SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LEGISLATION

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. G.A. Kandelaars:

That this council—

1. Notes the passing of the New Zealand Labour Party Louise Wall's private member's bill, the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, that will take effect on 19 August 2013; and

2. Congratulates the New Zealand House of Representatives' members across seven parties—Labour, National, Green, Maori, ACT, Mana and United Future—for working together to enact legislation that ensures same-sex adult couples have the right to marry.

(Continued from 1 May 2013.)

The Hon. K.J. MAHER (17:01): I rise to support this motion, and I will be reasonably brief, although I have come to learn in this chamber that by saying that it is often used ironically. I will be reasonably brief, as I intend also to make a contribution on this issue in the near future congratulating the Australian parliament on passing laws, as it no doubt soon will, in this country.

At the end of last year in my first speech to this chamber, I spoke about this issue. My view has not changed. In fact, as other countries and states around the world move to a more enlightened and reasonable set of laws, my views have solidified. In the US, right up until the late 1960s, interracial marriage was still illegal in some states. These historic denials of marriage to entire groups of citizens, based entirely on their biological make-up, will no doubt be seen by future generations just as unreasonably and will be judged just as harshly as those who currently advocate against same-sex marriage.

Many of the arguments used against same-sex marriage today bear an eerie resemblance to the arguments used in the past by those who opposed interracial marriage. The Californian Supreme Court became the first US court in the 20^th century to declare unconstitutional bans on interracial marriage. In the 1948 Perez v Sharp decision, the arguments that were put up by those who were opposed to declaring interracial marriage unconstitutional were very similar to the arguments we hear today. Some of the arguments included:

that it would degrade the institution of marriage;

that, historically, that is the way it has always been so it should continue;

that people of different races can still get married, just not to each other—between the races; and

that interracial marriage would be harmful for children.

To quote that case from 1948, 'Interracial marriage has an adverse effect not only on the parties thereto but on their progeny.' Of course, in that case in 1948 on interracial marriage, it was also claimed that it runs counter to God's plan. These arguments against interracial marriage then sound very familiar to many of the arguments we hear today.

Marriage equality is not a social issue, it is not a moral issue, it is not a religious issue—it remains a basic human rights issue. As one of my political heroes said on this topic of marriage equality a couple of years ago:

Human rights can never be at the mercy of individual opinions or individual prejudices.

They are not privileges to be extended to one person and denied to another according to the winds of popular opinion or the whims of the government of the day.

They are inherent in each and every one of us, quite simply because we are human.

It is not for governments to grant human rights but to recognise and protect them.

And it is not for any of us to approve of human rights—only to choose whether to respect or to ignore them.

I fully endorse the words spoken two years ago by Senator John Faulkner.

Yesterday, South Australian Senator Cory Bernardi was foolish enough to share his views on this subject once more, and again, his offensiveness was only matched by his intellectual laziness. He again contended that allowing same-sex marriage would lead to polygamous marriages and bestiality. The first time he talked about this issue, he was sacked from a portfolio position by Tony Abbott. You would think that, if he had gone too far on social issues for Tony Abbott, he would have learnt his lesson—but not Senator Bernardi. Like the embarrassing uncle who gets drunk by midday each Christmas and is rude and nasty to everyone, Senator Bernardi felt compelled to prove that his offensive, bigoted and hateful outburst was not a one-off.

Yesterday, Malcolm Turnbull said in response to Senator Bernardi, 'I disagree with Senator Bernardi, and I think his remarks create a lot of offence with same-sex couples.' That is a nice way of saying, 'You're a disgrace, you're a complete dill. You're embarrassing yourself, you're embarrassing the rest of us, just stop it.' Apart from Senator Bernardi's offensiveness and the rudimentary logical fallacy of his slippery slope argument, Senator Bernardi's statements do not stand up to even the most basic of intellectual rigour. To suggest that same-sex marriage will necessarily lead to polygamous marriage is absurd.

