Thank you very much. Thank you Senator Barnett for your kind words of introduction, Jim Wallace and the other organisers of this very impressive gathering, a very large crowd filling the Great Hall on very short notice on something that obviously people feel very strongly about.
I have a very simple view about the issue that is currently before the federal parliament, and that is to insert affirmatively into the Marriage Act the definition of marriage that we have always commonly understood in our society. It expresses the fundamental Judeo-Christian view and that is that marriage is a lifelong union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others. Although it expresses a Judeo-Christian view, it's fair to say two other things - that the exact language in fact comes from a very well known court case in the United Kingdom some time ago, but it is also an expression of marriage and the definition of marriage which is not exclusive to the Judeo-Christian ethic. It is also a view of marriage which is entertained by many other religions around the world and also by many people who profess no religious faith at all. And the reason why, above everything else, that I would like this definition put into the Marriage Act is that I believe that the Australian public wants a reaffirmation in the highest form, and that is through an act of the national parliament, of something that until fairly recently they've taken for granted.
I believe very strongly in the role of the courts in our country and I believe very strongly in the role of the parliament. And if there is to be a change in the understanding of marriage in this country, it is not something in my view, with all due respect to the judiciary, it is not something in my view that should happen bit by bit, judgement by judgement, through a judicial process. Rather, if there is to be a change, it is a change which is to be legislated by an expression of will of the Australian people through the national parliament. The traditional definition of the separation of powers in our community is that parliaments make the laws and the judiciary interpret the laws. And if the law in this instance is to be remade, it can only and should only be remade by parliament.
But of course I don't believe the law should be changed, but because there is a possibility - some argue very remote, I don't think it is as remote as all that - but bit by bit, an attempt will be made to redefine what we understand to be the concept of marriage in this country, we should legislatively pre-empt the possibility of that occurring by changing the law. And the law change we propose or the law reaffirmation we propose is a very simple one, and is simply to put that definition into the Marriage Act. And I for the life of me can't understand why it hasn't received speedy passage through both houses of parliament. It should have been passed. Now I can understand with complicated issues that you do need time, and in case anybody is in any doubt, that the brief legislative history was that we put a bill through the House of Representatives, I think without any serious opposition, which both put the definition into the Marriage Act and also put a prohibition on adoptions from overseas by same sex couples in Australia.
Now there are some separate arguments on those two issues. We obviously support both provisions and that's why we sponsored them. And that omnibus bill after reaching the Senate was then sent off to a Senate Committee with a reporting date later in the year. We took the view that there was no need for a Senate Committee to give advice on whether you wanted to put the definition of marriage into the Marriage Act. If Senators can't make up their own minds about that, well a Senate Committee is not going to save them. And I think quite frankly, it was a device to delay Senate consideration of both of those issues. What we then did as a result of that was to reintroduce a separate bill in the House of Representatives simply dealing with the marriage issue. In other words, we split the bill, and that went through the House of Representatives and when we sought to have it debated in the Senate, it was by a majority of the non-Government parties resolved that the majority of the Senate, comprising non-Government Senators, it was resolved that it would be denied a first reading. So we're going to try again in this two week sitting to have that separate bill debated and voted on in the Senate.
And I don't see any reason why it can't be resolved. You don't need a Senate inquiry on something like that. It's not a complicated issue. I think we all know what is involved. I mean we're not... you know, it really is a bit of an insult to the public and to the maturity of the parliamentary process to say you need a Senate Committee to talk about something like that. I mean these things are instinctive issues. You either support them or you don't support them, and I don't think it's appropriate to hide behind some kind of Committee process on an issue as straightforward as this. So we will be pushing very hard in the Senate, where of course we don't control the numbers, to have the Marriage Act amendment voted on within the next couple of weeks. Now why should we do that? Well because it's a simple, straightforward issue, and it was my understanding that the major opposition party, the Labor Party, did not oppose it. Well if they don't oppose it, they should vote for it. It's as simple as that, and I'm asking my parliamentary colleagues in the Labor Party to do that, and I think there would be a lot of people in the Australian community who would be hoping that that would occur as well. The other issue, well I'm not sure that it needs a Senate investigation either, but clearly we can deal with the two issues separately. We remain very strongly committed to the other measure.
