Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Geoff Lyons (Bass, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I second the motion pro forma.

Stephen Jones (Throsby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I am pleased to provide the second reading of the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012, a bill for an act to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to establish marriage equality for same-sex couples and for related purposes.

The bill is short and to the point. Its focus is on making an amendment to the definition of marriage that is now set out in section 5 of the Marriage Act 1961.

The provisions of this bill

Item 1 of schedule 1 of the bill will amend the definition of marriage that is currently in section 5 of the Marriage Act to read:

Marriage means the union of two people, regardless of their sex, to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.

The bill also amends section 46(1) of the Marriage Act to reflect this new definition of marriage.

Freedom of religion

In Australia, the separation of church and state extends to the law of marriage.

Our laws of marriage primarily exist to regulate a legal contract in which the parties to marriage enter into this contract willingly. They are both free to enter into this contract and they comply with the laws regarding marriage so that this civil arrangement is legally valid.

Our laws also recognise and respect the role of religious organisations to practise their faith, including their practices concerning marriage.

Because Australia's proud tradition of religious freedom is such a fundamental tenet we subscribe to, the bill before the House today inserts a new subsection into section 47 of the act, to reinforce the existing provisions that ensure a minister of religion is under no obligation to solemnise a marriage where the parties to that marriage are of the same sex. This provision will absolutely ensure that the principle of religious freedom is maintained when it comes to the laws of marriage in Australia.

This Marriage Act became Commonwealth law after Sir Garfield Barwick introduced the bill into this parliament in 1960 to provide for uniform marriage laws across Australia. In his second reading speech, Sir Garfield made the following observation:

…it will be observed that there is no attempt to define marriage in this bill. None of the marriage laws to which I have referred contains any such definition. But insistence of its monogamous quality is indicated by…the provisions of the Matrimonial Causes Act which render a marriage void where one of the parties is already married and by a provision in this bill making bigamy an offence.

As many of those in this place would well know, the definition of marriage in the Commonwealth Marriage Act is a relatively recent inclusion.

Indeed, it was not until the Marriage Legislation Amendment Act 2004, introduced in this place by the then Attorney-General and current member for Berowra, that the Marriage Act included the current definition.

In his second reading speech to the bill, the then Attorney set out the following reasons for inclusion of a definition of marriage:

Including this definition will remove any lingering concerns that people may have that the legal definition of marriage may become eroded by time.

Far from representing an erosion, this bill extends the right of marriage to same-sex couples. Far from eroding it, it recognises that marriage equality is now something that the majority of Australians are comfortable with and accept.

While marriage is an old institution, it is not immutable.

Practices and understanding of marriage have changed in accordance with societal norms and they will continue to do so. I believe this is reflected in the fact that the Commonwealth laws with regard to marriage have been amended by every single government in this place since their inception.

Why this b ill?

At the end of 2011 the Australian Labor Party voted to change its policy to allow for equal access to marriage for all adult couples, irrespective of sex, who have a mutual commitment to a shared life.

The ALP also voted to allow a conscience vote on any legislation due to give effect to this.

The bill that I bring before the House today reflects that change in policy.

Conclusion

The aim of this bill is to end discrimination against same-sex couples who wish to have their relationship recognised by the state.

In practical terms it will give same-sex couples the same rights and obligations in their marriage as I have in mine.

It also sends a powerful message that our belief in equality and a fair go is not limited by a person's sexuality.

I commend the bill to the House.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In a video recorded for the Australian Christian Lobby and for the benefit of people of faith right across this country, just before the 2009 election, the Prime Minister made this statement:

We have determined, as a Labor Party, that the Marriage Act will stay unchanged so marriage will be defined as it is in our current Marriage Act, as between a man and a woman, and we have also said that the Labor Party policy is we do not want to see the development of ceremonies that mimic marriage ceremonies and so that's the party policy and as Prime Minister, as leader of the parliamentary Labor Party, that's obviously my policy and that's what you should expect to see from the Gillard Labor government if we're re-elected.

That is a pretty clear, explicit and unequivocal statement from the Prime Minister, from the leader of the Labor Party. To press the point, in the context of this interview, the interviewer—the Australian Christian Lobby's Managing Director, Brigadier Jim Wallace—went on to ask the Prime Minister:

Can I just say that obviously one of the concerns of the constituency here is the knowledge that this was only, it seemed, upheld by direct intervention of the highest levels of the party at the last Labor conference. So you're saying that a Gillard Labor government will keep that policy in place?

To which the Prime Minister replied, 'Absolutely'.

