HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Third Parliament, Second Session (53-2)
2015-06-03 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

Motions

Marriage Equality

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER (Minister for Sustainability, Environment and Conservation, Minister for Water and the River Murray, Minister for Climate Change) (16:06): I move:

That this council—

1. Notes the Irish public have overwhelmingly voted 'yes' in the referendum on the 34th Amendment of the Constitution (Marriage Equality) Bill 2015; and

2. Congratulates the people of Ireland for voting in favour of legalising same-sex marriage.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! Members in the gallery are not able to take photos. They need to approach the chair about the taking of photos.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: I think the minister has probably organised it.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Wrong again, Mr Lucas.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: He doesn't understand the standing orders.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): Order! The honourable member will proceed.

The Hon. R.I. Lucas: Does he have a seconder behind him?

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr Acting President. I have moved my motion. Do I need a seconder?

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Hon. J.S.L. Dawkins): You have moved the motion. Is there a seconder? It has been seconded. The Hon. Mr Hunter.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr Acting President. The Hon. Mr Lucas, poor man, he cannot get anything right today. On 23 May, Irish citizens voted resoundingly in favour of allowing same-sex couples to marry—62 to 38 per cent I think was the final tally. For a country known for its deeply held religious beliefs, a country which until recently shared its Australian ambassador with the Vatican, this was certainly no small victory for supporters of marriage equality.

I take this opportunity to congratulate the Irish people for joining a growing list of countries and jurisdictions where marriage equality has become a reality. I think they were 19th in the queue. The Netherlands was the first country, of course, to legalise same-sex marriage in 1999. Since then, a total of 20 countries—I think Greenland just recently unanimously voted to endorse same-sex marriage as well, taking it to number 20—as well as 37 states in the United States of America and several states in Mexico have all made it legal for same-sex couples to marry. There is no doubt that the recent vote in Ireland has had the strongest impact on the momentum for marriage equality in Australia. As The Age newspaper wrote following the referendum:

…the Irish vote demonstrated that the question of marriage equality is not one of morality or religious dogma, but of human rights. If this can be understood in Catholic Ireland, why not in secular Australia?

This seems to echo what many Australians are thinking. While opinion polls have consistently shown that well over 70 per cent of Australians are in favour of marriage equality—and there have been growing numbers of members of parliament from all political persuasions publicly supporting this change in principal, it has taken the Irish referendum to really bring the matter to a head in this country. Since the referendum, the issue of gay marriage has dominated news, talk shows, public debate, Facebook, Instagram and various other social media.

Just last week 53 of Australia's biggest companies, including banks, airlines and department stores, took out a full-page advertisement in The Australian in support of marriage equality. On Monday 1 June, opposition leader Bill Shorten introduced a Marriage Equality Bill into federal parliament.

I have said many times in this place that marriage equality requires a multipartisan approach if it is to be successful. I am pleased to see there has been a genuine attempt at this by the federal Labor Party, with Tanya Plibersek having written to Liberal members of parliament over a year ago (I understand) in the hope of bringing a bipartisan bill to the parliament. I remain hopeful that a Liberal member will take up the offer to replace Ms Plibersek as the seconder of the bill, although that must hurt her personally because I know she is a very strong supporter of this change, or at least to co-sponsor a bill if they do not want to be a seconder.

Of course, a multipartisan approach is needed, I believe, not just for symbolic reasons, but to ensure there is sufficient support on the floor of parliament to see any bill pass. It is not often that I agree with the Prime Minister but on the occasion that he spoke about this and said that the parliament must own this change, I happen to agree with him. It is also essential, I think, for the Prime Minister to listen to the strong and vocal support of the Australian community in this regard and allow his members a free vote on the bill. After all, the Liberals tell us over and over again that every vote is a free conscience vote for them, but why not on this one?

The Prime Minister has refused to enter into the debate to this point, stating that his priority is to pass the small business budget measures and focus on the economy. That is laudable enough, but parliament is surely able to deal with more than one issue at a time. We do it in this place all the time. If the Prime Minister was truly serious about focusing on the economy then my suggestion would be to tackle marriage equality now and ride the benefit of the pink dollar in terms of the fantastic investment in gay marriages that would be occurring all over this country. I assure you, Mr President, I would probably be enticed into a third marriage celebration if that were the case, and honourable members in this place would be very welcome to attend—perhaps we can share the bill.

The Hon. J.M.A. Lensink: That's not the way it works.

The Hon. I.K. HUNTER: No, indeed, that is not the way it works. It is important that we get on with this. The movement has clearly taken on, I believe, an unprecedented strength and momentum out of the Irish result, particularly in the business sector, which is pleasing, and I do not believe this is going to dissipate any time soon as an increasing number of politicians of all political persuasions are saying: it's time. We have the Irish to thank for that increasing momentum.

However, while I am personally grateful for every step closer that we get to marriage equality, I am disappointed that it has taken a sense of shame to kick the debate along. We should legislate for marriage equality, not because everyone else (including Catholic Ireland or, God forbid, even Alabama) has now done it: we should legislate for marriage equality for no other reason than because it is the right thing to do. As Sean Kelly recently wrote in The Monthly:

I'm thrilled with the victory of the 'Yes' vote. I'm also disappointed with Australia's continuing failure to allow gay marriage. But I'm not disappointed in comparison with Ireland. I'm disappointed because it's wrong.

Of course it will be fantastic when we finally achieve the goal of passing legislation that will allow same-sex couples to marry if they want to, but how we get there is also important. It should not be about party politics. It cannot be about party politics if we are to be successful. It should not be because we are afraid of appearing backward. We should do it because it will make us a better, more equal and tolerant society and because we believe that it is wrong to deny a group of people a basic human right. Surely, that should be sufficient argument. As the Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny said following the referendum:

With today's vote, we have disclosed who we are: a generous, compassionate, bold and joyful people.

Is it not time that we as Australians disclose that we are also a generous, compassionate, bold and joyful people? Is it not time that all Australian couples who love each other can celebrate that love and shared commitment by marrying each other at home, surrounded by their families and friends? Is it not time to embrace that dearly held value of equality for all in Australia and pass marriage equality legislation in our federal parliament? Yes, it is time.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. J.M.A. Lensink.

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