Page 5453 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
motion calls on the Assembly to urge the federal parliament to make the necessary legislative changes to create equal marriage. As members will be aware, my Australian Greens colleague Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has tabled a bill and is prepared for debate when other members of federal parliament indicate they are ready.
Compared to some of the motions that have passed through this place, the text of this motion is very straightforward and succinct, and it is really two quite short sentences. But unfortunately the history of law reform, when it comes to sexuality and gender issues and equal marriage in particular, is not quite as straightforward. There will certainly be those who disagree with changing the definition in the Marriage Act, and for the Greens’ part we remain committed to seeing this important change take place.
There are a number of reasons for our belief in equal marriage. Firstly, the heart of this is the issue of discrimination. To me, the commonwealth Marriage Act is a way of removing discrimination from the laws of Australia. I was somewhat surprised at the prospect of a conscience vote on this question by the two old parties, as has been discussed particularly in the last 24 hours. I just do not understand how an issue of discrimination can be somehow set up as a conscience vote. I do not deny there are times when it is appropriate for a conscience vote to be granted. I am just not convinced that a discrimination matter is the place for it to take place. As I said, for the Greens it is very much a matter of removing discrimination.
Secondly, and the second key reason why we are putting this forward, when we move on equal marriage it will send a clear message that we accept all loving couples in our community regardless of their sexuality. With that acceptance, we can begin to work to reduce the levels of aggression and violence that some people are on the receiving end of. It is the case that some couples are subjected to intimidation because of their sexuality, and I believe parliaments have a duty to stamp that out wherever possible.
Equal marriage is one step to making that happen. By making a strong statement that we reject that intimidation and that we reject that discrimination in the treatment of various couples in some second-class way, we as parliament are making a strong statement that we want a different culture in Australia. We want a culture of acceptance, we want a culture of respect, and changing the definition of marriage to include all couples, I believe, is an important, symbolic and practical way of making that statement.
The third reason for our belief in equal marriage is that the best place for equal marriage law is at the federal level so that the same standard can apply in all states and territories. Here I would echo the comments of Minister Barr that I saw in the media yesterday, that it was not ideal for different states and territories to have different marriage schemes. That is why the motion calls for federal legislative action. I do believe it is appropriate that this be done at a national level. To date, certainly when it comes to civil unions, that has been dealt with at a state level. You see across the country now a bit of a patchwork of, I guess, legal status.
The ACT of course has been at the forefront, and I think that is something we can be proud of. But it is far from ideal for couples to have the ability to formalise their relationship in the way that they choose to be shaped by the geography of where they happen to live or where they end up finding a job or where their family happens to be.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video