SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (12:26): I move:

That this house recognises the right of adult couples in Australia to be married if they choose to be, and for that marriage to be recognised and registered in law, regardless of sexual orientation or gender of the parties to the marriage.

I would like to speak most strongly in favour of my motion. The motion is on the issue of marriage equality—one that, in my view, is an evolving issue. The issue is in relation to how, for me, the community has altered its stance as the debate has progressed. Many of those who have previously stood against allowing same-sex couples to marry, arguing the defence of the institution of marriage, now accept that this position is discriminatory and unjustifiable. It is my experience that individuals have the ability to learn and grow and in that process the opinions of individuals develop and change. There has been an extraordinary change experienced within Australian society on this issue in recent years: it is evidence of how we can change and grow.

In fact, I remember, certainly in the 1970s—most members here would be too young to remember the 1970s—there was a real issue about marriage at all: in fact, why would people bother to get married? It is interesting that now we are talking about same-sex couple marriage. I was recently reading some literature in the gay and lesbian press asking what has happened to people. Why are they getting into this traditional institution? As I am saying, there is a variety of opinions and there seems to be a change.

For example, if we look back to 2004, which is not that long ago, only 38 per cent of Australians were in favour of same-sex marriage. Three years later, in 2008, the percentage of Australians who supported same-sex marriage was up to 57 per cent. In 2009, this grew to 60 per cent and this year the level of support is measured at 62 per cent.

It is interesting to note that support for marriage equality in South Australia is actually 67 per cent, so I think, as members in this place, we probably need to think about that as an important issue. Those 67 per cent are in favour of extending marriage rights to same-sex couples. When you think about it, it is a huge change in the level of support for marriage equality in just only eight years and shows how dramatic the change in thinking has been.

When President Obama recently affirmed that he thinks that same-sex couples should be able to get married he explained how his position had evolved. His previous belief that marriage should be restricted to couples of the opposite sex had changed over a period of years. He credits this change to conversations he had with his friends, family, neighbours and members of his own staff who had been in committed monogamous relationships. President Obama's experience provides insight into why support for marriage equality has grown so much in such a short period of time.

I note that over the years, there has been policy in the ALP—having been a part of it, and there are a number of my colleagues sitting around me who have been part of these changes; we have campaigned for many years—both at a federal and state level, to support rights for same-sex couples. From memory, the actual call for recognising same-sex marriage came more recently at a state convention in November 2010, where, I am very pleased to say, the Adelaide and Reynell sub-branch moved that the ALP State Convention calls on the South Australian government to legislate and recognise same-sex marriage and civil unions entered into in other states and countries. They also moved another matter for the agenda (in my view), that the ALP State Convention congratulates the New South Wales government for its moves to allow homosexual couples to adopt and calls on the South Australian government to adopt these changes. So, the whole issue of parenting rights is on the agenda as well.

In looking at the media on the issue of equal marriage, it was interesting to note that, with the most recent French elections and the new French President (and I might say socialist) François Hollande, part of his electioneering was the promise of same-sex marriage and adoption rights for LGBT couples, that this would be on the legislative agenda for 2013.

I note that in the UK, although there have been civil partnerships for same-sex couples since 2005 with similar legal rights to married couples, the government is investigating, through its Home Office consultation paper, a number of things, including allowing same-sex couples to marry in a registry office or other civil ceremony, to retain civil partnerships and allow conversion to marriage and to allow people to stay married and legally change their gender. Those are some of the terms of reference for the UK Home Office consultation paper. I think there will be an interim report made shortly on its findings.

The newly departed Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero says that the initiative he is most proud of from his nearly eight years in office is the passage of full marriage rights for his gay and lesbian country people. In a recent newspaper article, Diario de León said:

If I consider the degree of recognition and gratitude I have received, then I think (it would be) the gay marriage law...Hardly a week goes by without someone reminding me or thanking me. Yes, it's a decision that has left its mark.

