HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-03-28 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

MARRIAGE EQUALITY BILL

Second Reading

Second reading.

The Hon. T.A. FRANKS (20:55): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I rise today to put before this place a re-introduction of a bill for marriage equality for South Australians. I first gave notice of this bill in November 2010 and then introduced it, co-sponsored at that stage with the Hon. Ian Hunter, in February 2011. I am pleased to say that much has changed since that time, although not enough, for me to be re-introducing it here today.

As members are aware, the Marriage Act is a federal act in Australia, and it is not typical that we discuss matters related to marriage in this place in terms of legislation and rights afforded to our citizens in regard to marriage. That is because, in the 1960s, we saw the marriage acts around the country harmonised. Certainly, I draw members' attention to my previous second reading explanation on this and also to the words of Professor George Williams, who is a constitutional law expert from the University of New South Wales (UNSW). He notes:

Every federal power in section 51 of the constitution is held concurrently with the States. Just as the Commonwealth can legislate for marriage so can the states.

That power to legislate for marriage that is shared concurrently by the commonwealth and state governments is actually opened up to us here in South Australia by the very fact that the previous prime minister, John Howard, specifically pushed for legislation to ban same-sex marriage. In fact, by doing so, he opened the way for any state to take up the power to legislate for marriage equality. It is quite ironic, should any state end up actually moving forward with that.

Of course, to refresh members' memories, it was only some few years ago that we did see specific moves at that federal level, led by the then prime minister John Howard, to outlaw marriage equality. Since that time we have seen community campaigns and certainly members of parliament speaking up against what is indeed a violation of human rights and a perpetuation of discrimination against gay and lesbian Australians.

One such family who is discriminated against is that of Mabel. Mabel wrote a letter to the Prime Minister. Mabel is six. I came across this letter online, and it reads:

To Prime Minister,

My name is Mabel. I am 6. I am in prep. I have a little sister and 2 mums.

My favrit fings—

and 'favourite' is misspelt, and I will provide the misspellings for Hansard for the record—

are spiders and icy poles and witches and...can you change the law so my mums can marry, because I fink if we all treet each other the same way it is fair.

Thank you. I love you.

Love Mabel.

This is a letter that Mabel wrote to Prime Minister Gillard last year. Mabel is indeed a real six year old. I contacted Mabel's parents, Anna and Sacha, who gave me permission to read out this letter. Mabel and her little sister, Juno, would in fact dearly love for their mums, Anna and Sacha, to be able to marry.

I am proud to be a Greens member of parliament because it has been the Greens that have led the way on marriage equality, but I do acknowledge that many, many other members of parliament, and increasingly large numbers of members of parliament, have in fact supported marriage equality. I am heartened by the fact that our current Premier, Jay Weatherill, is publicly on record as supporting marriage equality.

I am heartened by the support given by the Liberal Leader of the Opposition in this state, Isobel Redmond; the words of Mike Rann in one of his last public speaking engagements (a former premier of this state); Senator Simon Birmingham, a Liberal senator; federal finance minister Penny Wong; federal minister Mark Butler; former Liberal senator and minister Amanda Vanstone; federal minister Kate Ellis; and others who are leaders in the community such as Aussie rock legend, Jimmy Barnes and his son, David Campbell, who is a musician and TV presenter; as well as those from the religious field such as Reverend Ian Hunter from the Semaphore Uniting Church, Rabbi Shoshana Kaminsky from the Progressive Synagogue of South Australia and Reverend Leanne Jenski from the Blackwood Uniting Church in Adelaide.

The Greens are certainly not alone in supporting marriage equality. In fact, two-thirds (and rising) of Australians support marriage equality. I would also draw the attention of members in the chamber to the fact that South Australia leads the way in support for marriage equality, with 67 per cent support according to the latest Galaxy poll February 2012. There was 67 per cent support and only 26 per cent opposing. This figure has been rising steadily and, in South Australia, it outstrips the national figures. We should certainly not shirk away from this debate feeling that our constituents do not support marriage equality.

Last week in this place I held a forum attended by the convenor of Australian Marriage Equality, Alex Greenwich, where he presented some findings from the Williams Institute and in particular a study by economist Professor Lee Badgett, that if a state like South Australia were to become the first state to allow same-sex marriage or marriage equality, it would benefit by at least $96 million over the first three years, with most of that money going to small businesses and catering to the wedding market.

That figure rises to as much as $170 million in that time, depending on what factors are put in but it only applies to the actual catering and functions of the wedding itself; it does not even take into account the boost to tourism, the honeymoon and the other associated factors that go with the wedding industry. It is based on similar experiences overseas and it predicts that any state that was to go first in Australia would, in fact, benefit from such an economic boon. Certainly it is at least three times as much as we see from Clipsal each year, which I think is nothing to be sneezed at.

It would also boost our state's reputation. We were, in fact, the first state to decriminalise homosexuality and we now have the opportunity to be the first state to legalise marriage equality. It would boost our reputation as a state that truly values, recognises and respects the contribution of all of our citizens regardless of their sexual attraction. It would also boost the mental health outcomes of our citizens. There has been extensive evidence on marriage and mental health according to the Australian Psychological Society as well as the American Psychological Association which has concluded that legislating for same-sex marriage improves mental health outcomes for same-sex attracted people.

Legislation that validates and values same-sex relationships would, indeed, have meaningful impact on the incidence of anxiety disorders, depression and substance abuse amongst many in our community. Having said that, we are, of course, in a position where we do not have marriage equality, either in South Australia or in Australia, but we certainly do have an opportunity before us. We have come a long way since I first introduced this bill and we have come a long way in the last decade.