A very cursory look at those jurisdictions around the world that allow or tolerate polygamy shows that those states and countries tend to be some of the most fundamentally religious jurisdictions and also have the lowest tolerances for same-sex relationships—think of Utah in the US, parts of North Africa and some areas in the Middle East. If you are going to draw conclusions slightly more rational and reasonable than Senator Bernardi's, you would probably say the evidence points to exactly the opposite of what Senator Bernardi concludes in relation to same-sex marriage. Unlike Senator Bernardi, I would want proper research before I drew any conclusions on this matter.

Today, we are congratulating and noting the New Zealand parliament's passing of same-sex marriage laws. Many people would have seen the contribution made in the New Zealand parliament by National Party minister Maurice Williamson on this bill. His four-minute contribution has been seen by an estimated one billion people in 48 countries and officially translated into at least nine different languages. This morning, I spoke to New Zealand National Party minister Maurice Williamson, and he confirmed that none of the apocalyptic scenarios that some predicted with the passing of same-sex marriage has occurred—not a single one has occurred.

He confirmed to me that, contrary to the predictions of a reverend in his electorate, there was no gay onslaught the day after the bill passed—no gay onslaught, either in the form of troops coming down the highway or gas flowing into his electorate. He did say that he got an email that asked:

Maurice, are there any good restaurants to eat in as I march down the Pakuranga Highway towards your electorate? Regards, The Gay Onslaught.

He also noted a distinct lack of the promised fire and brimstone. The weather in New Zealand has been pretty terrible, but as a scientist he is pretty sure it is not related to same-sex couples who love each other being allowed to marry. Maurice also informed me that the passing of the bill has not stopped the sun rising, has not stopped teenage daughters from answering back, and has not increased anyone's mortgage. Perhaps most worryingly, he informed me that the passing of the bill has not had any negative effects on the All Blacks' preparations for the 2015 World Cup and that he thinks they will likely smash the Wallabies.

When marriage equality laws eventually pass here, I do not think we are going to see any of the terrible apocalyptic scenarios. The Hon. Russell Wortley's hair will not suddenly fall out and, by the same token, I do not think the Hon. David Ridgway will grow a whole lot more either. Far-fetched, unreasonable predictions are highly unlikely to come true.

I have a couple of good friends in heterosexual relationships who are refusing to get married in a show of solidarity until same-sex couples are allowed to get married. If for no other reason, we should pass these laws because this fig leaf of an excuse ought to be taken away from them and they ought to get married and allow me to have some free drinks and meals on them. So, if for no other reason, we should be passing these laws in Australia very soon.

In closing, I would like to congratulate the New Zealand parliament and, in particular, Labor member Louisa Wall on the introduction and the passing of this bill and on leading the way in our part of the world. I sincerely hope and firmly believe that we will soon follow their example and get ourselves on the right side of history in Australia.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (17:08): I rise, unsurprisingly, to support this motion and commend the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars for giving us an opportunity to express support for marriage equality, albeit over the ditch. I travelled to the New Zealand parliament last year and had an insight into the origins of this bill. While I absolutely congratulate Louisa Wall for her work, I note that in fact it was exactly the same bill as a Greens bill which the Greens' member Kevin Hague had put up, but the New Zealand system is such that bills go into a ballot, and it was Louisa Wall's that was drawn out first to be debated. Certainly, for anyone who has seen the beautiful and moving passage of the bill through the parliament in New Zealand, eight of the nine leaders of those political parties in New Zealand in fact supported this bill. Indeed, 77 members supported the bill and 44 opposed it. That is symbolic, I believe, of just how far New Zealand is ahead of us, unfortunately.

I hope that we will play catch-up sometime soon, and certainly in South Australia we do have that opportunity here to move towards marriage equality laws at a state level as well as supporting our federal colleagues in that process. An online blogger quite wittily put that Australia indeed appropriates many of New Zealand's best exports. I would certainly be encouraging them to take up this one along with Kimbra, Crowded House, Phar Lap and pavlova. We might not want to keep Russell Crowe. They can possibly have him back, but marriage equality would be a fair trade, that is for sure.