Of course, Spain's gay marriage law came into being on 3 July 2005. Interestingly, a number of countries have same-sex marriage: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. That shows that Australia is not by itself in trying to address this issue.

When people talk in the abstract about the ability of same-sex couples to get married, when it is a hypothetical couple made up of individuals of the same sex, it is easy for people to take a stance against marriage equality. However, when the question becomes personal and when it is about the ability of your son or daughter, brother or sister, friend, neighbour or work colleague to marry their partner, it becomes much harder to maintain that thinking.

In closing, I would like to pay special tribute to a number of campaigners, particularly in the Labor Party. Obviously we have the inheritance of the great Don Dunstan, and it is good to see that there is a proposal that Norwood be changed to the seat of Dunstan. I think that is a fantastic suggestion.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. S.W. KEY: It is Key, actually. No, I could never claim to have made the changes that Don Dunstan has contributed.

Mr Goldsworthy: You have tried, Steph.

The Hon. S.W. KEY: I have tried. Yes, thank you, member for Kavel. I would like to pay special tribute to the Hon. Ian Hunter, Senator Penny Wong and the Let's Get Equal campaign, who have been fantastic in educating not only the community but all of us. There are also the gay and lesbian rights groups that are in the trade union movement, particularly the Australian Services Union, and Rainbow Labor. There have been a number of people in the party that have campaigned not just for rights for gay, lesbian, transexual, bisexual and transgender people but for human rights and social rights, and have been absolutely consistent in that campaign. I would like to acknowledge them and thank them for their contribution.

Mr HAMILTON-SMITH (Waite) (12:36): I commend the member for bringing the motion to the house. I know that it is a motion in which she has genuine faith and which strikes deeply with many members in the house and in the community, and I understand why she has brought it forward. I have a different point of view to the honourable member, so I will not be supporting the motion. However, I do understand many of the merits in the argument that the motion puts forward. I want to touch on some of those, because it strikes to the very question of what is a marriage, what is a family and what should be included in those definitions and what should not, and each of us in this house has different views on that subject.

I would be the first to acknowledge that there are many imperfections in heterosexual marriage between a man and a woman and the traditional family model of mum, dad and the kids. There are many examples of that not working and many examples of that failing, and our divorce courts are full of examples of it not working well. Similarly, there are many examples of that traditional model working famously, and it has for centuries—and perhaps for longer—served humanity well.

Likewise, I readily acknowledge that there are many examples of same-sex couples providing wonderful outcomes for children as parents, for one reason or another, particularly when children come into the family from a previous heterosexual relationship, through extended fostering arrangements within a family context or for other reasons. I also readily acknowledge that those same-sex relationships bear many similarities to a marriage and that, as often as in heterosexual relationships, they can be deep, meaningful and loving relationships between wonderful people going through their lives together.

I am a person who does not feel any difficulty at all with same-sex couples or same-sex people. I have mixed with them quite a deal, as I am sure many members have. I have discussed this very subject with a lot of them, and the response has been interesting. Same-sex couples themselves have told me that this is by no means a unanimous view held by all same-sex people.

This program, this policy and this intention to get same-sex marriage agreed to by parliaments around the country is by no means something that the whole of the gay community embraces. It has been put to me that there is a small activist group who want it, there is another group in the gay community who think it is a rotten idea and then there is a larger group in the middle who are either ambivalent or would accept it and think it is probably not a bad idea. They would like to have the right to marry if they wish to, but it is not something they are fervently arguing for. That is what has been put to me by a large number of people in the gay community.

There is merit in the argument, there is no question of that. I do not agree with it, but I want to make the point that I do not think it is the unanimous view of all gay people that this motion should be agreed to. In fact, a lot of them have said to me that they do not want to be characterised as husband and wife, they do not want to be characterised as married; they are quite happy with the de facto arrangements as same-sex couples that they have struck. They do not want to be, if you like, drawn into the marriage definition. I think that is an aspect of this that will need reflection.

