HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-07-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SAME SEX MARRIAGE BILL

Second Reading

Second reading debate resumed.

Mr BROCK (Frome) (12:24): I congratulate the member for Port Adelaide for bringing the bill to this house to be debated. Firstly, let me say that this is a very important issue, not only for South Australia, but for all of Australia. Whichever way we vote today, and whatever people say in this chamber, I do not think anyone should be victimised or criticised. Everyone should be able to say what they feel and what they represent and share their views without any retaliation from either side.

As the member for Giles has already indicated, I will say that I am not married. I am a widower, and I raised a couple of children when they were younger for a period of time. I am in a relationship now with my partner, Lyn, and we have five children between us and 14 grandchildren. Therefore, I am not married and my partner is not married; she is divorced. We do have a relationship. We do not want to get married, because the fact is that we believe we are having a relationship. We are very civil about the whole thing, and we are still in a loving relationship.

I must congratulate the member for Newland who gave a very eloquent speech about how he considers the Marriage Act and things like that. The other thing I have concern about—and the member for Chaffey mentioned it a minute ago—is that this is a conscience vote, as I understand it, from the government's point of view. That is fine. The opposition has said that it is a party view, and they would have the opportunity, I would assume, within their party room to have their say and things like that.

Is a conscience vote to do with the party itself in the finish, is it do with the member of that particular electorate, or is it the personal view of the member of parliament, in my case being the member for Frome? Is it my vote that I should be putting here, or as the member for Chaffey indicated a minute ago, should it be for the majority of the constituents of our electorates? We represent people. We should not represent parties in this chamber. We should not represent ourselves as individuals. We represent people and constituents out there. They are the ones who we should be taking into account.

The member for Fisher has indicated that he is going out to his people to get their views. I have already started doing that. The member for Chaffey—I congratulate the member—is also getting the views from his constituents. The people in the electorate of Frome, the ones who have responded—and there have been many, many hundreds—have overwhelmingly advised me, after explaining to me and getting a copy of the proposed bill, to vote against this bill.

The other thing is that I also have many friends who are in same-sex relationships, whether they are two males or two females. Not once have they asked me in my discussions to support this bill. They have a relationship and, as the Premier has also indicated in the 2007 bill, they have equal rights. They are protected in relation to their property values and things like that.

It is interesting that No. 15 on the Notice Paper is the Civil Partnerships Bill. That would overcome a lot of the issues in relation to the recognition of same-sex couples, as I understand it. It was an adjourned debate on the second reading on 18 October last year. Here we are dealing with a private members' bill which was introduced afterwards—with all due respect to the member for Port Adelaide and I congratulate her for getting it up there—when we could be dealing with the earlier bill and discussing the same issue about civil relationships, but it has been deferred. It has been buried down in the Notice Paper. I am intrigued by that—very intrigued.

I have attended many functions in this house and elsewhere, and I have had meetings with people from the churches, where I have listened to people who are for this and against this. At this stage, I have not been convinced that I need to vote for this particular bill. The thing that I would really like to see is the legal constitutional side.

The member for Giles said, 'Have some gumption and actually do not worry about those sort of things; make a decision', but I, like the member for Chaffey, do not want to make a decision that is not going to be ratified by the commonwealth or is going to be the cause of a High Court challenge. We have seen all those. I, along with the member for Fisher, would rather see the Civil Partnerships Bill (which is No. 15 on the Notice Paper)brought on and discussed and to look at what opportunity that offers.

As I said, a lot of my friends are gay, and not once have they asked me to come into this chamber and vote for this. They have said that they are very happy with that relationship. I will not mention this person's name but a close friend of mine, who is married with three children, was going through a stage in his life when he thought he was gay, so he changed, and he had the experience and he experimented, and he went into that line for a while. If this bill was passed, he would have divorced his wife and separated from his children, and he would have then married his male partner at the time, but as the time went on, after six or eight months, his feelings changed.

So I question that, if this bill was in place then, and he had divorced and married his same-sex partner, where would he be then? Divorced again. He has now gone back to his wife and his family, and he is in a happy relationship again. Our emotions and feelings always change. Certainly, at this stage I am not convinced to vote for this bill, and therefore at this particular point I will be voting against it.

Mr GARDNER (Morialta) (12:30): I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this matter. In my mind there are three things that we need to consider when dealing with a bill like this. The first is the salient point of whether it is desirable that same-sex couples be allowed to marry in South Australia, Australia or generally. Secondly, if we were going to pass such a law, would that law be valid for the jurisdiction we represent in the parliament? Thirdly, if the first two barriers were to be overcome, then would the nature of the bill still be desirable in other matters that may be raised? So I will deal with those three aspects in part.

The member for Frome raises one other question in relation to conscience votes generally. Does that means that one's own conscience as a member of parliament—and I recognise that on the government side that this bill is a conscience vote—or is it, in fact, the conscience of one's constituency? To my mind, that is something that is going to be different for anyone who puts themselves forward for parliament and, if somebody wants to outsource their decision-making on these matters to their constituency, then they can go to an election and tell their constituents they are going to do that.