Now can I just say one or two things about the arguments that have been advanced against putting a definition in the Marriage Act. It has been suggested that in some way it is an example of discrimination against gay and lesbian people in the Australian community. I reject that, and the reason I reject it is the reason why I reject a lot of other criticisms that are made from time to time of people such as myself and others who express support for existing institutions, and that is that people often confuse concepts of endorsement and tolerance. I respect the individual choices that people make about their own lives. I don't seek in any way to discriminate against them. I don't believe that homosexual people should be discriminated against in employment, and I supported the decriminalisation of homosexual conduct when that issue was debated in the national parliament some years ago, and I make no apology for having done that because I thought the law, the criminal law on that issue, had fallen way behind community opinion and there was a need to have a more sensible and a more tolerant law.
But the problem with those who criticise measures such as the one now before the parliament is that they assume that because discrimination has been removed, then that is a case for going a step further and seeking to alter the character of institutions which have been fundamental to our society since it began. I support marriage because I believe it provides stability in relationships, because it is a public expression of commitment, but it is also the environment in which children are best raised and nurtured and brought to full adulthood and enjoyment of life's opportunities. Now, many marriages fail. We all know that. That doesn't of itself and should never of itself damn the institution or suggest that other relationships can have the same status as marriage. And the flaw in the argument that what we are proposing is discriminatory is the simple proposition is that it doesn't seek to take away from others in the community any rights they now have. Rather it seeks to reaffirm the pre-eminent place of marriage and the margin for marriage, if I can put it that way, that has always existed in our society.
We all know from life's experience that longstanding institutions provide encouragement, they provide hope, they provide emotional support, and they also provide a practical way of helping people through life. I have often said that a stable, functioning, united home and marriage is not only the best emotional environment in which to raise children, but it is also the best and most efficient social welfare system that mankind has ever devised. So that is why I've had no hesitation in arguing the case and I've no hesitation in asking the parliament to make a decision on this issue in the next two weeks. Now I don't know when and I promise you I haven't made any decision on when I will advise the holding of the election. But I think it would be a great pity if this issue were left hanging in an election campaign. If people who criticise me say oh well, it's just a political diversion, well I would say to them, although it is not, I would to say them well remove the diversion by putting the law through before the election starts, and that is... it's not a wedge, it's a genuine expression of view.
And could I say to those who see it purely and simply in terms of a push by church people, and let me say I certainly express my gratitude to representatives of many of the churches and others in the community who have strongly supported what the Government is doing, but it goes broader than that. There are many in the community who have no religious beliefs who believe very strongly in the core institution of marriage. There are many in the community who believe in its bedrock value. There are many in that category in the community who have the view that I hold, that all other things being equal, it is far better that children be raised in a married home with the benefit of both their mother and their father. Now none of that is said disrespectfully of course of the tremendous efforts of the hundreds of thousands of sole parents in our community, most of whom were in marriages or relationships and regret to this day that those marriages and relationships no longer exist, and are doing a wonderful job in raising their children in difficult circumstances. But the proposition that because marriage doesn't always work is a reason for walking away from its centrality in our society has always struck me as the equivalent of saying that because crime always occurs, you somehow or other weaken the prohibitions on the commission of serious crimes and somehow or other give up the fight against serious crime.
So this is an opportunity, because it is not far fetched to imagine that if we don't change the law, there could in the future be some judicial experimentation. That is not far fetched at all. And I don't think this is something that should be decided by the judges. If the law of this country is to change, it should be changed by the people's representatives and by nobody else, and that is why I think it is necessary for this piece of legislation to go through. And there are instances of marriage unions contracted or solemnised overseas between other than a man and a woman that may seek recognition in this country, and I think it's very important that this country express a view, we express it simply, we express it calmly, we express it in terms of reaffirming something we had always taken for granted and something that we do so clearly owe to our Judeo-Christian heritage.
So that is why I have put this piece of legislation up. I strongly support it. It's strongly supported by my colleagues and I believe it would be strongly supported on an individual basis across the political divide. I'm sure it is. So I'm therefore saying to my colleagues in the other political parties in the Senate, if we really want to use their arguments, divorce this issue from the political debate, let's put it through, let's vote in favour of it, let's put it into law within the next two weeks, and if we put it into law in the next two weeks, nobody can say it's being used as a wedge, nobody can say it's a diversion, everybody can say it's a united expression of the national parliament and therefore of the will of the Australian people, because I think the overwhelming majority of the Australian people support this change. I think the overwhelming majority of the Australian people have always taken what we proposed for granted, and they would share our view that if that is the case, why not put it beyond argument so far as the law of this country is concerned. They don't see it as discriminatory. They see it as declaring their support and the parliament's support for a fundamental, bedrock institution of our society which has contributed massively to our stability and to our success, and it's a change that I believe in 2004 is important to be made to declare our view on such a central institution.
Thank you.
[ends]