The member has made certain assertions about the extent to which this enjoys popular support. I am not sure about that, but I would not be surprised if at the moment the majority of Australians favour the concept of same-sex marriage. I do not know whether that is correct or not, but I would not be surprised if it were; it would warrant thorough mooting. However, in my opinion, yes, marriage is about love; it is about property and about money too. It is also about children, and about family connections and family. It is about a whole host of things.

I think many of those issues have already been dealt with regarding same-sex couples, particularly with respect to property issues, money issues, bills and so on, by previous acts of parliament. You get to the core issue of children and this is where it gets interesting, because if nature had intended for same-sex couples to have children I suppose nature would have made it possible. The trouble with issues to do with children is that, when you make a lifestyle choice, or a life choice, to select a same-sex partner, you narrow your options there for one reason or another; in a natural sense you narrow your options. You need assistance of some kind in order to make it possible. We have just debated a bill on that very subject, and I just make the obvious point that if nature had intended it that way it would have made it possible. It has not.

So it does get back to this question of the family unit, whatever one perceives that to be, being the basic building block of society as we know it. I readily recognise that there are a lot of families involving same-sex couples that are as wonderfully loving and fantastic as those that are heterosexual couples, and that there are examples of failure on both sides of the equation. I readily accept that, but I would argue strongly that nature and history tell us that the traditional model of a man and a woman and children, all of whom love each other, is a pretty solid model. It has served humanity well, and has built great civilisations and wonderful communities.

An argument that same-sex marriage advocates use is that it does not do any damage to marriage to include same-sex couples in the equation. I am not sure that I agree with that; I think the more that you extend the definition of marriage the more it changes and the more it is devalued in the opinion of others—it devalues, in the opinion of some heterosexual couples, their marriages. Others may not agree with me, and I respect their point of view.

I read with interest the article in The Australian on 25 May by Ian Higgins, dealing with this issue of polyamorists. The polyamorists argue that many of the arguments used to make the case for same-sex marriage for gay couples also hold for those arguing for polyamorist marriages involving three or four individuals, in that if three or four individuals are in a genuine, loving, long-term relationship and want to make a commitment to each other, why should that not also be extended to the term marriage? Why should it not also be included? I note there is also an argument going on with Greens volunteer and polyamorist Naomi Bicheno and Senator Hanson-Young on this very issue, and this debate has been made.

No doubt this debate was argued, too, when we had de facto legislation before the parliament many years ago. People were saying that having de facto relationships would devalue marriage, that it would take something away, and many would look back now and say 'Well, yes it did.' We are where we are; but I am sure that when the de facto legislation was being argued no-one in their wildest dreams would have said, 'Okay; let's extend the term "marriage" to include gay couples' at that particular point in the history of the country. Here we are, though, debating it.

Perhaps if we ever do extend the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples, then 10, 15 or 20 years from now someone will be sitting here, perhaps in the very place I am standing, arguing for polyamorist marriage on the very same basis. There is an incrementalisation here, where one thing leads to another and is then used to justify the next step. Can I just say that I completely recognise the genuine intent of this motion put forward by the honourable member and I know it will be agreed to by many members on both sides of this house, but I think it is a motion that the house should not support.

Most of us can have these discussions at a dinner party and leave at the end of the evening thinking, 'Well, that was a good night; we had some really interesting, vigorous debate.' The difference with being a lawmaker is that what you do changes the country. The laws you make and the motions you pass send a signal to people about how their lives will be shaped in the future, and I think it is time for this parliament to reflect very carefully on some of the initiatives it is making.

We need to be looking at ways to strengthen families and in particular, in my personal opinion, mums, dads and the kids—particularly children. With the numerous inputs they now face, we need to reflect very carefully on what we present to them as role models for marriages and for families. That is why I think this motion should not be agreed to, though I fully understand that it is genuinely put. I would encourage members to consider voting against the motion.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Manufacturing, Innovation and Trade, Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Minister for Small Business) (12:46): I do not know that legalising gay marriage will devalue the sanctity of marriage, which I support very much, and I understand exactly what the member for Ashford is trying to do. Unfortunately, I cannot support her and I will not support her.

