds of losses and hurts. Many single parents who raise their children do an amazing job and they should receive our admiration and help. But given the facts that marriages break down and that most single parents do a wonderful job rearing their children, surely we must all agree that the best environment for the rearing of children is one that has both a mother and a father.

I repeat that society and governments must do all they can to promote such an environment where a mother and a father can raise a family with all the support that they need. I want to thank the Howard government for all its measures to strengthen marriage. I will continue to encourage it to make the protection and preservation of marriage a high priority. This would certainly receive the widespread support of the majority of the Australian community. As the federal member for Ryan, I know it would certainly receive the overwhelming support of my electorate.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.

Chris Hayes (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the member for Ryan’s motion about marriage and I actually feel somewhat more than half qualified to do so. On 22 May I celebrated with my wife our 30th wedding anniversary. Bernadette and I have been married for 30 years and over those three decades she has been not only my wife but the mother of our three children and the very proud grandmother of three—soon to be four as of 1 July, I think it is. Over that whole period—since school actually—Bernadette has been my best friend. As a matter of fact, when we got married Bernadette was 19 and I was 20, so we have actually grown up together. So I do feel very strongly about the institution of marriage and its impact on families. That is why I welcome the opportunity to speak here today.

By and large, families are underpinned by successful marriages, but I want to say how regrettable it is that every year we have in excess of 50,000 divorces. That is more than one in three marriages unfortunately ending up on the rocks. Whilst we have supportive facilities such as relationship centres and good counselling and family support services, they have one thing in common: they are there to help pick up the pieces after the deleterious effects of modern life have wreaked carnage on modern marriages and, as a consequence, significantly affected families.

As secretary of the caucus industrial relations task force, I have recently had the opportunity to visit many locations throughout the country. One of the things that were continually raised with task force members was the actual and perceived impacts that the industrial relations changes will have or are likely to have on families. Over the last three decades we have seen continual stresses on families as a consequence of changing working hours, particularly after the introduction of non-standard working hours. In 2002 the Prime Minister said that balancing family life and work was a priority of his government. As a matter of fact, he went on to describe that issue as ‘a barbecue stopper’. I know that term has been used once or twice today, but that is the way that he described the issue in 2002. I also note that at a recent breakfast Pru Goward, the federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, described balancing work and family life as an ‘epic struggle’—and clearly it is. That is why we are so concerned about the impact of these harsh industrial relations laws not only on individuals but also on families. Like the member for Ryan, I would be equally concerned about what they will do to marriages. We should be providing, as the motion says, positive policies to underpin and support the institution of marriage. I am all for that. We should be doing that. We should be looking at a set of policy frameworks that help support marriages and a diminution of the current divorce rate that we are experiencing. It is not something that we need to be very flash about in terms of how we position the words around it; it has to be something that we do.

If we are looking at track records, let us look at the one on Work Choices. This is something that we are poles apart on, given what is proposed. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is not just Chris Hayes who stands up to say this. Family after family visited the industrial relations task force to complain about the impacts that the industrial relations legislation will have on them, their relationship with their family and their being available for their family. People are very concerned about the likely impact this legislation will have on successful family life into the future.

I commend the member for Ryan for moving the motion. I think he has provided a service to the parliament and, therefore, I hope that he will join me in looking at a set of industrial frameworks that would support families into the future—(Time expired)

Margaret May (McPherson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Ryan for introducing this private member’s motion to recognise and honour marriage as being the exclusive union between a man and a woman. I hope that this country continues to recognise that marriage is between a man and a woman and that it does not venture down the path of another social experiment that could in time see it pay an enormous price that will have huge social ramifications in the future, particularly on children.

This government has consistently reiterated the fundamental importance of the place of marriage in our society, and this commitment to the traditional definition of marriage was reaffirmed with bipartisan support in this parliament in 2004. As the motion before the House today says: as a nation we need to ‘celebrate the importance of marriage as an indispensable institution in Australian society’—and celebrate we can. The number of registered marriages in this country is increasing. The statistics may surprise some, but in fact all states and territories have recorded increases in the number of registered marriages. In Western Australia that number has increased by 11 per cent, and in the ACT it has increased by 10 per cent. New South Wales and Victoria recorded the smallest increases at only two per cent—but still an increase.

