Marriage Equality

Adjourned debate on motion of Hon. T.A. Franks:

That this council—

1. Supports marriage equality; and

2. Calls on the parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to provide for marriage equality.

(Continued from 17 June 2015.)

The Hon. T.T. NGO (17:23): I move to amend the motion, as follows:

In paragraph 2, after the words 'marriage equality', insert 'by inserting a separate gay marriage definition whilst maintaining the current definition of marriage'.

I will speak briefly about my amendment to this motion, and in doing so offer my support for gay marriage or same-sex couples being allowed to marry. I do not have a preference for whether it is called gay marriage or same-sex marriage. For the purposes of this debate, I will stick to gay marriage. Honourable members should note that this matter is a conscience vote for ALP members until 2019.

I understand that what I am about to say is not likely to win me many friends, especially those opposed to amending the Marriage Act. For a long time, I have openly expressed the view that it is more important to reach a compromise than to cater to only one side of the debate, particularly as I believe that there is a fairly even split in the community between those who are for and those who are against gay marriage. This is why current proposals to change the Marriage Act have become particularly divisive, causing angst for many people who have strong views on both sides of the debate. Because of this, I believe that a resolution needs to be found to this important matter of public policy, based on some form of compromise by both sides.

The federal Liberal member for Goldstein, Mr Tim Wilson, who is openly gay, penned an opinion piece in The Australian in June 2015 where he proposed the option of splitting marriage into religious marriage and civil marriage. This would leave religious celebrants to marry those who adhere to the values of a particular doctrine, in his words. Religious marriage would be recognised in law as a marriage between a man and woman. Civil marriage would be recognised as a marriage between two people and would be administered by civil celebrants.

The current definition of marriage in section 5(1) of the Marriage Act is 'the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life'. Taking a leaf out of Mr Tim Wilson's book, my amendment seeks a compromise whereby the Marriage Act could contain the current definition of a man and a woman, whilst creating a separate definition to accommodate two people of the same sex.

Since putting forward this proposal, I have heard two sides of the debate. One group firmly believes that marriage is for a man and a woman only, while the other group has strong views on the need to recognise marriage equality. I believe this position offers a significant compromise which, whilst not satisfying both sides of the debate entirely, in my view does satisfy the central concerns within this debate—allowing gay or same-sex people to marry. That is very important: it allows gay or same-sex people to marry.

I reject the idea that opponents of this proposal put forward that this will see one form of marriage become more equal than the other. My view is that there are two definitions provided for marriage. Just because they are different does not mean they are unequal. In my view, conservative Australians should also accept the idea of providing two separate definitions of what constitutes a marriage, as their notion of what constitutes marriage is protected without the need to deny a gay marriage to same-sex couples. It is also incumbent on religious institutions to consider how they can facilitate a compromise, which I believe will help them in the long run in maintaining their freedom of religious expression.

It is my belief that the majority of Australians would support my proposal if it were put to them. I have shared my proposal with many people who do not have fixed opinions on the same-sex marriage debate and I have not found one person who is opposed to my proposal. They also believe it is a good compromise because both sides are included.

I believe that, as members of parliament, we need to put our strong views aside and take the lead on this issue. By finding a compromise on such a difficult social issue, we can cater for all groups and unite the country. I urge honourable members to support my amendments. We can show other states that this parliament is about working together for the common good. With that, I put my amendment to the motion to the council.

The Hon. R.L. BROKENSHIRE (17:30): I rise to speak to the motion regarding same-sex marriage. There will be no surprise to colleagues that Family First does not support same-sex marriage and believes the traditional definition of marriage should be maintained. It is a longstanding Family First policy to support and uphold the traditional definition of marriage and, in our view, the role of the mother and father is unique and complementary and it is in the best interests of children to have balance.

Family structure plays a significant role in the development of children. Research has overwhelmingly shown that children have better outcomes if they are able to grow in stable family structures, resting on stable, committed and faithful relationships. We had this debate just a few months ago, in the last week of sitting, and I am on the public record with my viewpoints there also.

