Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I understand perfectly well that same-sex marriage and redefining marriage is a very sensitive subject. It is personal to many in this chamber and out in the community. I also recognise there are very strongly held views for those of us who want to defend and protect the institution of marriage as we see it and not redefine it. But this Recognition of Foreign Marriages Bill 2014 is not really about that. It provides a platform, of course, for Senators Rice and others to stand up and talk about their personal relationships or about community demands and the need for a redefinition of marriage.

At the heart of this bill is a challenge to Australia's sovereignty to determine the laws that apply in this country and not be subject and beholden to laws implemented in other countries. That is the essence of what we are being asked to do here: to say something is not allowed in this country, is not legal in this country, yet we have to recognise the laws of foreign nations even though they conflict with our own existing legislation. That is what we are being asked to do: it is not legal for same-sex couples and homosexual couples to get married in Australia but it is okay, apparently, for them to get married overseas and come here and then say they are married.

It is a way of subverting Australia's self-determination in this place. I think that is wrong. I have said it is wrong whether it is about same-sex marriage or whether about subverting ourselves to the dictates of international treaties or anything else. We should be able to make our own determination about what happens in our country and the laws that apply to our citizens just like other countries. That is what national sovereignty is about. Of course, there are people in this place, in that corner on the other side, generally, who want to break down borders. And may I paraphrase their former leader, Bob Brown, who wanted one global government. That is what he wanted. He did not want borders. He wanted one global government and the rules, as determined by this global government—which would not be elected, by the way—to apply to all citizens equally. It is communism by any other form.

Now we have this conflation of the emotive topic of same-sex marriage working its way in with this global governance theory that the Greens have been pursuing. Bob Brown let it out of the bag when he referred to us as 'Earthians'—and I think he probably did want to include 'aliens', because he said the aliens were not talking to us because of what we were doing to the planet. This is utter madness.

The madness did not stop when former Senator Brown left. He left a legacy of it. It is like a virus that has infected that corner of the chamber. We have to start standing up for our national sovereignty and our self-determination and pass this bill. We have to advocate for this bill in this place—and it is not the first time it has been introduced. To advocate for it is to pre-empt the process that is already underway to survey the Australian people about their views on changing the definition of marriage. As I said before, people have personal and distinct views on this, but we should not conflate them. This is about Australia self-determination.

There are a number of flaws with this bill which have been dealt with, because it does circumvent our law. It would encourage same-sex couples who wanted to get married to go to where it is legal, like New Zealand, where, Senator Rice said, the marriage industry is doing really well. May I suggest—respectively, through you, Mr Chair—to Senator Rice that if people want to have a celebration of their love and commitment they can do that anywhere in the world. They can have it in their own backyard. I am sure they would find a religious institution that would allow it, notwithstanding the fact that it is a same-sex couple. You would find an enormous tolerance for it. People could do it in the beautiful parklands around the seats of Adelaide. They could do it here in the parks of Canberra—anywhere they like. They can have the party industry to their hearts content. And they could wear whatever they like. They could wear white dresses and tuxes. They can do whatever they want to in that respect.

But to suggest that we have to recognise a foreign law that is contrary to our own I think undermines this institution as well as our legal system. Now, you may disagree—and I suspect you do, Senator Rice. And you will not be alone in disagreeing with me over there—I see three heads nodding. But it is attached to the principle here, and that is where I think you are barking up the wrong tree, because you are jumping the gun, if I can put it that way. You are trying to force something upon this country that it has not accepted as yet. This parliament has not accepted it. There is a process going forward about it.