24.08.11 Same-Sex Relationships Speech

Mr HAWKE (Mitchell) (11:1 0): I also rise to speak on the motion of Mr Bandt, the member for Melbourne, in relation to same-sex marriage. I note and I am very grateful that the member for Moreton has committed to bringing up his children as Anglicans and as Parramatta Eels' supporters. It is fantastic to hear. We enjoy a good role of the football field.

This is a very important issue and, unlike some previous speakers, I do not have an intrinsic problem with being asked to consult with my constituency. I think it is a bit of a moot point because that is what we all should be doing in the House of Representatives. This is not the Senate; we do not need to be instructed to talk to real people. We spend our whole lives doing it. Indeed, in my constituency I have the highest rate of couples with dependent children of any electorate in Australia, according to the last census. I have one of the highest rates of mortgages, one of the highest rates of McMansions, the lowest rate of single parents in the country and one of the lowest proportions of renters.

It is a very homogenous society. Unsurprisingly, of course, that would lead people to come to me and speak about the value of marriage as being between a man and a woman. One thing that I did not hear in the member for Moreton's presentation—I am a great studier of history and I think he made some good historical points that there have been inequities and injustices in our past societies—is that there has still not been a good argument put forward about why we need to go down this particular path that is being advanced about redefining or doing something to marriage as an institution itself.

We live in a secular society. I am a strong Christian myself and I have strong views about marriage. But I do believe that in a secular society we have to have legal recognition of unions of all kinds, without fear or favour on religious or other grounds. That would lead us to the conclusion that we have a civil union in Australia today. I have presented that view to the activists that have come to see me in Australia, and I have no problem with civil unions or legal recognition of partnerships between same sexes or otherwise. That would be the next practical, logical step for us to take at this point in society today. However, I think these activists that are seeking to make change today are not looking for that. They are looking to do something to the institution of marriage, an institution which has served us so well historically. Yes, it has been for procreational purposes, historically speaking. Marriage has had an important foundation and value and it is not always that way, but it has a historical societal reference that you cannot remove from it—nor should we seek to remove it. It has a great value going forward to have marriage defined as between one man and one woman. It does not mean we do not recognise other unions. It does not mean that we should not give them the same legal status or rights, but we can preserve that great historical institution that has meant so much to us and will continue to provide so many benefits to our society.

I can tell you that my society functions very well in the electorate of Mitchell. We do have families with kids. It is a great place to live. Crime is low, people work hard, things go well there. I see well-functioning families of all shapes and sizes as the bedrock of this country. It does not necessarily mean there is always a man and a woman. I came from a single-parent household myself.

But well-functioning families and family units, we all agree, are things that we should seek to encourage and maintain by government policy. I do not think it would be a step forward for us to redefine the Marriage Act and change what has been a working, functioning and successful institution in our country today. I think it would be a step forward to ensure that discrimination and other forms of not recognising other legitimate unions between people are removed. There is broad support for that out there in the community. There is broad support in my community. Most of the same people who are very strongly in favour of traditional marriage recognise that it is practical, responsible and sensible to move down this path of having legal recognition of same-sex unions. But that does not mean a redefinition of marriage itself or attacking marriage as a concept. I think it does have a great historical and important role in Australia's future and in nations in the future. I think this is a foolish attempt and that we get a lot of the division and problems that we are seeing in our society today with this attempt to redefine marriage.

I am not sure why that is an objective of the activist movement. We should move towards legal recognition of same-sex relationships in a civil way and treat everybody the same way. People come back with these spurious arguments and say, 'I do not want to go to my partner and say, “I want to civil union you."' We are not going to rewrite thousands of years of human history or change everything overnight. We are not going to do that. But the next logical step at the point of society we are in today is to move down the path of legal recognition of same-sex relationships and afford them the same rights as any other kind of relationship. That would be a positive step forward. Even if I would not personally seek that, or personally not encourage people to do that, that would be a responsible view from a governmental level for us to proceed with.