The woman who introduced this bill was indeed a Labor member, however, and in her speech you could not but be moved by the enormous amount of effort that went into ensuring the passage of the bill there with an engagement with New Zealand citizens that is also to be commended. They had quite an extensive committee process in that country; they took many thousands of submissions and heard many hundreds of witnesses on this issue. She said in her second reading speech on this bill:

The issue of coming out, of being true to who you are, is difficult enough for any person. The discussion around this bill has emphasised how real the discrimination is. The agony and hardship that so many who have bravely made submissions have had to face is unreasonable, but what is totally unacceptable is the State perpetuating that agony and hardship by not issuing marriage licences to loving, consenting, and eligible non-heterosexual couples.

This bill is about marriage equality. It is not about gay marriage, same-sex marriage, or straight marriage; it is about marriage between two people. There is no distinction to be made—that is equality. Whether the form of that marriage is religious, secular, or cultural is a matter for the couple to determine. Denying marriage to a person is to devalue that person's right to participate fully in all that life offers. It is essentially not recognising someone as a person. No State has the right to do that. To deny trans people, intersex, lesbian, and gay people the right to marry is to deny them recognition as a person.

I concur with the words of Louisa Wall and I believe that we do not have the right as the state of South Australia to deny people their human rights. Certainly I encourage the federal parliament to ensure that we have progress there with a real move to real equality.

However, the reality, I think, is that we are a long way behind New Zealand in this country and indeed it will fall to the states to take up the baton if we see the government change at a federal level as, I think, we in this place all realistically expect it to do after 14 September. I urge members to consider that and to consider why we continue in the year 2013 to deny Australian citizens the right to marry the one that they love if they are same-sex attracted, when it is a very personal thing, it is a very human thing and it is very much about the absolute basis of creating joy in our lives. What right do we have to take that joy from any one of our citizens?

In conclusion, I certainly will not touch on the speech made by the honourable member who spoke before me. I certainly was going to pinch a few of his wonderful lines and certainly I would love to see a big, gay rainbow over Parliament House here in South Australia sometime in the coming months. Indeed, after the rain, we do see the rainbows, so I take heart from that.

I also draw members' attention to the words of a speaker at the last marriage equality rally that was held on the steps of this place. Her name was Heather and she was a trans-woman. She gave a wonderful speech that was fitting of one of those delivered in the New Zealand parliament. I do not have it word for word, but she said something to the effect that she must be a very special person because, should she be accorded some human rights, somehow people might be allowed to marry elephants. That makes her a very special person indeed. Now, Heather is a very special person and I can assure Heather and members in this chamber that should Heather be allowed to marry one day in our state, I doubt that we will see anyone being able to marry elephants. It is simply a farcical distraction from a basic human right.

I certainly have spoken long and often in this place on marriage equality and I indicate to members I will be doing so in the future, hopefully with actual legislative reform to come as a result, but here and now, I congratulate New Zealand on their great step forward, and I hope that we will follow in their footsteps.

The Hon. CARMEL ZOLLO (17:15): As this is a conscience vote for Labor members of parliament, I simply rise to indicate my view. I will not be supporting the honourable member's motion. Whilst I appreciate how strongly my colleague and indeed many others feel about this matter, it is my long-held view that the institution of marriage is between two people of the opposite sex. I know the honourable member will respect my opinion as indeed I respect his and that this is one matter where hopefully we agree to disagree. I will not be supporting the motion.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:16): I am delighted to support this motion and I fully endorse the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Tammy Franks, and I commend her for her tireless work in this area. The day after the vote in New Zealand, as I imagine many of you did, I watched a replay of the vote and the reaction of both members and the gallery in the New Zealand parliament. What that showed to me was a parliament in a democracy responding to the people. There was wild applause, there was singing and there was dancing, and for a moment I felt as if I was re-watching the final scenes of Strictly Ballroom because love was in the air.