A recent study published in the peer reviewed Journal of Education, Society and Behavioural Science presented evidence in favour of this conclusion. In fact, the large-scale study provided 1.6 million people as its total sample size, to which 512 children raised by same-sex parents were analysed from a pool of respondents who participated in the survey between 1997 and 2013. The study concludes that children raised by both biological parents who are of the opposite sex are less likely to have emotional issues. Our children represent our future and therefore it is critical that the wellbeing and welfare of children is a paramount consideration when making laws.

Secondly, I have put on the public record that in the lead up to the last federal election the Liberal government formed the policy that it will enable the people of Australia to have their say on same-sex marriage. For the record, this state has no legal position as a parliament of legislators because this is up to federal and commonwealth law and the federal government and federal parliament. The government did communicate the intention very clearly before the election and their policy was subject to public debate.

Upon re-election by the people of Australia, the federal government has a clear mandate to hold a plebiscite on same-sex marriage. Those in the federal parliament who argue against that are concerned that if people are able to get into a polling booth in a private position where they do not have to go for political correctness, or be embarrassed by adverse comments at dinner parties or any other place where they may discuss the matter, they will then be able to privately make a decision.

The government, through the introduction of a bill into the federal parliament to enable the people of Australia to have their say on the issue was simply following through on an election promise. As we all know now, that bill was defeated in the Senate last year. Supporters of same-sex marriage often assert that the majority of Australians are open to changing the traditional definition of marriage. I for one am not sure about that. It is our view that if this is indeed the case, then the plebiscite is the ideal way to confirm or deny this once and for all.

Same-sex marriage is undeniably a topic to which most people hold an opinion. Therefore, every Australian should be able to have their say on the matter and the will of the majority should be respected. I note that that there are two amendments to the motion and I note that the Hon. Tung Ngo has tried to put a compromise forward.

As I said earlier, Family First's position is clear: we support marriage as per the current commonwealth law and we do not support any changes to that. I know that the honourable member is trying to find a compromise here. We are very clear and we stand by our position but, if there was to be a division on this clause by the Hon. Tung Ngo, then clearly we would have to support that rather than the motion as it stands at the moment, notwithstanding that we do not support the motion, as I have indicated. I also note that another colleague, the Hon. Stephen Wade, has tabled an amendment in which he proposes leaving out paragraph 2. I assume he proposes that amendment because he knows that the debate on same-sex marriage is a commonwealth decision and not a state decision.

I conclude by saying that clause 1 of the motion states that this council supports marriage equality. I would be surprised if the council actually supports marriage equality, that is, that 100 per cent of the legislators in the Legislative Council would support this motion. Rather, there may be some members of the council who support marriage equality, but not 100 per cent of the members, because for sure Family First with two members does not support marriage equality. With those words, we will listen to the debate and, if there is a division, as I said, we will have no choice but to support the Hon. Tung Ngo's amendment. However, in summary, we do not support this motion at all.

The Hon. S.G. WADE (17:36): I rise to reiterate my long-held personal view in relation to relationship recognition and marriage equality. As I have said in this house before, I believe that the state has an interest in recognising and supporting long-term relationships and that that should be done in a non-discriminatory way, including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender. That said, I am a long-term communicant of the Christian church and I respect the right of the Christian church and other faith communities and, for that matter, communities of no faith to officiate and celebrate their own marriages as they understand them.

To be frank, I am disappointed that the opportunity for compromise was not taken some years ago. I suggested in a speech in 2009 that I believe that recognition of relationship should be taken out of the Marriage Act and should be in a freestanding act. One of the main motivators for that, in my view, was because I believe the continued use of the Marriage Act at the commonwealth level severely undermines separation of church and state.

The Christian church and our understanding of marriage has evolved over the years. I can remember, very early in my political awareness, the heartfelt battle against the Whitlam government reforms to the Marriage Act. I find it somewhat ironic that, some decades later, some members of my faith community want to defend the Marriage Act with such vehemence as though it was Holy Scripture when, in fact, only two or three short decades ago, we were declaring it to be an abomination of the Whitlam government.

