Page 5460 - Week 13 - Wednesday, 16 November 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
I want to touch on some of what Mr Rattenbury had to say as well and take issue with one of his claims—that is, effectively, marriage is a legal construct created by parliaments. I think there are many in the community who would disagree with that. Marriages in many cultures predated parliaments and, in fact, parliaments have simply recognised what was already an existing institution. That is where there is a fundamental disconnect—it is not simply a construct of parliaments and it is not up to parliaments to simply grant or take away the concept of marriage. We in the Liberal Party believe that marriage does not exist in that space, that it existed before parliaments and that parliaments should recognise what marriage is.
I will come to the other parts of the argument. I wanted to talk about the irony of Mr Rattenbury coming in here and arguing on the stats. In fact, he spent the first few minutes of his case saying, “Well, because there’s a Nielsen poll that says 62 per cent are in favour, the law should be changed.” It is interesting we did not hear that argument on the carbon tax. An overwhelming majority of Australians on every poll I have seen oppose the carbon tax. Of course, both major parties went to the last election federally promising not to deliver a carbon tax. But the Greens did not particularly care about public opinion or debate or anything like that. They were going to ram their carbon tax through regardless. There is an irony quoting public support for an issue as one of the main drivers from the Greens.
We hear from the Labor Party and the Greens a lot about how the ACT Assembly should be given more autonomy from the federal parliament and that we need to be able to get on and do our own thing. Of course, on private members’ day and other times we are given an opportunity to talk about whatever issues we can affect on behalf of the ACT. Tonight we are being asked to debate an issue that we do not get a vote on. It was recognised in Mr Rattenbury’s speech and the motion recognises that it is for the commonwealth parliament to make this decision. There is a contradiction there.
If you look at what the Liberals have put forward in terms of private members’ day today, they are about local issues that we can, in fact, influence. Of course there will be strong views one way or another on the issue of gay marriage, but this parliament does not get to determine it. It would be far better if we focused on things we can actually affect and change for the people of the ACT. That is certainly the focus of the Liberal Party in the ACT.
I do not agree with gay marriage; I have been very clear on that. I have been clear on that publicly and privately. That is my view. That is the view of my party. That is the view at the moment of the Labor Party federally. That may well change down the track; who knows. But the view of the federal Liberal Party, the ACT Liberal Party and my personal view is that marriage is between a man and a woman. That is not to disparage other relationships; that is not to disparage anyone in our community. What it says is that marriage has a special place. It is unique and it is different. It is not discriminatory to simply say that marriage is unique and it has certain characteristics, and that is effectively what the debate comes down to as to for or against gay marriage.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video