Like other members here who have spoken, I look forward to the day when the Australian parliament catches up to our colleagues across the ditch and recognises marriage equality here in this country. That will be a good day. With those brief words, Mr President, I support the motion.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:17): I rise to indicate that I will support this motion but with no great enthusiasm. On the one hand I have in the past and continue to support non-discrimination in relationship recognition. If a parliament is legislating to recognise relationships, I think it should be made available to all citizens including same-sex couples.

On the other hand I consistently advocate separation of church and state. I would prefer that state-based relationship recognition should not be expressed in terms of marriage. Faith communities and other loving couples should be able to establish and express marriage in accordance with their beliefs and values. I expressed my perspective in more detail in this council on 9 November 2011.

This motion seeks to congratulate New Zealand on legislating for same-sex marriage. I welcome the fact that the New Zealand parliament has affirmed non-discrimination, but I think that it is unfortunate they have done so within marriage. Nonetheless I will not be voting against this motion. I note that the motion congratulates parties within the New Zealand House of Representatives on working together to enact legislation. The spirit of mutual respect expressed in the motion is not always demonstrated on the ground.

It was disappointing to hear that, at a recent marriage equality rally on 25 May, the organisers of the rally called for a boycott of all Liberal Party candidates, even those who support marriage equality. That is not principle, that is politics. I was informed that the Hon. Tammy Franks used the marriage equality rally to condemn the Liberal Party for not supporting the Greens' unconstitutional same-sex marriage laws. The Greens know that there is support for non-discrimination relationship recognition in the Liberal Party, yet they persist with misleading statements that attempt to politicise and divide rather than to foster consensus.

By insisting on their state legislation, the Greens are peddling false hope, asking same-sex couples in South Australia to pin their hopes to a reform that is more than likely to be declared invalid. Rather than work to progress consensus, they are pursuing political gain; nonetheless, I will not vote against this motion. I will vote for this motion simply to affirm my commitment to non-discrimination in relationship recognition, including for same-sex couples.

The Hon. D.G.E. HOOD (17:20): I rise briefly to speak to this motion. Members will be aware that I am not a supporter of same-sex marriage, and for that reason I will not support the motion before the house today. The motion is quite cleverly written in one sense; in fact, point 1 notes the passing of the New Zealand Labor Party person's bill, and it is hard to disagree with that. You would certainly find consensus in the chamber for point 1. However, No. 2 is the heart of the matter.

The problem we have in many ways, whatever an individual's feelings about same-sex marriage—and I acknowledge there are strong feelings on both sides—in this particular chamber it is interesting that the motion tips its hat, if you like, to the New Zealand situation but completely ignores the fact that our Australian parliament actually voted against same-sex marriage legislation by a ratio of about 2:1.

It is obviously a deliberate tactic the honourable member is using—I am not criticising him for that—as he has decided to point to support for his particular views, and there is nothing wrong with that, but to be fair it needs to be pointed out that our parliament here in Australia actually voted against same-sex marriage by a ratio of about 2:1. I will not support the motion, and I think its important to acknowledge that this is just a motion, and whether or not this chamber supports it really has no bearing whatsoever in terms of its view on the passing of same-sex marriage legislation.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:22): Today I will speak in very strong support of the motion of the Hon. Mr Kandelaars regarding the passing of gay marriage or same-sex marriage legislation in New Zealand and urging Australia to do the same. I am sure that will come as no surprise to anyone, as I have previously spoken with equally strong support of very similar bills and motions in this place regarding the rights of same-sex couples and same-sex attracted individuals.