That is a legitimate way to conduct oneself but, at the same time, for members who have firm views on a matter who wish to put their expression forward and who will not be shaken by their constituency, so long as their electors know what those views are going to be before they put themselves up for parliament, then I think that that is entirely legitimate too, because electors may well vote for somebody who has a different view on one matter or another. It is likely across the gamut of issues that that is going to happen, but they may think that that person's character or qualities or other views are more important than just that one position.

On the matter of whether same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, I am against discrimination in all forms, and I am in here too. I know that my friends who have invited me to their weddings—and I see people laughing as I know that on the other side there has been a bit of bingo game going on when anyone talks about their friends who have same-sex attraction, and that is fine, that is one of the things that happens, but I feel in putting my points, I should at least share my personal experience.

When I was invited to celebrate the solemnity of people's personal commitments to each other, and those commitments had to be in Canada or Spain, then I was sorry that I could not join them on those occasions as they were able to join me at my marriage. These things are important. Marriage is a wonderful blessing to those who are able to undertake it. It is an expression of commitment and it is good for society as well for people to express their commitment. It is good.

In my maiden speech I talked about the most important unit of society is the individual, and the family, and governments come third. It is worthwhile to encourage that and I think that that is actually a fairly fundamental conservative point of view, to be able to say that family units are important and are to be encouraged, and I do not support ongoing discrimination.

I would have liked to attend those celebrations and it is also true that not all of those couples go on, just as heterosexual couples who marry. I think the member for Giles said that only two-thirds succeed, and the same could be true for others as well, but that does not necessarily argue against it in my view. However, this is not the place where we have the opportunity to make that law.

We were accused of hypocrisy on this side, those of us who might support the principle but oppose the law because of some sort of, I think, jargon or constitutional mumbo-jumbo was the suggestion. I absolutely abhor the suggestion that has been put by some members, some government staffers, on Twitter. People who I quite like have been saying that about people on this side.

I think that as lawmakers we have a fundamental responsibility to understand what we have the capacity to do. The member for Bragg, the member for Heysen, and other members have gone through the constitutional arguments, and it is very clear that federal law takes precedence. In relation to the federal law, not only does the Marriage Act not allow same-sex marriage but it also creates a criminal offence of anyone undertaking to solemnise, or purport to solemnise, a marriage if the person has reason to believe that there is a legal impediment to the marriage or if the person has reasons to believe that marriage would be void.

It is, in fact, a hoax. It is a hoax to support this bill and accuse us of hypocrisy for not supporting it. It is a hoax to say that the constitution is not important, and that 'the vibe' is all we need in some sort of Dennis Denuto approach, that if you believe in something you vote for it and we will let the High Court deal with it later.

If the High Court strikes out our law, what is going to happen to people who undertake that celebration and accede to whatever other benefits or rights they may receive, only later to have the High Court strike it out? What is going to happen to those marriages and everything that has been undertaken in the course of those marriages? It is nothing but a hoax. It is appalling that people who in good faith have been putting their solemn constitutional views about the constitutional arrangements, as we understand them, have been accused of everything other than representing their constituents in the way that they should.

The third aspect is in relation to whether the bill creates any other problems. If one supports the premise and if one were to accept the constitutional validity, should this bill then still be supported? I would argue that there are other issues at stake.

For a start, as the member for Bragg outlined, all of the matters in relation to family relationships are dealt with at a federal level. So if you have one state in which same-sex marriage is accepted, let's say that it was constitutionally valid—I do not believe that it is and I do not believe that can be, but even if it were—and the state were to pass it and it was accepted, what would happen to other family relationships if that couple were to move? Could those marriages be tested in other states?

It is not just family relationships. There is also the distribution of the state's intestacy, family provisions and statutes providing for workers' accident compensation in relation to partners. All of these things may come into question. So I think that the bill itself is a problem.

I have listened to all of the speeches that have been put forward. I heard the Premier compare himself to Barack Obama and David Cameron and describe the opposition's position on same-sex marriage as empty symbolism. Members on this side have talked about the constitution, whether that is the primary reason for their opposition to the bill or not, but of those who have supported same-sex marriage and those who have opposed same-sex marriage, the only person I have heard describe this as empty symbolism is the Premier.

I know that is not his position, but it is his characterisation of others' arguments, and I think that it is unfair. I do not think that anyone has said that. Symbolism is important and the institution of marriage is important. But it is critical that this parliament deals with matters that are within this parliament's domain. We are unhappy whenever the commonwealth parliament or local councils seek to deal with matters that are in our domain—the councils' we strike out and the commonwealth we have almighty barneys with. I do not see that there is any inconsistency in supporting the premise but opposing this bill, and I certainly do so on this occasion.