I agree with Prime Minister Gillard that marriage is between a man and a woman and that is a belief that I have and hold very dear. I understand that gay couples are in long-term loving relationships that are very successful and I believe we should afford them civil unions and legal rights that will allow them to express that love in ways that married couples can in terms of property and other legal requirements.

However, marriages between a man and a woman have traditionally been about the establishment of a family and growing our community. I am not trying to say that homosexuals cannot be good parents: of course they can. What I am saying, though, is that my conscience draws me to making a point to maintain—a point where we positively discriminate in favour of married couples, and I mean that not in a legal sense but in terms of the term 'marriage'.

I believe that marriages are very difficult and they require a lot of work. They require a lot of effort, just like any other relationship, but I think the value of a marriage to society is exceptionally important and it is something that we need to protect and encourage. It is difficult, I think, sometimes to argue this point, especially in the political party that I sit in because I understand that the Labor Party has striven for equality since its very existence and everything we do is about gaining equality.

I think this is probably the next step to what a lot of people in the Labor Party think is equality. Quite frankly, I think it is probably an unstoppable force and I think I will be in the minority. The great thing about the Labor Party is that we allow a voter conscience and I will maintain my conscience and my views and beliefs to the very bitter end, but I will defend always the rights of others to express their views and express their conscience.

I find myself in the difficult position of agreeing with what the member for Waite said. I have to say that it is not something that I enjoy terribly much, so the way I rationalise it is that he agrees pretty much with what I say.

An honourable member interjecting:

The Hon. J.M. Rankine: That's right; he just got to say it first.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He just got to say it first. I accept one point that the member for Waite said, that I do not accept that the Australian population is ready for gay marriage. I understand the President of the United States, the leader of the free world, has changed his views. I will be interested to see how that plays out. I will be interested to see what the American population thinks of that. I will be interested to see what the Australian population thinks about it, given that we have two leaders vying for the top job who both share the same views on homosexual marriage: Tony Abbott, Leader of the Opposition, and Julia Gillard, our Prime Minister.

I accept her view on this matter, and I think her view is the right one. I do not accept that she has been forced into that position by some deal. I think it is a matter of strong principle that she holds, and I applaud her for it, and I will be personally supporting her in that view. I do not think the world would end tomorrow if gay marriage was allowed. I do not think our community or society would change dramatically for the worse if it was allowed, but I do believe it will reach a point where the member for Waite's arguments about what actually defines a marriage will keep on growing larger and larger. At what point do we say that's it? I do not accept that the Australian population will ever accept three or four people being in a relationship and determine that a marriage, but I think the point he is trying to make is: at what point do we say this is the line?

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I wouldn't use those terms, but I think there needs to be boundaries, and I think those boundaries that are long established, that have served us well for many generations—a lot longer than our federation has lasted—will continue on into the future. These things move in cycles. I also do not believe the gay community overwhelmingly supports the idea of gay marriage. Some people in the gay community obviously do. I have been lobbied very intensely by people who believe that they should be allowed to marry, and I understand their point of view; I just respectfully disagree.

I have also met with representatives from the gay community who say to me, 'Well, actually, no, marriage is not something that my partner and I are engaged in; what we are engaged in is something completely different,' and I respect that also. I do believe, though, that gay couples should have legal rights that determine the way assets are dealt with, the way they are taxed, etc., and that is more than appropriate. In the past it was appalling to see some gay couples in moments of tragedy separated from their partners because of legal requirements in terms of next of kin. I think that was awful and horrific. To have two loving people separated at a time when they need each other the most is appalling, and I think that has been remedied.

There are other ways in the community that we can still remedy things and go even further, but I think marriage is between a man and a woman and, I have to say—I am going to die with my boots on here—that I think this is an argument, member for Waite, that we are going to lose in the long term. However, I will be there arguing that marriage and the sanctity of marriage belongs between a man and a woman.