In speaking in favour of this motion, I point out maybe a few reasons I have not touched on in previous speeches. I will not go into too much detail on the ones I have already canvassed. First, I again pass on my congratulations to our neighbours across the ditch for their vision and progressive nature to acknowledge the existence and need for recognition of same-sex relationships.

I note that as a result of this legislation passing the New Zealand parliament the world has not tilted on its axis, and it would appear that there has been less earthquake activity on the shaky isles than before. As much as some Aussies might like to imply that some Kiwis might like this to happen, I am not aware of any Kiwis as yet marrying sheep. I could be wrong, but until I see photographic evidence I will assume this has not happened and will continue not to happen.

I believe in good science, so maybe I am being too facetious. Maybe I should not make reference to earthquakes, and so on, and there is very good reason for that. That is because earthquakes have nothing to do with gay marriage. There is no relationship between earthquakes and same-sex marriage. However, some opponents of same-sex marriage might make spurious links between droughts, the breakdown of society and the end of morality and, quite frankly, I find this utterly ridiculous.

In supporting this motion, I point members of the chamber to Maurice Williamson's speech on same-sex marriage, also known as the big gay rainbow speech, to which I believe the Hon. Mr Maher made reference in his contribution. I do not know much about New Zealand politics, for very good reason, but I imagine that an MP from a conservative electorate and a right of centre political party is not the sort of person you would expect to see on YouTube performing a big gay rainbow speech. Yet this speech has received more than 1.5 million hits on YouTube and he was invited to speak on the Ellen DeGeneres show (Ellen being, of course, a well-known same-sex rights advocate).

Perhaps I am getting off the topic. The thing that strikes me most about his speech is the manner in which he rejects the ridiculous assertions that some make in this debate. It is disgraceful, and I find some of the things opponents say horrendous, to say the least, and I was so pleased to see this MP putting things in perspective.

On this issue I have received letters suggesting that if we are going to legalise same-sex marriage simply because same-sex relationships exist, then perhaps we might as well allow murder, rape, car theft and child abuse because those things exist too. Well, quite frankly, we should not allow those things, and that is because the difference between those issues and same-sex marriage is that child abuse, car theft, rape and so on have victims. I cannot see any victims in this debate save, perhaps, logic, compassion, empathy and basic human rights.

I strongly believe that, like New Zealand, we should be enshrining in law recognition for the relationships that already exist and make valuable contributions to our society on social and economic bases. Unlike Senator Cory Bernardi in our federal parliament, I place no credence on the outrageous assertion that allowing same-sex marriage somehow leads to bestiality or polyamorous marriage. Surely if we follow this logic we should say that legislating opposite-sex marriage should lead to legalising gay marriage.

Legislating for same-sex marriage simply leads to same-sex marriage. I say it again: allowing same-sex marriage leads to same-sex marriage. It does not encourage people to marry animals or have relationships with animals, nor does it inspire them to do the same in a polyamorous context. It does not allow people to marry multiple partners. It does not save nor ruin the manufacturing industry. It does not make the Crows or Port Power win. Gay marriage does not cause droughts, nor was it responsible for the global financial crisis, although we could certainly see great economic benefits if we brought same-sex marriage to South Australia. If we pass this motion today, Mr President, I promise you, you have my word, that the Socceroos can still go and play the World Cup in Brazil.

New Zealand does some things really well, and so does South Australia, but on this count our 'fush and chup-eating' friends have well and truly beaten us off the mark. We do not like it when the Silver Ferns and the All Blacks beat us in the sporting arena, and I do not think we should tolerate it on human rights issues either.

I would really like to be a member of a parliament that passed laws in favour of same-sex marriage, for reasons I have outlined today and at other times, and I hope to do this very, very soon. I hope to be someone who can attend the marriage of some friends I have who would like to marry people of the same gender, and I would like to see that happen as soon as possible, because this is a human rights issue, and there is no difference between these marriages.