The institution of marriage between a man and a woman is supported by Australian society, and we must protect that institution. The increase in the number of marriages within our society clearly demonstrates the acceptance of the institution as a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, made voluntarily and entered into for life. The institution of marriage between a man and a woman has been the accepted norm for centuries; it has stood the test of time. It has been the vehicle by which children have been raised and nurtured. It is the vehicle that has protected and guaranteed our society’s future and, in my view, it will be the vehicle that will see communities both here and around the world continue to grow and prosper.

In my view, the status of marriage between a man and a woman should not be compromised. Same-sex relationships or, indeed, unions should not have the same status as a marriage between a man and a woman. The two relationships are different by their very nature and, because they are different, they need to be treated differently. The ACT Civil Unions Act 2006 provided in section 5(2):

... a civil union is different to a marriage but is to be treated for all purposes under territory law in the same way as a marriage.

How can a civil union be different from a marriage on one hand, yet be treated the same as a marriage on the other? One glaring difference with the proposal by the ACT government was the termination of a civil union. Under the proposal, a civil union could be terminated by just giving written notice to the Registrar-General. If it was not withdrawn within a month, the civil union was over. It would seem to me that the value of a civil union under the proposed act was certainly not strengthened or, indeed, in any way resembled a marriage under the Marriage Act if two people could end a union with a letter.

Not all marriages are made in heaven and, sadly, human failings and faults often see marriages ending. Some of those end acrimoniously with children often paying a very high emotional price of a messy separation that ends in divorce. Instead of moving to new social experiments that would end in more heartache and disaster, we need to put in place strong measures to assist and help couples and families meet the responsibilities that marriage brings, particularly once children become part of the family unit.

This government has been active over the past 10 years in ensuring that marriages have the best environment, both economically and socially, to enable husbands and wives to build strong family units that will survive the test of time and the enormous responsibilities and challenges that are faced over long periods of time.

In the last budget, brought down only weeks ago, the Treasurer announced further measures that demonstrate the commitment of the government to supporting families and the choices they make. Helping families has been one of the highest priorities of this government. Major initiatives in the budget will ensure that our economic prosperity continues well into the future. That strong economic base will assist families by keeping interest rates low, by keeping inflation low, by keeping unemployment low and by ensuring that, with a disciplined approach to our economy, families in this country will benefit and prosper. Specific services, such as early intervention and the funding of relationship centres around the country, will give couples the education and skills training they need to build strong relationships for the long term.

A healthy family environment means a healthy and strong society for our country. Strong family relationships build strong communities. We need to continue supporting these types of services to assist children, young people and adults and to continue sustaining safe, supportive and nurturing family relationships—and there is no better place for nurturing than within the institution of marriage. I commend the motion to the House.

John Murphy (Lowe, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support the motion moved by the member for Ryan, which extols the virtues of marriage. What is marriage? For the purposes of the House, marriage is one of the Commonwealth government’s powers of enumerated jurisdiction, enshrined in our Commonwealth Constitution under section 51. It is right and proper, therefore, that we discuss this power.

Marriage is a natural bond between man and woman, recognised in the vast majority of cultures, whether Christian or otherwise. This universal recognition largely reflects the natural law, in that nature ordains the natural procreative function of man and woman. Marriage is therefore an essential part of the foundation and stability of the family. The institutions of family and society are the essence of what is known as the ‘common good’ from which all public interest derives.

Marriage is the natural relationship of the two different sexes. Nature reveals that this relationship is one of complementarity. Man and woman are both biologically and emotionally different. That is why they are intrinsically different creatures. Marriage mutually perfects the other so that they become one. Together, man and woman complement each other, ultimately and naturally bringing children into the world.

Marriage is a reality that exists at every level—biological, physical and spiritual. It is in the act of marriage that the spiritual reality of the joining of man and woman is given moral and legal approval. Again, this reality is recognised by the majority of people across all cultures and religions. This reality is a natural reality that is seen by the great majority of cultures worldwide. Marriage is a reality that is truly unique to the monogamous, heterosexual realm.