I pay tribute to 2010 as the year where a concerted campaign for marriage equality took off in this country, reflecting moves across the world. I will not repeat all of the countries and states that, in fact, have moved forward but I will draw the attention of members to one particular South Australian situation. Forty years ago in this state a professor from Adelaide University was callously and brutally murdered for the simple fact of being born. Although he was by then 41 years old, Dr George Duncan had committed the unforgivable crime of being born a homosexual; and, so, having been born a homosexual, on 10 May 1972 Dr George Duncan and his companion were ambushed and thrown into the river that wends its way through our city. Duncan's companion escaped, but the Adelaide University professor was not so lucky.

After having suffered tuberculosis, Duncan had only one lung. The river proved too much for him and he drowned. His murderers, who were later revealed to be vice squad police officers who had made a habit of harassing and attacking homosexuals on the notorious River Torrens beat, escaped prosecution. They have never been brought to justice for Duncan's murder. We know their names, we suspect there is evidence of a cover-up and we are pretty sure they got away with it. For those born after 1975 (which does not include me), and certainly many of us born before then, it is difficult to comprehend that homosexuality used to be illegal—not just frowned upon or discriminated against or laughed about, but punishable with up to 10 years gaol.

An act between two consenting adults was considered such a threat to our strong, upstanding morals that we were prepared to gaol innocent people simply because—to borrow one of the bigoted phrases from the time—they happened to like Arthur more than Martha. The murder of Dr George Duncan changed all this. Beginning with decriminalisation and ending with its full legalisation in 1975, South Australia became the first state to legally recognise homosexuality as a legitimate expression of sexuality; and all it took—I say, sarcastically—was the brutal, callous murder of an innocent man and three years of political fighting.

Of course it was a huge victory and we deserve to feel proud as South Australians because of it but we turned on our back on social change. We thought it enough that we had achieved that; that we could rest on our laurels, dust our hands off and claim we delivered equality. We forgot that if you take your eye off the ball you should not be surprised to look up and find it is being played by your opponent. To paraphrase the Laramie Project (a theatre project developed in response to the murder of Matthew Shepard in 1998 in Wyoming), we have achieved change, but we are a long way from progress.

After those heady days of social reform under premier Don Dunstan, what has South Australia or indeed Australia really done other than cast a hand across the superficial veneer of equality and declare our job to be over? In 2006, 31 years after South Australia legalised homosexuality, the Howard government amended the Marriage Act to declare marriage legal between only a man and woman to the exclusion of all others. He is on record as saying that he would not give the same credence to homosexual liaisons as he would heterosexual marriage.

His government intervened to overturn same sex union legislation in the ACT. Many of us were outraged at this government interference. We were outraged that the federal government had not just failed to instil equal rights for gay Australians but had actively sought to deny these to them. Together we stood against the government and expressed our discord, but here in South Australia we are no better. After being the first state to legalise homosexuality, we became the last state to grant full legal rights to same-sex couples in 2006.

We are currently the only state in Australia that does not allow lesbians and single mothers to access IVF (although I think the bill from the Hon. Ian Hunter will have something to say about that), with the proviso 'unless they are medically infertile'. It does not recognise lesbian co-parenting mothers, of course. Unless we remain not just vigilant but active in agitating for change, almost certainly our state will not be the first to legalise marriage equality.

Despite consistent polls showing that two-thirds of Australians (and rising) support same-sex marriage, we politicians seem to scuttle from the issue like rats from a sinking ship. In fact, I am sure that many in the federal parliament simply would like it to disappear. It will not disappear. Unfortunately for these governments and our government, those activists decades ago began a movement that is not going anywhere. We stand here today continuing the work that they started. There may have been delayed action, we may even fool ourselves for a brief moment that we have done all that needs to be done, but we know that change will only come if we demand it, and demand it the community will.

In 1972 Dr George Duncan was murdered because of society's intolerance, bigotry and hatred. He was thrown into a river and left to drown, and after his body was retrieved he suffered the further indignity of being thrown back in so that a TV news camera could record the rescue. His murder was the catalyst for gay social reform in our state of South Australia. This government and those before it have repaid him and countless others who have suffered trying to deliver change by giving gay people crumbs from the table and telling them that they should be grateful. There is no doubt that society's attitudes have changed and vastly outstripped those of politicians.

South Australians support the legalisation of equal marriage. Despite doomsday predictions from conservative organisations, we know that the sky does not fall on our head if we allow marriage equality. In fact, we will not be delivered into hell in a hand basket if we allow gay people to marry. Their children will not end up in the gutter, crippled by a life of addiction and sexual confusion. All that will happen, if we allow gay people to marry, is that gay people will be allowed to marry.

We talk about needing change. As politicians, we talk about delivering change, and we often congratulate ourselves for the meagre things that have happened. But this is 2012, and gay people in this country are still denied the right to stand before each other to exchange vows before their friends and their family and to pledge their love to one another and to have that recognised legally and morally before our society and their God, if they wish and if that particular religion wishes.

It is such a simple thing. It is nothing more than a celebration of love and commitment, yet we politicians, in general, seem to tell them that society is not ready for that yet. Well, I am not prepared to tell Mabel or Juno or Anna or Sascha, or my children, that we are not ready. Change is not enough. What we need now is progress. What Hannah and her little sister Juno need is progress for their mums, and what South Australian politicians can and must do, if the federal parliament will not, is deliver real progress. I commend the bill to the council.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. Carmel Zollo.

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