I believe the real issues that we should be concerned about in marriage are not the gender of the partners, their race or their creed: the real issues regarding marriage that this parliament should be concerned with are abuse, indifference and being intolerant of the wishes of your partner. It is those issues that we as a society and a parliament should be standing firm against, not two people of a consenting age and a consenting nature who simply want to get a piece of paper that says something they have probably known for years, that they want to be together.

The Hon. J.M.A. LENSINK (17:28): On these particular topics I am always pleased to be able to follow the Hon. Stephen Wade, because his comments are elegant and considered, and he has a fine-grained understanding of the separation between church and state.

In the matter of motions like this, let us recognise this particular motion for what it is. It is a device to put pressure on the federal parliament. I would personally prefer that this parliament stuck to its knitting and debated matters within our own jurisdiction. Whether the federal parliament comes up with a solution regarding marriage or civil partnerships will ultimately be a matter for them, so I see this as a symbolic motion. In spite of this criticism, I have too many gay and lesbian friends not to support it on their behalf. Relationships and stability should be encouraged.

Several years ago this parliament passed—the last jurisdiction, in fact, to pass it—legislation to recognise same-sex and de facto relationships in spite of a fairly trenchant campaign from some interesting quarters, including some of the government's own members. I was proud to be part of that to see some level of recognition of people in same-sex relationships. I support the motion.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (17:31): I also rise to support this important motion. It is a symbolic motion but I believe it is important to take advantage of every opportunity we have to shine the light on this very important social equity issue. I will not speak for long; I have spoken about my support for same-sex marriage in this place on many other occasions.

I acknowledge and congratulate the Parliament of New Zealand on the passing of their marriage amendment bill, a bill that defines marriage as a union between two people, and I was pleased to see the bill pass 77 votes to 44 and that it was supported by leaders of seven of the eight political parties in New Zealand. It was a wonderful multipartisan outcome.

I think this is further evidence that support for marriage equality is simply the right thing to do. Marriage equality is not a political ploy, although some might choose to use it in that way. Fundamentally it is a human right but we see some within our media positioning it as an attack on our social norms and morals and all sorts of weird and wonderful speculative outcomes that I will not repeat but many have recounted and referred to them in this place. Marriage equality is about acknowledging the LGBTIQ community, their relationships, their families, and that their love for each other should be respected and acknowledged in the same way as heterosexual affections are acknowledged.

What is traditional does not define the normal nor is it sensible for society to bind itself to the past without question. Numerous examples have been given in this place. It was not so long ago that we saw women continue to be the property of their husbands, when women were unable to vote—these were the norms. It was the norm to be paid cash in little envelopes; I remember those days. It was considered quite acceptable and normal to drink drive, to place the baby's bassinette on the back seat of a car and for little Johnny to sit on dad's lap while he drove the car. Those things were considered normal, yet we questioned those. Our knowledge, understanding and tolerance improved with time and we changed legislation accordingly. Time is well overdue to change the legislation here in Australia and South Australia.

Marriage equality acknowledges relationships that have always been present in our society. They have always been present. Since human beings had the capacity to document, same-sex relationships have been well and truly documented and established. They have always been part of our society. One could say they have always been a normal part of our society. However, elements of this society continue to vilify and demonise these relationships. Well, that time has come to an end.

The love between same-sex partners is no different from the love between heterosexual couples, and this needs to be recognised within our community. I have no doubt that it will one day be reflected in our legislation. I commend the Parliament of New Zealand for having the courage to challenge this discrimination within their legislation and bring about a more inclusive society for all, and I certainly look forward to the day when same-sex marriage is legally available here in South Australia, as well as right throughout Australia.

The Hon. J.S.L. DAWKINS (17:35): I rise to briefly indicate that I will not be supporting the motion; however, I know that those who have proposed it understand that I respect them greatly for the sincerity of the motion and of their strong views. My position is that I strongly support the current commonwealth law; that is, marriage between a woman and a man.