‘Marriage’ is well defined in section 5 of the Commonwealth Marriage Act and section 5 of the Family Law Act as ‘the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others’. This definition is the only valid recognition of our civil laws which correctly reflects the natural law and moral law. You do not have to be a Catholic to reach that conclusion. You do not even have to be a Christian to reach that conclusion. In fact, you do not even have to believe in anything to draw that conclusion. Therefore, the word ‘marriage’ cannot be used to describe any form of relationship other than the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. This is so because there is no way to produce children naturally other than by a man and a woman. Technology and legal redefinition attempt to overcome this fact, but there is no other natural means by which the propagation of the species can occur.

We parliamentarians act and speak in the public interest. That is our role. It is therefore necessary for us to defend the common good. Nature speaks of the procreative function. No technocentric, cultural or ideological position or solution can substitute the way in which nature ordains the procreative function of a man and woman joined in marriage. We cannot barter or negotiate with nature; it is absolute.

This House of parliament cannot repeal the law of gravity, even if it passes a law that says it is repealed. You do not have to be a religious adherent to believe that marriage is a cornerstone of Australia’s functional society. Functional healthy societies are those that support marriage of one man to one woman for life. The case is good, therefore, for laws to support marriage and positively discriminate in favour of marriage. Laws that favour marriage make good economic, social and political sense. Our duty towards the common good compels us to draft laws that recognise, promote and protect marriage. The family unit depends on the healthy support of marriage. Marriage is therefore the primary unit of a functional society. It is for the common good of Australia that laws are made that reflect positive support for the family and for marriage, for marriage and the family are inseparable. You cannot have functional families without laws that support marriage or vice versa. That is why our family laws and marriage laws were amended recently to give long awaited recognition to the statutory definition of ‘marriage’ as being ‘the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others’.

That said, we are all let down by those who are naive enough to mask their support for marriage and who employ it as a weapon to attack the many other relationships in our society. Such attacks are unconscionable, unnecessary and unjustified. In concluding, I am therefore pleased to support this motion and an institution that has well served our society and countless other societies for many thousands of years.

Michael Ferguson (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am proud to have listened today to the earlier contributions from both sides of the House and to also add my support to the member for Ryan’s private member’s motion—that is, to recognise and honour marriage as an exclusive union between a man and a woman, to celebrate the importance of marriage as an indispensable institution in Australian society and to encourage the Australian government to continue with policies that promote and strengthen marriage.

I can speak with fewer years experience than other members but, nonetheless, 11 years of personal experience of the joys of being married, during which our family has been created and developed. It has provided each one of us with a sense of our place in the world and certainly a knowledge of each of our personal identities and an alliance with each other. The Australian government does an excellent job communicating and upholding the fundamental importance of marriage in our society. Like other institutions, it suffers from human frailty on occasion. Nonetheless, marriage remains time honoured and well proven for social cohesion and the welfare of children.

On this side of the House, we do this in part by reiterating the importance of all children having the opportunity, wherever possible, to be raised with the care and affection of their mother and father. It is for these reasons that the government has always maintained the view—and I support this view—that, while the law should be respectful of the private life choices that people make for themselves, same-sex relationships cannot be given the same status as marriage.

We have heard much talk in the past few weeks about civil unions and the Crown’s recent overturning of the ACT’s radical civil union laws. The ACT government’s behaviour on this issue has been appalling, out of step with mainstream Australia and deliberately provocative in offending marriage as it is defined in legislation. We as law makers all have a duty to protect the rights of every one of our citizens. At the same time, there are institutions in this country that warrant and deserve defending and, in this case, that is the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

It would indeed be unreasonable for a person to say, on the basis of what has happened in recent weeks, that any member of the federal government is being homophobic, but there is no proactive discrimination occurring here. Australia does not set out to make life difficult for individuals on the basis of their private lives, and it would be wrong if any government did. All men and women in Australia are equal under our Constitution and our laws. I concede that there is different treatment under the law for different relationships. But this is not about discrimination against the individual and it is not designed to be. It sensibly distinguishes between marriage and other relationships and it should not be seen as discrimination or an infringement of rights. It is not.

