HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-05-01 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE LEGISLATION

The Hon. G.A. KANDELAARS (16:11): I move:

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.

In rising to speak to this motion today, I firstly extend my congratulations to the Hon. Ian Hunter and his partner, Leith Semmens, on their recent marriage in Spain. I am reliably informed that their wedding was a wonderful and loving occasion and I wish them all the very best. However, in many ways, the fact that Ian and Leith had to travel to the other side of the world to marry shows the current inequity in Australia's marriage laws and how those laws apply to same-sex couples.

We witnessed the passing of laws to legalise same-sex marriage in New Zealand two weeks ago and France last week. The tide is turning across the globe with a rapid movement towards equality and a change in marriage laws to allow all citizens, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, to marry the person they love.

Same-sex marriages are legal in a number of countries including the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain (as I have mentioned), Canada, South Africa and Uruguay to name a few. In addition, several states in the United States have formally legalised and recognised same-sex marriage. In Britain, the House of Commons has voted in favour of such laws. Within Australia, there has been slower progress. At its 2011 national conference, the Australian Labor Party platform was changed in favour of amendments to our marriage laws that accepts marriage of same-sex couples. Parliamentary members are now afforded a conscience vote on this issue which was a significant move by Labor.

In South Australia, Premier Jay Weatherill has indicated his support for same-sex marriage, as have a number of my parliamentary colleagues. I also acknowledge the Hon. Tammy Franks' position on this issue and I have previously spoken in this place in support of the Hon. Tammy Franks' Marriage Equality Bill. I stand by what I said at that time and continue to support this cause.

Sadly, the same cannot be said for the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party has long prided itself as the party which gives its members more freedom in respect of party votes as opposed to conscience votes. Despite this, the federal leader of the Liberal opposition has repeatedly refused his colleagues a conscience vote on this issue, which is an issue of such moral dimension. I note that there have been reports that this may change, although only after this year's federal election.

I also acknowledge that there has been a shift in attitude within the Liberal Party. The Premier of New South Wales, Barry O'Farrell, and the Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett, have indicated that the federal Liberal Party should change its position and allow a conscience vote. I also acknowledge that the state Leader of the Opposition, Steven Marshall, has indicated his own personal support for same-sex marriage. I urge these three men, along with Liberal Party members of this place, to continue to agitate for change in the federal Liberal Party's policy.

In speaking in support of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill in New Zealand, Louise Wall made what I believe to be a salient point. Ms Wall spoke of the need to learn from history and said:

Marriage laws have been continually used as a tool of oppression. The Nuremberg laws in 1935 prohibited marriage between German nationals and Jews. The South African Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriage Act prohibited marriage and sexual contact between races until they were repealed in 1985. Forty US states prohibited interracial marriage. Women lost all property rights and their identity upon marriage.

Excluding a group in society from marriage is oppressive and unacceptable. There is no justification for the prohibitions of the past based on religion, race, or gender. Today we are embarrassed and appalled by these examples, and in every instance it was action by the State. This is not about church teachings or philosophy. It never has been. It is about the State excluding people from the institution of marriage because of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity, and that is no different from the actions taken in these historical examples.

I have no doubt that I will receive abusive emails—some anonymous and some not—from people who will be challenged by this and ask how dare I seek to compare their religious beliefs with these examples. To them I say this: it is not about religion, nor is it about the sanctity of marriage.

No law in support of same-sex marriage will legalise criminal offences. No law in support of same-sex marriage will compel a minister or celebrant to marry a couple against their wishes and no law in support of same-sex marriage affects the validity or otherwise of my marriage, my son's marriage, my parents' marriage, my neighbour's marriage or for that matter anybody else's marriage. To those who fear that their own marriage may be threatened if gay or lesbian couples are permitted to marry, I suggest, perhaps, that they examine their own marriage first; for surely, if allowing some other couple to marry devalues your own marriage, then perhaps your marriage is not as strong as you might believe.

The other argument which people opposed to the law seem to raise is children: 'For heaven's sake, we cannot allow gay marriage for the sake of the kids.' Figures adopted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, however, suggest that the proportion of babies born outside registered marriage has risen dramatically throughout the period 1990 to 2010, from just over one-fifth (22 per cent) to just over one-third (34 per cent) of all births. Likewise, even in respect of children who were born to married parents, the reality of divorce means that many children live without regular contact with one of their parents, usually the father, after separation. Again, ABS figures show that in 2009-10, of the five million children aged zero to 17 in Australia, just over one million, or one in five (21 per cent) had a natural parent living elsewhere.

I respect the rights of others to hold an opinion different from mine. As I have said, the federal Labor Party has been granted a conscience vote on this issue, and I believe that is the right thing to do. However, I urge those who oppose a change to same-sex marriage laws to consider the issue in an objective and logical manner, rather than through the prism of religious dogma.

The Hon. Maurice Williamson gave the people of New Zealand what he described as a watertight guarantee and promise and, when this bill was debated, said:

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

This is a promise with which I wholeheartedly agree. The world we live in is changing. It is no longer just white bread, meat and three veg. It is time that the federal legislature in Australia moved with it.

I have a very personal interest in this matter, as I said in my inaugural speech in this place. My own daughter is in a same-sex relationship. As it stands, the current Marriage Act discriminates directly against her and her partner, and as I said at the time:

It is as if, in the eyes of the law, they are second-class citizens, which they are certainly not. It is time for our society to truly accept that homosexuality is a reality and that homosexual couples should be able to have their relationship and their love recognised under secular laws, just as heterosexual couples can.

My daughter is a wonderful person with a beautiful heart and I have experienced the absolute pride of seeing one of my children marry his soul mate but, as the law stands, my daughter is not able to experience that same right. As a father, I love my children equally. It is unfortunate that in Australia the same cannot be said in terms of equality. If my daughter chooses to wed, it is my dream that one day I should be able to escort her down the aisle, and it is my dream that I should be able to ensure that the right to make that choice is hers and hers alone.

Anybody who witnessed that historic occasion when the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill was passed in the New Zealand House of Representatives on a vote of 77-44 will know that it was a momentous shift our neighbours have taken towards a more inclusive, equal and just society. I congratulate those members of the New Zealand parliament who had the foresight and courage to pass the bill, and I commend this motion to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. K.J. Maher.

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