I was in New Zealand recently, and while I did not go around seeking views on the change of legislation, there seemed no great level of joy or outrage about the decision made in their parliament. In fact, there seemed very little comment from anybody in the community about the change. I certainly did not have anyone asking me whether Australia will do likewise, or indeed what the view of the South Australian parliament is. I will not be supporting the motion.

The PRESIDENT (17:36): As this is a conscience vote, I wish to put on the record that I support the motion in the name of the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars, and congratulate Louise Wall of the New Zealand Labour Party on introducing the private member's bill, Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. I also wish to extend my congratulations to the seven parties in the New Zealand parliament for working together to enact the legislation.

I also want to thank all the members of the public who have emailed me asking that I either support or oppose same-sex marriage. To assist those people, I advise that I would support a bill that enables same-sex couples to marry. I also support the LGBTIQ community in their campaign to end discrimination and vilification, and I urge honourable members to support the motion.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation) (17:37): I was not going to speak in this debate—I think my position on these matters is well known—but perhaps I should declare an interest. On this day six months ago, I married my husband in Spain. I have to say, the world did not end. For us, I have to say that not much changed, in many respects—

The Hon. G.E. Gago interjecting:

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Well I was floored there for a while, that is true, and I was moved in many ways. But, I do not suddenly take my husband for granted (any more than I already do). I have not suddenly stopped taking him out for romantic dinners, because we stopped doing that about 20 years ago. I have not stopped doing any housework around the house, because I do not do any anyway.

So, nothing much has changed for us in terms of our relationship, but I must admit I have noticed a very definite change in how I am treated in my partner's family. The concept of marriage is so well known to all of us. Other concepts of relationships? Well, some of them are relatively modern, but everybody knows what marriage means, and for members of our extended family who did not really know how to cope with our relationship, now they know: it is a marriage.

Suddenly, my relationship with my husband's family has not so much changed dramatically but has crystallised. I am now part of a broader family relationship that the concept of marriage has enshrined for them and for me. It just remarkable how that little institution of getting married makes changes in people's lives, and it made very emphatic changes in our life.

I come to support the Hon. Mr Kandelaars' motion today; I thank him for putting it forward for our consideration. I support it as a symbolic celebration of our shared humanity. I join with other members in this house in a nonpartisan way to express our support for the concept of non-discrimination and recognition of fundamental human relationships.

I do that because I sincerely believe that this legislation in the commonwealth will not pass in the Australian parliament unless it has the support of MHRs and senators of all political persuasions. This is an issue where I am adamant there should be no partisan benefit. This is an issue that goes so deeply to the lives of ordinary Australian citizens that we should not seek to make political gain out of it, and I have refrained as much as humanly possible from doing so in the many times I have spoken on this issue publicly and in this place.

I firmly believe also that such commonwealth legislation will eventually be passed. I have no doubt of that. It may take one or two parliaments for that to happen, but with the effluxion of time and the moving of members through the parliament, I note more and more young people from all political parties have no problems with the concept of same-sex marriage. I encourage young people in the Liberal Party, the Labor Party, the National Party, the Greens and every other political party to get involved in their parties and, when they become representatives for their state and the commonwealth, to vote with their conscience and support same-sex marriage equality.

I commend the New Zealand parliament for its wonderful embrace of all of its citizens in marriage equality and I look forward to the day where we as Australian citizens can do the same, too.

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (17:41): In rising to respond to the honourable members' contribution to this motion, I have to say that I do have a very personal interest in this issue. I have a son and a daughter who I love equally. Unfortunately, as the law stands today, my son can and is married, but my daughter cannot marry her partner. This not only affects my daughter, it affects our whole family. The question is: why?

We in Australia pride ourselves on a fair go. I ask: how can the current Australian marriage laws be fair? Neither my wife nor I see our marriage, and we have been married nearly 38 years, threatened in any way by the suggestion of my daughter being allowed to marry, nor do my son or his wife see their marriage being threatened. So, this affects my family, like so many other families in South Australia, and we see it as a great injustice. This is an issue of equity and equality.

