Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wentworth for his contribution. There are always good contributions from the member for Wentworth. I support the intent of the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008. I am opposed to discrimination in all of its forms. I am sympathetic to the injustices that this bill seeks to address in respect of property rights. However, I believe the government is risking the good faith that is available for these measures—and there is a large reservoir of good faith for these measures on both sides of this House—with the choice of language in the bill. There are moral absolutes that protect our society which should never be compromised. If we do so then it is at our peril. This bill, in its unnecessary choice of language, takes the chisel to these absolutes.

Language is important, particularly in this place. This is the first of a number of bills that will seek to undermine the primacy of marriage in the language of these laws. The bill removes the terms ‘husband’, ‘wife’ and ‘marital relationship’ from the laws that are subject to this bill and replaces them with other terms: ‘spouse’ and ‘couple relationship’. Some have attributed benign motives of convenience to these changes but I remain to be convinced about this because in the second reading speech the minister said:

It will also be necessary to consider the need for consistency in Commonwealth legislation in relation to the use of terms such as ‘partner’ and ‘spouse’, but these issues can be given further consideration after—

after—

we proceed with the expeditious passage of this very important first tranche of legislative reform.

Other changes, other harmonisations, are afoot.

The language in this bill is seeking to rewrite how we describe marital relationships in our laws. This language I cannot tolerate. Where do we draw the line? Today we debate the removal of these terms in this bill. Some would argue that this issue that I raise is a minor matter. They may be overwhelmed by the significance of putting an end to this injustice relating to property rights—an injustice that I believe must be addressed and an injustice that I would like to see addressed. But where will these changes end? I encourage those who sit opposite and who I have sat and listened to throughout this debate who genuinely support the primacy of marriage between a man and a woman, and who wish to see this principle forever protected in our laws, to challenge the Prime Minister on this matter.

I encourage you not to be taken in just by the symbolism of this moment on an issue where I do not doubt our shared sincerity to end this injustice, but to think again about the language used to give effect to this measure. The bill has defects. They must be fixed. I fear that, as a result of the language in this bill and those that follow, it will not be long before we will be debating in this place a harmonisation of laws bill that seeks to standardise this language across all statutes, including the Marriage Act. I cannot stand idly by and allow this march to undermine marriage to get out of the barracks. I agree with John Howard when he said:

Marriage, as we understand it in our society, is about children, raising them, providing for the survival of the species, and I think if the same status is given in our society to gay unions as are given to traditional marriage we will weaken that bedrock institution.

Again, in relation to the coalition’s action to protect marriage under the Marriage Act, the former Prime Minister said:

... as far as we were concerned, marriage was a voluntary union for life of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. Now, that is our view of marriage. It remains our view and it will always be our view of marriage.

The test of those opposite is whether you really agree with this, as your leader promised prior to the last election. The bill does not require the exchange of language but the addition of language. The bill requires the creation of a new provision, in addition to the measures dealing with marriage relationships, to deal separately with the property rights of interdependent relationships, including same-sex relationships. This bill fails to recognise the many other interdependent relationships that exist within our community, preferring to give precedence to same-sex couples. This is another defect in this bill that should be addressed.

The language adopted by the bill seeks to create a fiction in relation to the definition of a child. The bill proposes to redefine a child as a ‘product of a couple relationship where one partner is linked biologically to the child or where one partner is the birth mother of the child’. As the Australian Christian Lobby I believe has rightly argued, if ‘product’ is meant to be synonymous with ‘offspring’ then nonsense is being written into the Commonwealth law, as it is a biological impossibility for a homosexual couple to produce offspring of their own. The choice of language to describe a human being as a ‘product’ is also completely unacceptable. Human beings are moral beings—body, soul and spirit. We are not products to be manufactured. We cannot treat the language of life in our laws carelessly, as is the case in this bill.

Some common-sense suggestions have been made to overcome these issues—to retain the existing definition of a child for those in heterosexual marital relationships and then provide a new definition for couple relationships to read ‘a child born in a couple relationship where one partner is linked biologically to the child or where one partner is the birth mother of the child’. Solutions are being put forward by those on this side of the chamber to address these challenges of language to ensure that this bill can become law and the injustices are ended. We want to see the injustices ended but we also want to see the language got right. We want to see the language in a way that protects the things that people in this place have said they so strongly and nobly support.

However, I have a further concern with the change to the definition of a child in that it included as a parent a person with no biological link to the child, who would otherwise in a same-sex couple be denied adoption rights under our laws. They will now receive, under this bill in this specific set of laws, the same recognition as a step, adoptive or biological parent. This language is dangerous and, as I sit and listen to the debate, I do not see an understanding or a willingness to accept the dangers that this language presents. There is no sense of withdrawal on this side of the chamber in seeking to support these laws. We simply make an honest plea that you consider this language carefully and think about the implications of this language for other matters that are held very dear by many in this place. These changes, particularly the last one I have mentioned, open the door to recognition as parents not otherwise available under our laws at a state or federal level, in particular our adoption laws. It potentially recognises what I believe is a violation of the rights of the child. There is often a presumption in this debate and related matters that children are a right, not a gift. We can be obsessed with our rights but there is one class of future Australians that have no rights in this country, and they are the unborn Australians. We talk about our choice and our rights but one thing I have learned, having been a father now for almost a year, is that it is not about you. Children are a gift, a blessing; they are not a right, possession or commodity. I am sure that all in this place would agree with that statement. As those on this side of the House were recently reminded, we owe them safe passage through their innocence.

A right to non-discrimination for children is provided under numerous international conventions. I believe this includes their fundamental right to a mother and a father. John Howard said:

This issue primarily involves the fundamental right of a child within our society to have the reasonable expectation, other things being equal, of the care and affection of both a mother and a father.

I am married. I am a husband to my wife, Jenny, of 18 years. I am a father to my baby daughter Abbey, our miracle child, a blessing of almost one year. May it never be that any of us can make these statements in this place or anywhere else in the future and be considered politically incorrect in this country. Our institutions of marriage and family are sacrosanct to the wellbeing of our society. These increasingly fragile institutions are under enough pressure from the effects of gambling, substance abuse, violence, pornography, financial stress, work-life balance and good old-fashioned selfishness. We should not add to this fragility the dangerous language contained in this bill.

See this speech in context