Let me make it very clear: I would much prefer that marriage was left to faith and other communities to officiate and celebrate as they understand it, and that the state keeps its relationship recognition on a more formal, non-discriminatory basis. However, that is not the choice that either the federal government or the federal opposition has taken. Both the major parties in Canberra are committed to reforming relationship recognition within the Marriage Act.

I respect the comments of the Hon. Tung Ngo, but I do not believe that compromise is now possible. The major parties and, I think, the Christian churches made a fatal tactical error some time ago. For those of us who do want non-discriminatory relationship recognition, it has to be done in the Marriage Act. I do not really like the slogan 'marriage equality'; I would prefer to have 'relationship equality'. As people might understand it in the context of the comments I have just made, I will be supporting this motion.

The question might be asked, 'Why wouldn't I amend clause 2 as the Hon. Tung Ngo has chosen to do?' To be honest with you, I saw that that would lead us down a process of amendment and counter amendment and further amendment to almost the point of providing drafting instructions to the federal parliament. With all due respect to my federal colleagues, I will leave it to them. I am more than happy to affirm my long-standing commitment to the non-discriminatory recognition of relationships, but I propose to do that simply. In that context, and in accordance with the amendment that I have filed, I move to amend the motion as follows:

That paragraph 2 be deleted.

The Hon. T.J. STEPHENS (17:40): I rise to oppose the motion. I still and probably will always carry the traditional view that marriage is between a man and a woman. I have been reasonably consistent on this and I do not intend to change my views. The Hon. John Gazzola was kind enough to point out to the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars when he asked me if I would be prepared to pair him on this particular motion, that of course there are no formal pairs with regard to a conscious vote, and he is quite right.

However, as I hold the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars in high regard—whilst we agreed on virtually nothing when it came to conscience votes and his Labor philosophy, I always found that he was a really good fellow to interact with—with regard to our parliamentary duties, as a final act of respect I am putting on the record that I will be pairing with the Hon. Gerry Kandelaars on this particular motion and the amendments that go with it.

The Hon. K.L. VINCENT (17:42): I will be very brief because my beliefs on this particular matter are well documented. I support the definition of marriage being amended to allow same-sex couples to marry if they wish because as a Dignity Party MLC, I believe that autonomy, respect and dignity belongs to everyone in our community.

I would also like to briefly indicate that I will be opposing the amendment of the Hon. Mr Tung Ngo, mostly because I am not sure what its intention is. He noted that in introducing it that, under it, religious marriage would remain between a man and a woman, and civil marriage would be that of a same gender couple. I have one question to illustrate a potential problem, and I hope I am not over-simplifying or being naïve, but what then of different gender couples or heterosexual couples who may wish to have a non-religious marriage but still have that marriage recognised?

I am not entirely sure given that the Hon. Mr Ngo said that just because things are different, does not mean they are not equal. If he is not trying to make anything different for same sex couples, then what is the practical point of introducing this amendment in the first place? What practical impact would it have? Those of us who support changing the definition of marriage do so because we believe that the same opportunities should belong to every couple, regardless of their gender makeup, so I do not think any of us who genuinely support marriage equality, as flawed a term as that is in this place, would support. With those few brief words, I will support the motion.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (17:44): I rise to make a very brief contribution in support of this motion. Today I am a longstanding supporter of LGBTIQ community and strongly advocate for marriage equality. The public overwhelmingly supports same-sex marriage and it is the duty of federal parliament to amend the Marriage Act to enable equality before the law for these relationships. Reform is long overdue. Every single Australian deserves to be treated equally no matter who they are or whom they love.

For the record, I cannot support the Hon. Tung Ngo's amendment because it goes against the whole intent of the motion to do with equality. Every couple needs to be treated in the same manner in terms of marriage. The Hon. Tung Ngo's amendment would treat these couples in different ways. Just for the record, I support the Hon. Stephen Wade in his amendment. I think that is a helpful way forward.