Our legal system does not treat people differently on the basis of their sex lives, and that is why we are so fortunate to live in the best country in the world and a very successful democracy. As individual people, homosexual men and women have exactly the same legal rights as you or I. I am not alone when I stand here today and say that marriage is the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life. If the ACT government had had its way then its same-sex civil union proposal would have simply meant marriage by another name. Marriage is the responsibility of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth made its stand clear when it objected to the ACT’s legislation. It was not satisfied with the ACT government’s response to the objections raised.

I express in passing my disappointment that many in the Labor Party have been exposed for their fascination with left-wing politics and their frank departure from supporting marriage as between a man and a woman. I further express my disappointment that no fewer than four ALP senators were effectively prevented from expressing their views on this matter when it came before the Senate. We all have a duty to defend what we believe is right and good, and we would do well to remind ourselves of the old values, which served us well in the past, continue to serve us well today and will serve us well into the future. With all of its imperfections, we owe it to ourselves and to the future of our functional and harmonious society to defend a wonderful human institution. I commend the motion to the House.

Craig Emerson (Rankin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I wish to anchor my remarks on this debate in a report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs entitled To have and to hold—strategies to strengthen marriage and relationships. I acknowledge the role of Joe de Bruyn in pointing out this report to me, because it was presented to the parliament in June 1998, before I was elected. The government members of the inquiry included Minister Andrews, Minister McGauran, the member for Flinders and the member for Canning. Labor members included the member for Barton, the member for Blaxland, the member for Denison, the member for Banks, the member for Chifley and the member for Wills.

I list those names because those members of parliament who contributed to this report did so in a bipartisan spirit, handed down a bipartisan report and demonstrated as eminent members of parliament that the issue of marriage does enjoy bipartisan support in this parliament and should be above politics. I was disappointed, therefore, with the remarks of the previous speaker, who sought to politicise this debate. Marriage is much too important an institution to be politicised in this way.

The report to which I have referred was about strengthening and supporting marital arrangements and preventing marital distress and consequent breakdown of marriages. The report found that international research shows that marriage benefits personal health and wellbeing. Yet, as my colleague the member for Werriwa has pointed out, every year there are 50,000 divorces and one in three marriages ends in divorce.

Marriage breakdown of course increases the prevalence of sole parent households. Research conducted by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling shows that sole parent families constitute one-quarter of all families nowadays but account for one-half of the poorest 20 per cent of families. What I am saying is that sole parent households are grossly overrepresented amongst the poorest families in our community. So we should be doing what we reasonably can to avoid mothers being deserted and placed in a situation in which three-quarters of a million children now live—that is, in sole parent households. The 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act 1961 took forward the common-law understanding of marriage to enshrine it in the legislation in these terms:

The union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

Labor fully agrees with that, and that is why we supported this legislation. It is important to preserve the uniqueness of marriage, but I point out that the Work Choices legislation puts unnecessary extra pressure on families. This was the Prime Minister’s barbecue stopper. Several years ago the Prime Minister argued that the biggest issue—the barbecue stopping issue—in our society is the need to strike a better balance between work and family life. What has the government done about achieving a better balance? It has taken us backwards through the Work Choices legislation by imposing extra pressures on families to work irregular hours, to lose penalty rates and, overall, to be in a situation where they have less control of their lives and less time for nurturing marriage.

I refer to comments made on the weekend by His Eminence Cardinal George Pell, who was asked about the industrial relations laws. He said: ‘I don’t particularly like the new IR laws because I am frightened they could force down minimum wages and, if that was the effect, I’d be very disappointed.’ He went on to say: ‘It’s yet to be seen how they will work out, but I am apprehensive.’ I do not want to politicise Cardinal Pell’s intervention, but he makes a very valid point. We do support the institution of marriage, but we do want to see a better balance between work and family life.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allocated for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.