As I said earlier when I moved this motion, the fact that the Hon. Ian Hunter and his partner Leith had to travel to the other side of the world to Spain to marry just shows how inequitable the current situation of Australian marriage laws is and how farcical it is in terms of their application to same-sex couples. But, the tide worldwide is turning. The following countries allow same-sex marriage: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Uruguay, and of course New Zealand has passed its bill to allow same-sex marriage, though this is yet to come into force. I believe it comes into force in August.

In the United Kingdom, on behalf of England and Wales, the House of Commons has passed a bill to allow same-sex marriage, but this bill is yet to pass the House of Lords, as I understand it. In the United States, same-sex marriages are not recognised federally, but same-sex couples can legally marry in 12 states, plus the District of Columbia, and three Native American tribes recognise same-sex marriage. As well, Rhode Island will recognise same-sex marriage from 1 August 2013. The President of the United States, Barack Obama, has indicated he supports same-sex marriage.

Here in Australia, public opinion supports same-sex marriage, with recent opinion polls showing a significant support of same-sex marriage. Let's take the Galaxy research polling from 2009 to 2012, which shows 64 per cent of Australians support marriage equality. A majority of Christians (53 per cent) support marriage equality, 76 per cent of Coalition voters want Tony Abbott to allow a conscience vote in their party on this issue, 75 per cent believe the reform is inevitable, and 81 per cent of young people aged 18 to 24 support marriage equality.

Let us have a look at other polls. The Sydney Morning Herald Nielsen poll in December 2011 shows that 81 per cent of Australians want Coalition MPs to have a conscience vote on marriage equality. The Sydney Morning Herald Nielsen poll in November 2011 shows that 62 per cent of Australians support marriage equality. News Ltd poll, mid-August 2011: seven in 10 Australians support marriage equality. Roy Morgan poll, early August 2011: 78 per cent of Australians believe the institution of marriage is still necessary and 68 per cent of Australians support marriage equality. News Ltd poll, December 2010: 65 per cent of Australians support marriage equality or do not mind either way.

You get a consistent outcome here, that there is broad support in our community to see a change. We see this consistent theme across our community and it is time that we considered acting here in Australia. Coming back to New Zealand, the New Zealand Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill was passed in New Zealand's House of Representatives by a substantial majority of 77 to 44. It was a momentous occasion when our New Zealand neighbours took a move towards a more inclusive, equal and just society.

I cannot put the case against opposition to marriage equality more eloquently than the Hon. Maurice Williamson, a minister of the New Zealand conservative National Party government. He gave a commitment to New Zealanders that he described as 'a watertight guaranteed promise'. Although I quoted the Hon. Maurice Williamson in the earlier speech I made on this matter, it is worth repeating:

…the sun will still rise tomorrow, your teenage daughter will still argue back…as if she knows everything, your mortgage will not grow, you will not have skin diseases or rashes or toads in the bed. The world will just carry on. So do not make this into a big deal. This is fantastic for the people it affects, but for the rest of us, life will go on.

Well-known Australians have commented in favour of marriage equality. I note the Hon. Michael Kirby AC, CMG, formerly a chief justice of the High Court, has stated how shocking it is that he served on the country's highest court, served the nation and has been a good citizen, and he is still considered, in his view, a second-class citizen in his own country. Further, Nick Greiner AC, the former New South Wales premier, has said that the issue of marriage equality is not a left and right issue, but a matter of natural justice. It in no way stops religions or individuals from acting in accordance with their conscience.

Both of these gentlemen are right and, as I have said, appear to reflect the views of the majority of Australians, those people who elect us to represent them. In closing, I congratulate the members of the New Zealand parliament who had the foresight and courage to pass the New Zealand Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill, and I commend this motion to the council.

The council divided on the motion:

Majority of 1 for the ayes.

Motion thus carried.