[7.33 p.m.

]
Mrs RYLAH (Braddon) - Madam Speaker, we are today debating vital issues
regarding our free and democratic society. These matters go well beyond the
debate as to who can enter into marriage. Why? The answer to this question is
found in the actions of the Greens' federal candidate who, when an alternative
view to hers was expressed, has called 'offence' and shut down further comment
by the Catholic Church to their congregation. As the member for Denison
correctly stated earlier, this is a grave error of judgment at a time when free and
open discussion on this important issue should be available to all. Those actions
are a direct challenge as to who and in what circumstances any Australian can
now speak about a matter which could offend, even within a church or a school
community until the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal rules.
Therefore, to then bring on this motion shows political mischief that is intended,
in my opinion. Further, and disappointingly, this motion has been brought on in
this House after the matter of same-sex marriage has been ruled upon by the
High Court - that is, that the Tasmanian Government has no ability to change or
determine the outcome of this issue. Specifically, the High Court has already
determined that the matter is for the Federal Government and relates to a
Commonwealth act of parliament. That point is my second evidence that this
motion is wasteful and lacking in any opportunity to determine a resolution. As
the Prime Minister has indicated, a plebiscite will occur following next year's
election. I believe a plebiscite is the correct and best way to determine where
Australians want to land on this matter, and that process and its outcome has my
absolute support. I believe this motion's sole purpose is an attempt to create
division within the Government - that is, it is the political tactic to create division
again in our beautiful state.
Let me move to the matter of this debate. The crux of the subject before us
today is to debate the very serious matters that sit between two ends of a
spectrum: balancing the principles of equity versus diversity in regard to
marriage and same-sex relationships. In a democratic society, the relative
positions of accepting diversity and differences that exist in our community is
contrasted by forcing through law or intervention, or by the emasculation of free
speech in this case, the concept of equality. I believe accurately representing
where on a continuum the people we represent stand on this matter and what
we want our legislation to reflect can only occur if there is free and respectful
debate. It is only through this we can determine where the fulcrum should be
placed. An ongoing discussion to the relative merits of equality and diversity has
a vital role to play in the continuing success of our state on every social issue,
diversity in marriage and equality in legal rights.
From my point of view, from what I am hearing from the other side of this
debate, many want to enforce no difference, to allow absolutely no diversity and,
using the words of this motion, enforce equality, denying diversity and difference
in this ancient and fundamental institution of marriage. Those denying diversity
want the total homogenisation of people who make a formal commitment to
another person, destroying hundreds of years of tradition and denying the beliefs
of yet an undefined large proportion of Australians. You say people must
conform to one single set of rules and that no difference is permitted - a
vitamised mix where differences cannot be seen and will not be tolerated. Talk
about discrimination. That is exactly what you are proposing.

I believe today's Australian society sits somewhere in the middle of the equality
and diversity continuum. In my opinion, in Tasmania the current position is one
which lands on the diversity side of the middle ground - that is, close to the
status quo. This position recognises same-sex relationships and does not accept
bullying or permit punitive behaviour towards same-sex unions but respects the
special place of marriage. They see that marriage differentiates the long-term
relationship between adults of opposite sex couples. It is quite clear from the
hundreds of emails I have received that the majority of my constituents sit in this
position. The greatest number want to retain the diversity that is the current
position - that is, that marriage is between a male and a female.
Further, I have had no representation that we should diminish the legal rights or
civil contracts that are currently available to same-sex couples or unmarried
couples where they can celebrate their unions, their love, being that important
other, and in the transfer of assets, legal representation and next of kin. This is
currently achieved through the acts of both state and federal, as they stand.
http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/ParliamentSearch/isysquery/d5168a51-a23546ab-bccb-1464d32272c1/1/doc/