Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to present the report of the Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012, which responds to private legislation that proposed to legalise marriage for same-sex couples. To use the words of Australian rugby's open side flanker: 'I believe every human being is precious and we're all part of God's family. Marriage is a beautiful thing and should not be used as a weapon to promote prejudice.'

Australians have usually been ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to removing discrimination. This nation's proud initiatives include providing the vote for women, repealing discriminatory immigration policies, protecting employment for married women and enabling Indigenous Australians to participate fully in the democracy that had blossomed on their continent, although this recognition of the first people's right to vote did not occur until after my first birthday—I am not as old as I look.

Reducing discrimination in all its forms is a matter of social justice. All Australians are people worthy of respect regardless of their age, their religion, their race, their gender, their sexual orientation, their occupation, their level of income, their abilities or their choice of lifestyle. In recent times, there has been growing recognition of the discrimination that same-sex couples experience, both socially and legally, as family units. I am proud to have been a part of the Commonwealth parliament that in 2008 rectified in a bipartisan way many of the financial disadvantages that same-sex couples endured compared to their opposite-sex, de facto and married counterparts. The opportunity to take the step of publicly declaring a couple's love and commitment by entering into a marriage is the final discriminatory hurdle for same-sex couples. It is indefensible and unjust that two people who love each other are unable to marry each other because of their sexual orientation. I firmly believe that marriage is still the best way to protect every committed monogamous relationship.

It is timely for me to remind everyone that God did not write the Marriage Act. It was written by lawyers and legislators in ink, not in stone, and must reflect the views and values of Australians today. Every member of parliament is charged with the duty of ensuring that all our laws best protect the values and beliefs of all the people we represent today—not yesterday and, equally so, not tomorrow. To achieve this end I fully support the legalisation of marriage for same-sex couples and the intent of both the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2012 and the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012, introduced by the member for Throsby.

Just as we look back in disbelief to the day in my lifetime when Indigenous Australians could not vote in their own country or when homosexuality was illegal, it is now time to enact this legislation and raise future generations of children who will not believe that once upon a time same-sex couples in Australia could not marry. The love between same-sex couples is no different to that of opposite-sex couples and deserves no less of the public recognition, celebration and symbolism which the wonderful institution of marriage bestows on all committed relationships.

I encourage each member of parliament to read this report before voting on the bills. I appreciate that there are many differences of opinion among us, as there are across the country; however, we have the weighty responsibility of upholding the views of the constituents who elected us to this position. We have a duty to lead, as well as to represent our constituents, and to vote accordingly. I encourage the House of Representatives to remove this final vestige of discrimination against committed same-sex couples. Should such legislation be challenged, let us hope that the High Court recognises that the Constitution should not be frozen forever in the social attitudes of 1901 when Queen Victoria ruled the waves and this land of ours.

I congratulate Mr Adam Bandt, the member for Melbourne, on being the first MP to introduce into the House of Representatives a bill to legalise same-sex marriage. I warmly thank him for his contribution to the inquiry as a supplementary member of the committee. The committee is honoured to have been part of this important debate. I thank all of the committee members, especially the deputy chair, the member for Pearce, the Hon. Judi Moylan. I thank all of the other committee members, great and small, for their efforts in carefully considering the bills and asking the important questions. Despite a considerable diversity of views among the committee, I am grateful for the bipartisan spirit shown in preparing this report to guide and support our strong and independent parliament. (Time expired)

Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper.

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

As the person who moved one of the bills that was the subject of this inquiry, I would like to place on the record my thanks to the chair, the deputy chair and the excellent secretariat staff for the attitude that was taken towards an issue that a number of people would have some very strong views on. It is no easy feat to begin the process of canvassing the views of the Australian public about changing the Marriage Act to remove one of the last vestiges of discrimination. The fact that we were able to work cooperatively, and ultimately assess and canvass the views of over a quarter of a million Australians, is testament to the bipartisan and cross-partisan spirit of the members of the committee, and also the excellent support we received from the secretariat.

One of the things that became apparent from this committee inquiry is that the public is ready for change. We had over a quarter of a million responses to the survey that was initiated by the committee, and 64 per cent supported the bill that I and the member for Denison are cosponsoring. That number, 64 per cent, matches almost every other poll that has been taken on this subject. It is a reflection of the fact that the Australian public is now quite relaxed about two people who love each other marrying each other and expressing that love, not only to each other but to their families and to their friends. Ultimately, though, the change that we are called upon to make as a parliament should be done not just because it is popular but because it is right. There is no excuse, and the Australian public recognises this, for continuing to discriminate against a group of people simply because of who they love. It is not just those individuals, their families and their friends who will benefit from a change in the law.

The attitude that this parliament takes to whether or not having two classes of people in this society will continue on into the future is significant not just for the individuals who are directly affected but for the young boy in a country town who is working out who he is attracted to or the girl at high school who wants to take her female partner to the formal and is told she is not allowed to do so. What the public, especially those who might not be old enough to vote, hear from us matters. At the moment what they are hearing from parliament is that their love is not equal and is not good enough. When we know that same-sex attracted people have at least four times the risk of committing suicide as the remainder of the community and that that number grows the further out from the cities and into the country you go, it is absolutely critical that we in parliament do everything we can to say to every member of the community, 'You are valued and your love is equal.'

One only needs to look at the arguments against marriage equality to understand the futility of standing in the way of change. Indeed, during the course of the inquiry one of the proponents for the status quo said, 'Marriage should be between a man and a woman and it should be for life.' When we responded, surely people should be able to have no-fault divorce, they said, 'No, that's when the rot sets in.' It is that attitude—the fact that people who are opposing this either say there should never be any change or say, 'We do not agree with homosexual and lesbian relationships'—which shows there is no rational argument for opposing these bills. However, we have a situation where on one side of the House there is a split and on the other side of the House they are not even able to exercise their freedom of speech and vote according to their conscience.

It is for that reason that, as will be seen from the additional comments, I will not be suggesting that my bill goes to a vote soon. We need more time to make sure this reform happens. At a minimum—and I call on all members who are moving bills to adopt this position—we need the Leader of the Opposition to grant members on his side a conscience vote. That way we will see reform in the time of this parliament. (Time expired)

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

by leave—I table the explanatory memorandum and statement of compatibility of my bill to the Marriage Amendment Bill 2012. I do not wish to speak on the matter.