PARLIAMENT OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Contact us | Advanced search |   search
  1. Home
  2. Hansard
  3. Legislative Council by date
  4. 28 June 2004

Marriage Act Amendment

Printing Tips | Print selected text | Full Day Hansard Transcript | « Prior Item | Item 49 of 49 | Next Item »


About this Item
SubjectsMarriage; Homosexuality; Adoption; Senate
SpeakersNile Reverend the Hon Fred
BusinessAdjournment


    MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT
Page: 10332


    Reverend the Hon. FRED NILE [10.37 p.m.]: Tonight I speak on the subject of the sanctity of the institution of marriage. As members know, the Federal Government under John Howard recently introduced a bill to amend the Marriage Act 1961 to secure the definition of marriage as "The union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life". That was done deliberately because of threatened legal challenges. Three Australian same-sex couples, including one couple from Western Australia, had been to Canada to get marriage licences. They returned to Australia and announced their intention to seek legal recognition of their Canadian marriages from the Family Court of Australia.

    Under the law if heterosexual couples are married in England or America and come to Australia their marriages are normally recognised by our Federal laws. A loophole has been created under which a man can marry another man in Canada and they can come back to Australia and ask for the marriage to be legally recognised. No-one knows what the Family Court's decision may be on this matter, but to prevent the court making a mistake and recognising those marriages, the Howard Government has introduced the bill to which I referred, which I strongly support, as do about 80 per cent of Australian people. The leader of the Labor Party, Mr Latham, announced that he supported that part of the bill. Initially a second part had been included in the bill, which prohibited the adoption of children by same-sex couples. The bill was passed by the House of Representatives, but the Senate referred it to a committee for inquiry to report in October by 7 October.

    If that occurs there is a good chance the Federal election will be held before that date and the bill to amend the Marriage Act will lapse and be of no effect. On Thursday 24 June Mr Ruddock, on behalf of the Howard Government, introduced this new Marriage Amendment Bill to amend the Marriage Act 1961. That bill was introduced to assist members of the Labor Party who said that they would agree to the Government's proposal and pass the bill. At about 10.15 a.m. on Thursday the bill was passed by the House of Representatives, in spite of amendments that were moved by the Greens to change the wording in the bill to recognise same-sex marriages. Those amendments were defeated.

    The bill was sent to the Senate and, sadly, the Senate voted 28 to 25 to reject the new bill. There was obviously a shortage of time in which to debate the legislation as both the House of Representatives and the Senate were expected to rise on Thursday for the winter recess. Both Houses returned on Saturday and, so far as I can ascertain, the Marriage Amendment Bill was not debated. The bill that was defeated on Thursday night was urgent. Obviously the Government would not have sent the bill to the Senate if it had been aware that members of the Australian Labor Party would break their word to Australian voters.

    The Leader of the Opposition, Mr Latham, and members of the Australian Labor Party stated publicly that they supported the bill and the insertion of this definition. However, when pressure was put on them to back up their words with deeds they failed the test. They failed Australian Labor Party voters and, in particular, they failed Catholic voters who were pleased that Mr Latham announced his decision to support the inclusion of that definition in the bill. Sadly, their deeds do not support their words. Is Mr Latham a wimp? Has he given in to the gay lobby and broken his publicly stated word? It is probably too late to do anything about it now, as both the Senate and the House of Representatives have adjourned. However, I hope there is some way in which the Australian Parliament is able to pass this bill. [Time expired.]

    Motion agreed to.
    The House adjourned at 10.42 p.m. until Tuesday 29 June 2004 at 11.00 a.m.
    _______________

         Contact us | Job opportunities | RSS feeds | Site help
Copyright & conditions of use | Privacy | Authorised user login