Michaelia Cash (WA, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration) Share this | Hansard source

The coalition authors of the dissenting report of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee inquiry into the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010 are disappointed that the committee majority has seen fit to recommend support for the bill. Coalition senators believe passage of this bill would represent a major breach of trust by the Australian parliament, the overwhelming majority of whose members were elected at the 2010 federal election on a platform of support for the traditional definition of marriage as being the union of a man and a woman. Coalition senators also found that the conduct of this inquiry and the resultant majority report sells short the well-earned reputation of Senate committee reports that has been carefully nurtured over the years.

Marriage is and has been recognised as a vital societal institution. In recent times, marriage has been seen by some as an institution that confers only rights rather than the countervailing obligations that are always attached to the conferral of rights. Coalition senators noted the concentration on rights as opposed to obligations by submitters favouring change.

The committee during its inquiry heard evidence from a wide range of witnesses. In the main, the evidence of these witnesses fell into two categories: either for or against same-sex marriage. Whilst these views have been in the public domain for a long time, the evidence of both parties shows one thing in common, and that is the issue of the constitutionality of the proposed bill and whether the word 'marriage' as presently defined was intended to extend to same-sex marriage, polygamy and perhaps other, yet to be determined, circumstances.

In this regard, despite the protestations of the Australian Greens, the evidence of former High Court judge Michael Kirby supports the contention that this bill will have potential consequences for the future recognition of other forms of relationships. When questioned at the committee hearing in Sydney, Mr Kirby said:

The question that is before the parliament at the moment is the question of equality for homosexual people. There may be, in some future time, some other question.

In relation to the issue of constitutionality, I personally have a view based on the evidence given to the committee, which is outlined in the coalition senators' report. However, as the issue of marriage equality is divisive and strikes at the heart of our religious, social and cultural roots, it is clear that the parliament should stop wasting its valuable parliamentary time and resources and seriously consider putting the constitutional issue to the test by seeking the views of the Australian people by referendum, which was clearly a matter contemplated by the founding fathers, who provided for such a circumstance by including section 128 in the Constitution. If the Greens and Labor are so sure of public support for same-sex marriage, they should have no issue at all with this.

Despite the constitutional confusion, it can, however, be definitively said that the refusal to allow homosexuals to marry under the Marriage Act is not a breach of their human rights. This is confirmed by the decision of the UN Human Rights Committee, when considering the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966, and by the European Court of Human Rights, when considering the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, which have firmly rejected the spurious claim that marriage is a universal human right and that same-sex couples have a right to marry because their mutual commitment is just as strong as that of husbands and wives. The Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010 seeks to fundamentally change what is agreed by all parties to be a vital legal and social institution. It is the view of coalition senators on the committee that it would not be prudent for any party to allow its passage without first seeking a mandate from the Australian people. Coalition senators on the committee have therefore recommended that the Senate reject the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2010. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted.

Debate adjourned.