The Hon. R.I. LUCAS (17:45): I have expressed my views previously but let me repeat them in this particular motion. I support the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman and therefore I do not support the interpretations that some have put on marriage equality. I support, whether it be register, civil unions or whatever it might happen to be between same-sex couples to give them the same legal rights and entitlements, short of being able to say that they are married.

For those reasons I will not support the motion if it was to be put in that way. I am not sure exactly how the amendments are going to be put. I will obviously support the Hon. Mr Wade's amendment because that actually opposes a key part of the motion, and I say no to the Hon. Mr Ngo's amendment.

The Hon. J.M. GAZZOLA (17:46): This is a conscience vote, as has been pointed out before, for government members, and I rise for the record to support the motion for marriage equality and to oppose the Hon. Mr Ngo's amendment. I thank all those who have contacted my office to express their views either for or against the proposal. I strongly believe that two persons who love each other should, if they wish, be allowed to express their love and commitment by marrying. I commend the motion.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (17:47): My position on this is patently clear: I am married, after all, to the love of my life, Mr Leith Semmens, who just happens to be a man, and so I think people have a very clear idea of where I stand on this.

I will be supporting the Wade amendment. I think he makes some cogent arguments for the deletion of paragraph 2 and it makes and leaves a much clearer statement of support for marriage equality or, as the Hon. Mr Wade would put it, relationship equality. I will not be supporting the Hon. Tung Ngo's amendments, for a very important reason, and that clearly is because the Hon. Mr Ngo proposes in his compromise amendment two different forms of marriage.

I understand completely what the Hon. Mr Ngo is attempting to do with his amendment. I know he means well and is very sincere in his desire to find a way forward through this debate which seems to be dividing the community, although perhaps not as much as he thinks. However, I say to him that his approach is a flawed one, and it is flawed because—and I paraphrase him now in something that he said when explaining his amendment. He said that just because the two different types of marriage he is proposing are different does not mean that they are unequal, but I would say to him that yes, it does.

I only have to hark back to what happened in America when they were dealing with civil rights issues and segregation and the famous phrase that was pronounced by the Supreme Court of the United States that 'separate but equal is not equal'. This was the desperate explanation that was used to support the ongoing position of race segregation in the United States of America. When the Civil Rights Movement was challenging the crippling effects of segregation on the African-American community they took up this challenge to say that segregation of separate but equal is not equal. Segregation, as we know now historically was struck down by the courts when they ruled that separate but equal can never be equal.

For those reasons I will be opposing the amendment by Mr Ngo. I will be supporting the amendment proposed by the Hon. Mr Wade and hopefully then come to very simple statements of support for marriage equality as will be advanced by the Hon. Tammy Franks, and I welcome that.

The Hon. J.A. DARLEY (17:49): For the record, I will support the motion concerning marriage equality. I will not support the Hon. Tung Ngo's amendment, but I will support the Hon. Stephen Wade's amendment.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:49): As members know, this is a conscience matter. It has been some time since I have put my position on the record, but I have a traditional view of marriage and believe that it is the jurisdiction of the commonwealth parliament. It is interesting that, in all sorts of other debates we have had in this place and question times where the commonwealth has been brought into the debate, it is really not a jurisdiction over which we have any influence, so I am always surprised when we are trying to send messages to the commonwealth.

I am reminded of, I think it was Rod Sawford, former member for Port Adelaide, describing where this Legislative Council ranks in the eyes of federal parliamentarians. I think they see themselves in the House of Reps as the A grade, the senators are B grade, the House of Assembly is C grade and, sadly for us, we are the D grade. So, I am not sure that they are ever going to take any notice.

The Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins: A few of them have got us a bit lower than that.

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY: My colleague, the Hon. John Dawkins, says that some of them have us lower than the D grade. I am digressing. I do not support the motion, I do not support the Hon. Tung Ngo's position, and I am inclined to support my colleague the Hon. Stephen Wade with his amendment. I certainly want on the record that I will not support the motion.