Then she went on to say:

I was personally and directly involved in this policy and its development at the last national conference.

So it is very clear that at the 2009 election the Australian Labor Party made a solemn commitment to the electorate to support the legal definition of 'marriage'—that definition, as it is in the current Act, being as between one man and one woman.

The Prime Minister famously made another promise less than a week before election day 2010 when she said, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' And just like we saw that promise broken last year, this month we have seen another promise broken with the introduction of the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012 by the Labor member for Throsby after Labor changed its policy at the national conference. And just like the broken carbon tax promise, this broken promise has come at the pushing of my good friend the member for Melbourne and also the Greens. It just shows, after the events of this morning, that in the Labor Party absolutely nothing has changed. We still have a minority government that does not know where it is going and that is completely driven and led by the nose by Senator Bob Brown and his Green colleagues.

Instead of hearing excuses as to why this change happened and hearing lines from the Prime Minister like 'I still support marriage as it is currently defined', the question needs to be asked as to why the Labor Party has gone awry on this issue. That is a decision the Labor Party has made. It obviously has the support of their rank and file and I assume the parliamentary party as well, or at least the majority of members. For the people who sit in churches every Sunday, who cast their vote for the Labor Party on the basis of the Prime Minister's statement, let me read that again:

We have determined as a Labor Party the Marriage Act will stay unchanged, so marriage will be defined as it is in our current Marriage Act as between a man and a woman.

I read that for those people who cast their vote for the Labor Party on the basis of this issue—this sacrosanct issue for them—not being changed, for the definition of marriage to be retained. What those people should hear from this government and from this Prime Minister is: 'Sorry. Sorry that we once again have duped you. Sorry that we said one thing before the election and now are doing a very, very different thing afterwards.'

But the proposal by the Labor Party to change the legal definition of marriage is not just wrong on the grounds that it is a broken promise. It also flies in the face of Australia's international obligations, because same-sex marriage lends itself to more children being raised without both their biological mother and biological father as their parental figures. Every child deserves a mother and a father. Article 7 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states:

The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

Every child deserves a mother and a father. You know why? Because it works. A 2010 Australian Institute of Family Studies report entitled Families then and now: 1980-2010 showed that 72 per cent—almost three-quarters—of Australian families with children under the age of 18 years are intact biological families. That is about 2.1 million families in this country. We only need to look at other examples of where children have been robbed of this right to be raised by their mother and father, by their natural parents, to see what trauma it has caused them. When we look at the Aboriginal Australians who were removed from their parents, possibly with the best of intentions of the governments involved at the time, we can see the deep and lasting psychological scars that many Indigenous people still have to this day brought about by their removal through government policy.

Last year's Senate inquiry into the donor conception system in this nation exposed the angst felt by many persons. One such person speaking publicly on this issue said:

I was always really proud of being donor created—

from time to time we do hear children of same-sex families say they are proud—

but, once I had kids of my own, I realised what I had been deprived of. I have a fantastic relationship with my parents … but things are missing; things that couldn't be provided—identity, heritage, history.

When I look in the mirror, I don't know who that person is.

When I read those words from someone who has been robbed of the right to a mother and father I wonder to myself if we can honestly be sure that as result of this bill we will not be hearing from children of same-sex marriages in the future saying that they have been deprived of a mother or a father and talking about being robbed of their identity, their heritage, their history and their right to a mother and father.

Marriage is all about family—it is all about children; it is all about creating a legal union between a man and a woman, providing permanence in their relationship and establishing a legal bond between those two people and their children. Yes, it is for the benefit of parents but more so for the benefit of children and, as a result, the benefit of society. The only way society can continue is through children. The only reason government is involved in the regulation of relationships through the Marriage Act is because procreation is the only way society can go on. If it were not for that fact, the government would not be playing in this field at all. This is a very important issue that has been neglected in this whole debate. The Labor Party need to come back to the Australian people with what they promised them before the 2010 election. That promise was that the policy would be retained—the Greens can have their policy, but the Labor Party policy—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member should remember he is speaking to a private member's bill—

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Put forward by a Labor member—

Ms Anna Burke (Chisholm, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes but as a private member, and you should reflect upon the seriousness of that as an issue.

George Christensen (Dawson, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would say that the private member is a member of the Labor Party and at the last election— (Time expired)

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We have reached a pivotal moment in our journey towards marriage equality. Parliament now has before it three bills that, if enacted, would remove discrimination from the Marriage Act, and across the country support for equal love is now deeply felt and widespread. There is a sense of inevitability about the change coming—that love will, eventually, prevail. In fact, the Prime Minister is reported to have acknowledged this inevitability at a recent dinner at the Lodge with same-sex couples. Yet the path to marriage equality is still blocked—blocked by a Prime Minister frightened of more division in her party; blocked by an opposition leader unwilling to let go of the past; and blocked by a lack of courage amongst many in this place who know what is right but as yet are unwilling to stand by their convictions.