I hope I have not offended anyone with what I have said. I am not in any way trying to discount the love that homosexual couples feel for each other; I am sure that that is valid. Although I have very strong Christian views and values, and those Christian views and values I try to practise in my everyday life, I am probably nothing more than a humble sinner who is always falling over and trying to get up. I do not know if I am on the right track here—I hope I have been guided the right way—but I do not want anyone in the gay community to think that I discount the feelings they have for their partners because I do not.

What I am trying to do is to defend an institution that has served our community and our civilisation well. It is important that we maintain that distinction for the benefit of our community and the benefit of our country. Again, I hope I have caused no-one any offence with my remarks. Maybe I have; it is not intentional. I just am merely speaking my conscience. I know the member for Ashford has been clear on this from the day she was elected to the parliament, as have many members. Despite what some commentators in the paper say about the grouping that I belong to within the Australian Labor Party—about it being run by conservative Christians—the truth is that we support many candidates who do not share the same views as me on this issue, and many of those candidates hold high office. We do not discriminate on those opinions. All we ask is that we allow members to exercise their conscience on these issues, in the same way I would never compel other members to vote against their conscience. So, I lend my voice of opposition to the motion.

Mr VAN HOLST PELLEKAAN (Stuart) (12:55): I rise to speak on the member for Ashford's motion that this house recognises the right of adult couples in Australia to be married if they choose to be, and for that marriage to be recognised and registered in law regardless of sexual orientation or gender of the parties to the marriage.

All of that really does come down to same-sex marriage. It means lots of things to different people but, certainly, for the purpose of this debate, we really are talking about same-sex marriage. I would like to say at the outset that for many people a debate on same-sex marriage comes down to debate on the rights and wrongs of homosexuality, and I think that that is inappropriate. I know that is not what the member for Ashford is putting forward at the moment—very clearly—and I do not get that feeling from the members who I have heard speak here this morning either. But let me make it very clear that I think that does happen in the broader community and I think that that is inappropriate. They are too very separate debates. This is about same-sex marriage.

I would like to point out that there is an enormous range of marriages that are perfectly acceptable in many cultures around the world; that, it is probably fair to say, have stood many cultures in good stead for, in some places, centuries. Overseas, people are allowed to get married at a range of different ages to what we allow in South Australia and in Australia. Different numbers of husbands and wives are allowed overseas—polyamorous relationships is a term that I have learnt this morning. I note also that the men seem to fare better overseas than the women. It is more normal that a man is allowed to have numerous wives than it is that a woman is allowed to have numerous husbands. For some people that seems to work in other countries. There are places where same-sex marriage is allowed; there are places where gender changes are quite comfortably included in marriage as well; and a range of other relationships.

I would also like to point out, and this is a very important view of mine, that there is a much broader range of exceptionally important one-on-one relationships in the world that may or may not be platonic or sexual relationships. I think particularly of parents and children. I mean this in the very best way, but people whose lives will continue and they will be forever, often because of a disability, each other's significant life partner in life. I think about siblings. I know many sets of siblings who go into old age—and one will die before the other, of course—and go to their graves knowing that they were each other's significant life partner. I think about carer/caree relationships.

There are many different types of relationships where people who are not married, who are never going to be married, have each other as their significant others. I think the greatest contribution I would like to make to this debate is that we need to significantly broaden the way in which we allow those relationships to be recognised when it comes to transfer of assets, when it comes to financial security, and when it comes to recognition. I am not talking about anything that I or any other member here would consider to be an unhealthy thing, but I think that is a very important part of this debate.

Let me get to the nub of the issue: when it comes to same-sex marriage, I do not support same-sex marriage. I believe that there is something exceptionally special in a man/woman relationship, ideally with the aim of producing a family. In my own marriage, unfortunately Rebecca and I will not be able to have children. We love each other enormously. So I put on record my opinion that there are all sorts of wonderful relationships out there, but I do not support same-sex marriage, and that is not to denigrate other relationships. I seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

[Sitting suspended from 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm.]