Page 5461 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
We have seen all sorts of areas of inequality that have rightly been amended in recent years across Australia.
Mr Barr: And you voted against all of them.
MR SESELJA: No, that is not true.
Mr Barr: It is. The Liberal Party voted against all of them.
MR SELSELJA: Mr Barr interjects. We actually put forward a relationships register a long time ago. When the Labor Party was making no progress on the issue, because it was all or nothing, we put forward the idea of a relationships register, which was rejected. So, again, Mr Barr in his interjections has his facts wrong.
We see a special place for marriage, and we make no apology for that. Whether or not that is the majority view in our community is an issue for debate. But that is what we believe as Liberals. We believe marriage has a unique place. We believe it cannot simply be redefined, and that is why we do not support gay marriage. That is why we will not be supporting the motion tonight. We will not be supporting the amendments. The amendments are objectionable for a number of reasons because they call on the Liberal Party to do something which Mr Barr, on his own admission, does not want the Labor Party to do.
More than that, we have also been asked to vote on something tonight which this parliament does not have jurisdiction over. This parliament does not get a say. My views on it are clear; our views on it are clear. But we also believe we have a responsibility to focus on getting outcomes for our community and not on things we cannot have an impact on in the federal parliament. For all those reasons, the Liberal Party will not be supporting this motion.
MS HUNTER (Ginninderra—Parliamentary Leader, ACT Greens) (8.05): I am very pleased to be speaking tonight in support of this motion on marriage equality. I want to pick up on an argument that Mr Seselja just put then. He said that not all members of the same-sex community want marriage. It is not something they are supportive of. I really do not think that is an argument against changing the law. That is the same as saying that, because there are many, many heterosexual people who do not believe in marriage or do not want to get married, we should just get rid of the Marriage Act. It is quite nonsensical.
I thank Mr Rattenbury for bringing this important matter to the Assembly. If marriage equality is allowed, a significant discrimination would be removed and all couples who wanted to would get married. Our community will not fundamentally change. It will have no impact whatsoever on heterosexual marriages. The only impact is that all couples will enjoy the same rights and no longer will same-sex couples be subjected to the existing discrimination.
There are many jurisdictions across the world that now allow same-sex marriage. Ten countries grant full marriage rights—Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden. In the US six states
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video