As I have said, this is a pivotal moment but also a moment of great danger to those who seek to make marriage equal. There is a real danger that if we act too quickly and move too fast on progressing these bills, we will lose the best opportunity we have of bringing about lasting change. That is why the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill, cosponsored by the member for Denison and me, will be examined by the House and Senate inquiry before we move to a vote. That is why I have sought to work with other members in this place to put in place a single bill to end discrimination. I hope that the committee process can identify which elements of the three bills are the best and that we use the next few months to bring together a single bill. There are some differences between this bill and the Greens' Marriage Equality Amendment Bill—for example, the manner in which the bills deal with religious protections and the extent to which consequential change to related legislation can be made. These are small but significant differences that should be examined.

I say to the mover of this bill, the member for Throsby, and others in Labor, that there is nothing to be gained by pressing forward with this bill at this time and everything to lose. Labor forfeited the right to treat this issue as a government reform when it moved to a conscience vote, so this is a private member's bill. As we have seen time and time again in this place, the best chance we have of getting such a bill through this place is one that is co-sponsored across the parties. So I urge those in Labor who want to see marriage equality to slow down, take a deep breath and work with members across the parties to get this through. The reality is that we do not yet have the numbers in place to pass these bills—neither my bill, nor the member for Throsby's bill nor Senator Hanson-Young's bill. That is the fact of the matter. We do not have the numbers yet to pass these bills because the old parties are not yet willing to support full equality. Yes, Labor changed its platform; but it squibbed on real reform by allowing a conscience vote. At the moment, this has left the fate of marriage equality in the hands of the Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, who has bound his cabinet against change and, as a result, has tied the hands of most of the Liberal members in this place. This is despite the Liberal Party's claim to support individual liberty and freedom.

So we are in a dangerous situation, potentially, where a step forward too fast will mean that the last several years of campaigning could come to nought. There is no doubt that many in the old parties would like the push for marriage equality to fail. We know that there are those who would like to push this bill to a failed vote and then, perhaps, to blame Tony Abbott. There are others who have stated publicly that they would rather that parliament discuss a proposal for civil unions that would entrench two tiers of citizenship in this country. Without taking anything away from those who have chosen to participate in the civil unions just legislated in Queensland, we know that civil unions are not full equality. So there are potentially other agendas here. There are many in the old parties who want to get marriage equality off the agenda and they want to move forward to a losing vote on these bills. I want to make it absolutely clear that the Australian Greens will not be part of any such agenda. Every last member of our team supports marriage equality. We have been fighting for full equality for years and we are not going to give up now. So I call on the member for Throsby and those on the government side who support marriage equality to hold off on a vote on this bill. Regardless of today's debate, we should not rush headlong to a vote that we will lose.

The process that I have just outlined is what those who wish to marry would want, and that is the clear message from equal marriage advocates. Let us take time to build more support. This reform will surely fail if any one party tries to own it. In order to get this reform through we have to be prepared to share the love. The march to freedom and equality has never been easy. It is a road that takes many twists and turns. It must forde many streams and climb many obstacles. I believe that freedom's march can never be denied, because it is powered by one of the most powerful and fundamental of human values—that is, the power of love. It is the love of others and love of those close to you. It is the love of humanity and the love of one's neighbours and friends. It is the love of one's children and the love of one's partner. This is the persistent motivation that has driven history's struggles for freedom and it continues to be today. Regardless of attempts to deny it, this love will not be denied.

In one of his most famous passages, from Corinthians, St Paul said:

Love is patient, love is kind.

It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.

It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.

Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.

It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

So I believe that, with love's perseverance, we will one day soon remove the barriers to equal love. But if marriage equality is to be achieved it will need love's patience as well. I want to thank the member for Throsby for his commitment to marriage equality and I say again: let us work together to get this done. On that basis and with those reservations I commend this bill to the House, I commend my and the member for Denison's bill to the House and I commend Senator Sarah Hansen-Young's bill for consideration. It is my fervent hope that, after the committees have inquired into these bills and reported on them, we will be able to move forward in a unified position joined, which is my greatest hope, by someone from the coalition benches who believes what they say when they say that an individual should have the right to do as they choose provided that it does not harm someone else.

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 13 : 31 to 16 : 00