SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

The Hon. S.W. KEY (Ashford) (15:33): This is a bit of a sad grievance in that I have been reading Hansard of the New Zealand parliament. I guess there are only certain sort of people who would read Hansard from other places. I have been really impressed with some of the debates, particularly with regard to the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill first reading, which was introduced by Louisa Wall, a Labor member of the New Zealand parliament. What drew me to this Hansard were comments from Prime Minister John Key. I do not believe we are related; that is another story. The Right Honourable Prime Minister, John Key, said:

My view has been that, if two gay people want to get married, then I can't see why that would undermine my marriage to Bronagh.

Although he has qualified his support for Louisa Wall's bill, he has made his position clear and voted, in the first reading, I was pleased to see, to support the bill.

One of the issues that has been raised with me, which I think is one that needs to be looked at with regard to marriage equality, is where do faith organisations fit should we have such a bill in state parliament and certainly in federal parliament. In her first reading speech, Louisa Wall said:

What my bill does not do is require any person or Church to carry out a marriage if it does not fit with the beliefs of the celebrant or the religious interpretation a Church has. Section 29 of the Marriage Act remains in place and makes it clear that once a marriage licence is obtained by a couple, it does not oblige a minister or celebrant to marry that couple. That is the situation now and nothing will change.

I must say that this is the position that I hold as well. I think it is really important for parliament, and then eventually the state, not to discriminate against people on the basis of their gender or sexuality or transexuality, but I do not believe that this is something that should be forced on faith organisations, and I particularly refer to churches. I think it is up to those faith organisations to sort out what their position is with regard to marriage equality and for the people in that particular organisation to bring those changes if they are supported by a majority of people.

The other thing that is interesting about the New Zealand legislation is that some of the anomalies that we have here with regard to adoption and also certification, like birth certificates and all the rest of it, are covered by the New Zealand legislation and there are also provisions for where a person actually changes their gender—is a transgender person—to make sure that that situation is acknowledged in the legislation.

It has been very interesting, as I said, and, in my case, it is probably sad that I am reading another parliament's Hansard, but I was also very impressed by the different views that were brought. Not everybody, obviously, supported the first reading, even though there was a majority of I think 78 votes to 40. Issues of concern were raised, particularly by people from the New Zealand First Party and some members of the National Party, but because this is a conscience issue in the New Zealand parliament, it meant that people had the opportunity to say what their own views were and what the views were of their particular electorate and, to me, this seems to be a very good model.

The only thing that annoys me is that the New Zealanders keep beating us all the time in social reform. While it is most admirable, I think that in South Australia we need to pull up our socks and make sure that we become leaders in social change instead of following the New Zealanders.