The Hon. C.C. FOX (Bright—Minister for Transport Services, Minister Assisting the Minister for the Arts) (12:38): I do not wish to talk about the constitution, I do not wish to reflect negatively on the views of other people in this place, on either side of the house. I would like to talk about three things that I think are pertinent in relation to this debate, and they are this: people, love and God. At the risk of laughing at myself, I have many friends who are gay; in fact, some of my best friends are gay.

Ms Thompson interjecting:

The Hon. C.C. FOX: No; it's true. I have grown up in a family where many family friends were gay, where having gay people around us was not even remarked upon because they were just people, not part of a 'gay community', just people. One of my great friends, whose name I shall not mention, a deeply religious man, a Catholic who wanted to be a minister of religion, who had deep, deep beliefs, came out when he was 18 or 19, and he told his mother that he was gay; and she threw a crucifix at his head and she did not speak to him for six months, which was tragic.

Since that time they have reconciled, and since that time he has found himself with a partner of five years. They love each other very much and they own a house and numerous dogs together. Their relationship is much stronger than many relationships I know—either heterosexual or homosexual. I think that for this particular friend of mine, nothing would have given him more pleasure than to be married because he respects the institution of marriage.

He respects the institution of marriage, so much so that he wants to be part of that institution, which apparently is now only owned by the religious right, which I find tragic. For people like him and his partner (and his family) I stand here today and I say, 'You have the right to have your commitment recognised.' That is truly what I believe. I know that others do not, but that is truly what I believe.

Let us talk about love. Prince Charles famously said, when he announced his engagement to Lady Diana Spencer, 'Whatever in love means'. That is a very good question that I think we could talk about in here for hours and hours, and we do in our lives. One thing I do know about love—and I say this as a single parent who did not want to be a single parent—is that we cannot judge one person's love for another. We cannot define that. No individual, no church has the right to do so—a moral right to do so. I would never do that to any other human being.

I would like to talk very briefly about God. I am a member of the Uniting Church and my son is christened in the Uniting Church and has been welcomed with such love and such acceptance into the Uniting Church—the son of an unmarried mother. My grandparents were Methodist missionaries, so there was no dancing or drinking, there was no gambling—there was not a lot of much!

The Hon. L.R. Breuer: Not even a raffle book for the netball club!

The Hon. C.C. FOX: Indeed! But they were missionaries in Africa for some 50 years and their love and compassion and belief in God's word led them to be there. They truly believed in those things. But I also know that those very same people who dedicated their entire lives to the teachings of the good Lord Jesus Christ would have been appalled if they knew that someone within a church was saying that a group of people were different; that they were not allowed to have the rights that the rest of us have.

Jesus Christ, in my belief, looked after the marginalised, he looked after the poorest in society. He looked after those people who did not have a voice. As a member of the Uniting Church and as a politician and as somebody with a conscience and beliefs about this, I stand here today saying those things.

I said at the beginning of this, hopefully, brief speech that I do not seek to judge those with different views. I think one of the marvellous things, certainly on my side of the house—I cannot speak for the other, but perhaps it is so—is that we can have very differing opinions about these particular matters.

The member for Newland and I could not be more diametrically opposed in our views on these particular matters. I still like him, and word on the street is that he still likes me; we can still be friends. But I said at the beginning of this speech that there are terribly different views and I really respect those views—I do, I do, I do. But my respect for people, my love for people, my belief and my interpretation of scripture tells me that I will vote for this bill and I will do so proudly and I will not walk away from my beliefs.

Dr CLOSE (Port Adelaide) (12:44): I rise to close debate on the second reading of this bill. I thank all members of parliament who have contributed to this debate. I made the case for this bill in my second reading speech and I will not take up time reiterating the points I made.

However, because the constitution has been raised by many speakers, I will briefly readdress that. The best legal advice, including that provided at a seminar for MPs recently, is that it is constitutionally valid for a state to pass legislation relating to marriage—it is a concurrent power under the constitution—and that it is likely to be subject to a challenge that may or may not be successful in having the legislation rendered inoperable.

There can be no doubt that we have the authority to pass this legislation. There can be no doubt that it may founder. We are not members of the High Court and cannot place ourselves in their position to make that judgement. No report from any other state can give any different advice. Either we have the courage to test this or we do not.

It was also raised at that seminar that a federal parliament decision to include same-sex couples in its Marriage Act would equally be open to High Court challenge. There appears to be no way for this country to have equal marriage without some legal debate and likely High Court consideration. We need to be courageous enough to test that, either in the state or in the country.

Before we go to a vote, I will list the countries that have decided to allow two people to marry, regardless of gender. They are Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden, Uruguay, many of the states in the United States and parts of Mexico. The UK is in the process of joining that list. As a proud Labor member of this parliament, who regards it as my job to stand against discrimination and for the rights of all people to be treated equally by our laws, I will look forward to what I regard as inevitable: the addition of our country to that list.

Second reading negatived.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT