DOCSLIB.ORG

Standing Committee on Social Issues

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL ISSUES INQUIRY INTO SAME SEX MARRIAGE LAW IN NSW ——— At Sydney on Friday 15 March 2013 ——— The Committee met at 9.30 a.m. ——— PRESENT The Hon. N. Blair (Chair) The Hon. J. Barham The Hon. C. Cusack The Hon. G. J. Donnelly The Hon. N. Maclaren-Jones The Hon. H. M. Westwood (Deputy Chair) CHAIR: Welcome to the second public hearing of the inquiry by the Standing Committee on Social Issues into same-sex marriage law in New South Wales. As a Committee, we welcome the opportunity to investigate social issues of significance to the New South Wales community. I am confident this is another inquiry about which we can make concrete and feasible recommendations. This inquiry has generated significant public interest, with the largest volume of submissions ever received by a parliamentary inquiry in New South Wales. I express my thanks on behalf of the Committee to all those who have taken the time to provide us with a written submission. The terms of reference for this inquiry focus on the legal issues surrounding a possible same-sex marriage law in New South Wales. As such, the Committee dedicated its first day of hearings to focus on the law. The terms of reference also ask the Committee to consider changing social attitudes to marriage, and this is the focus of today's hearing. This morning we will hear from Family Voice Australia, the Catholic Archdiocese of Sydney, Australian Marriage Equality, the AIDS Council of New South Wales [ACON], the Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby, and the Ambrose Centre for Religious Liberty. We are pleased to hear from a number of stakeholders who have volunteered their time to assist the Committee, for which on behalf of the Committee I offer my thanks. The Standing Committee on Social Issues has a proud history of conducting its inquiries with integrity and respect. I ask that all of you attending these hearings, whether as contributors, the media or members of the public, to respect the hearing process and the witnesses who have volunteered their time to give evidence. It is my responsibility to maintain the integrity of these hearings, and I take that responsibility very seriously. Today's hearing is open to the public and is being broadcast live through the Parliament's website. A transcript of today's hearing will be placed on the Committee's website when it becomes available. The Committee previously resolved to authorise the media to broadcast and video excerpts of its public proceedings. Copies of the guidelines governing broadcast of the proceedings are available from the table by the door. In accordance with the Legislative Council Guidelines for the Broadcast of Proceedings, a member of the Committee and witnesses may be filmed or recorded. People in the public gallery should not be the primary focus of any filming or photographs. In reporting the proceedings of this Committee, the media must take responsibility for what they publish or what interpretation is placed on anything that is said before the Committee. Witnesses, members and their staff are advised that any messages should be delivered through the attendants or the Committee clerks. I advise that under the Standing Orders of the Legislative Council, any documents presented to the Committee that have not yet been tabled in Parliament may not, except with the permission of the Committee, be disclosed or published by any member of such Committee or by any other person. If you should consider at any stage during your evidence that certain evidence or documents you may wish to present should be heard or seen in private by the Committee, the Committee will consider your request. However, the Committee or the Legislative Council itself may subsequently publish evidence if they decide it is in the public interest to do so. Finally, I remind everyone to turn off their mobile phones for the duration of the hearing. I welcome our first witnesses, Dr David Phillips and Mr Graeme Mitchell, from Family Voice Australia. All witnesses will be sworn prior to giving evidence. I ask that each witness states their full name and job title and swear either the oath or the affirmation. SOCIAL ISSUES COMMITTEE 1 FRIDAY 15 MARCH 2013 GRAEME ALLAN MITCHELL, State Officer, Family Voice Australia (NSW and ACT), and DAVID MICHAEL PHILLIPS, National President, Family Voice Australia, sworn and examined: CHAIR: Would you like to make a short opening statement? If you would, could you please keep it to no more than five minutes? There is no need to repeat anything from your submission. Dr PHILLIPS: I am pleased to do that. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I want to make three brief comments: about Family Voice, marriage, and government. Family Voice is a Christian ministry. We work with and receive support from all mainline Christian denominations. We are politically neutral. We have no connections with any political party and we do not endorse parties or candidates. We seek to propose policies which are for the common good of society, and we do so on the basis of evidence that supports the views that we propose. Our concerns are limited to three main areas: family, faith and freedom. Today we are primarily dealing with areas relating to family, of which marriage is at the core. On the question of marriage, marriage is not defined by government; it is recognised by governments, and it is recognising essentially a biological reality of life—that when a man and a woman unite sexually what often results is a child is conceived, and subsequently born. That is a reality of human existence. Children who are born as a result of such a union are very vulnerable at birth and remain dependent on their parents, typically, with decreasing dependence, for the next 20 years or so. It is the universal experience of mankind that children do best when raised by their biological parents who are committed to each other in a stable, lifelong relationship. It is that stable, lifelong relationship for the benefit of the children who result from the sexual union of a man and woman that we call marriage. The question then is about government; why does the Government get involved in these sorts of questions? Some suggest that the Government should withdraw from the whole area of marriage law and leave it to private individuals to work out as they see fit. I think there is a governmental role. If you think that the overall role of government is to provide for the peace, security and longevity of the nation, of society as a whole, it should be adopting policies that will secure the long-term welfare of the nation. For that to happen a couple of things are needed. One is that we need to have a future population. Children need to be born in order to produce a citizenry of the future, and in those countries where the fertility rate is down to not much more than one the expectation is that the population of those countries will halve in the next 50 years or so and, if that continues, an entire nation or community or culture can disappear simply through children not being born. So, governments have a legitimate interest in encouraging the birth of sufficient children to replace the current generation. Secondly, children who are born need to grow up to form balanced, productive, responsible citizens. We do not want to produce a generation of unemployed, welfare-dependent, drug-addicted criminals. So, the Government has an interest in ensuring the next generation of Australians are productive, employed citizens— responsible citizens. To encourage that, governments should be encouraging the environment most likely to produce citizens of that nature, and that is historically why marriage has been fostered, recognised, honoured, rewarded and given special benefits and privileges, because marriage produces the greatest likelihood of the future population of Australia being the kind of population needed to sustain the nation. That is the summary of our case and I conclude my introductory remarks. The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: Thank you, Dr Phillips and Mr Mitchell, for joining us this morning and providing your evidence to our Committee. They are complex deliberations. If I can ask you some questions particularly regarding the statement you have just made, that marriage is for the purpose of reproduction. I am wondering whether you think those marriages of, perhaps, a woman who may be post- menopausal and an older man, are invalid? Dr PHILLIPS: No. What we are talking about is the institution of marriage, which is a set of perceptions and expectations. That is the overall purpose of marriage, but not every couple is currently fertile. There are some couples who marry and would like to have children and for whatever reason are unable to, but they are still within the framework of the institution of marriage which does have that purpose in general terms. Mr MITCHELL: I would like to add to that and to what Dr Phillips has said. Marriage's main purpose is to make sure that every child born has two responsible parents, a mother and a father, who are committed to SOCIAL ISSUES COMMITTEE 2 FRIDAY 15 MARCH 2013 the child and committed to each other. To achieve this goal it has never been necessary, and it would never be possible, for society to require that each and every married couple bear a child. The Hon. HELEN WESTWOOD: So do you think that those marriages where there is never any chance of a couple, even if they are heterosexual, having children are valid and should be permitted by government? Mr MITCHELL: Yes, I do.
Recommended publications
  • The Election Campaign

    The Election Campaign

    9 THE ELECTION CAMPAIGN From the moment Gough Whitlam was dismissed, the election campaign was under way. His famous appearances on the front steps of Parliament House on 11 November—once when David Smith prorogued Parliament; the other with his colleagues later that evening, to sing Solidarity Forever—were both early campaign activities. The election campaign lasted until the day of the general election on 13 December 1975 when, in the face of an unprecedented electoral disaster, Whitlam had finally to recognise that La‘ commedia è finita’.1 During this time, Malcolm Fraser was prime minister, heading a caretaker government that made no new policy and no appointments. There are grey areas in knowing what is ‘new’ and what is the continuation of ‘existing’ policy; my friend John Wheeldon fired off several telegrams to the Governor-General alleging that Don Chipp had taken action that transgressed the ‘caretaker’ convention. In order to present the material with some logic while at the same time avoiding the mere setting out of a series of diary entries, I will discuss the election period under thematic headings. The diary entries made each day remain the primary material and are available; however, one writes an account with the reader in mind and a straight diary record is sometimes boring and sometimes repetitive. 1 The last line of Pagliacci by Leoncavallo. 79 A Dissident LIBERAL The Aftermath of the Dismissal One of the less well appreciated characteristics of political life is the suddenness with which cataclysmic events occur and are concluded. These include most ‘institutional’ events with major impacts on the lives of individuals.
  • A Dissident Liberal

    A Dissident Liberal

    A DISSIDENT LIBERAL THE POLITICAL WRITINGS OF PETER BAUME PETER BAUME Edited by John Wanna and Marija Taflaga A DISSIDENT LIBERAL THE POLITICAL WRITINGS OF PETER BAUME Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at press.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Creator: Baume, Peter, 1935– author. Title: A dissident liberal : the political writings of Peter Baume / Peter Baume ; edited by Marija Taflaga, John Wanna. ISBN: 9781925022544 (paperback) 9781925022551 (ebook) Subjects: Liberal Party of Australia. Politicians--Australia--Biography. Australia--Politics and government--1972–1975. Australia--Politics and government--1976–1990. Other Creators/Contributors: Taflaga, Marija, editor. Wanna, John, editor. Dewey Number: 324.294 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design and layout by ANU Press Printed by Griffin Press This edition © 2015 ANU Press CONTENTS Foreword . vii Introduction: A Dissident Liberal—A Principled Political Career . xiii 1 . My Dilemma: From Medicine to the Senate . 1 2 . Autumn 1975 . 17 3 . Moving Towards Crisis: The Bleak Winter of 1975 . 25 4 . Budget 1975 . 37 5 . Prelude to Crisis . 43 6 . The Crisis Deepens: October 1975 . 49 7 . Early November 1975 . 63 8 . Remembrance Day . 71 9 . The Election Campaign . 79 10 . Looking Back at the Dismissal . 91 SPEECHES & OTHER PRESENTATIONS Part 1: Personal Philosophies Liberal Beliefs and Civil Liberties (1986) .

  • Legislative Assembly Hansard 1976

    Queensland Parliamentary Debates [Hansard] Legislative Assembly THURSDAY, 9 SEPTEMBER 1976 Electronic reproduction of original hardcopy 310 Sub Judice Matter [9 SEPTEMBER 1976) Questions Upon Notice copy of such Writ is enclosed. The defa­ matory material was contained in a pro­ gramme exhibited by the Australian Broadcasting Commission on the nights of the 7th and 8th September, 1976 in the ABC segment entitled 'This Day Tonight'. The report of the ABC related to Police action undertaken at Cedar Bay, North Queensland. "As this matter was raised in Parliament yesterday, we deemed it advisable to advise you of the issue of this Writ so that from here on the proper Parliamen­ tary procedure can be followed. "Yours faithfully, "J. S. Gilshenan & Luto!l." fhat matter is therefore sub judice. QUESTIONS UPON NOTICE 1. LAND SWINDLES Mr. Burns, pursuant to notice, asked the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General- (1) Has his attention been drawn to the newspaper article of 25 July head­ lined ''Land swindles are netting $ millions"? (2) Are weaknesses in the State's land property laws allowing cnmmals to swindle people out of millions of dollars in the sale of unregistered land and will legislation making it illegal for anyone to seil land without title not be introduced for two years? (3) Have detectives from the New South Wales Fraud Squad visited Brisbane to investigate complaints from New South Wales residents who paid large deposits on land in three Queensland centres and then found that there were no title deeds for their blocks? THURSDAY, 9 SEPTEMBER 1976 ( 4) Is the Queensland Corporate Affairs Commission inquiring into complaints by at least 60 people who claim that they Mr.
  • The Political Writings of Peter Baume

    The Political Writings of Peter Baume

    A DISSIDENT LIBERAL THE POLITICAL WRITINGS OF PETER BAUME PETER BAUME Edited by John Wanna and Marija Taflaga A DISSIDENT LIBERAL THE POLITICAL WRITINGS OF PETER BAUME Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at press.anu.edu.au National Library of Australia Cataloguing-in-Publication entry Creator: Baume, Peter, 1935– author. Title: A dissident liberal : the political writings of Peter Baume / Peter Baume ; edited by Marija Taflaga, John Wanna. ISBN: 9781925022544 (paperback) 9781925022551 (ebook) Subjects: Liberal Party of Australia. Politicians--Australia--Biography. Australia--Politics and government--1972–1975. Australia--Politics and government--1976–1990. Other Creators/Contributors: Taflaga, Marija, editor. Wanna, John, editor. Dewey Number: 324.294 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. Cover design and layout by ANU Press Printed by Griffin Press This edition © 2015 ANU Press CONTENTS Foreword . vii Introduction: A Dissident Liberal—A Principled Political Career . xiii 1 . My Dilemma: From Medicine to the Senate . 1 2 . Autumn 1975 . 17 3 . Moving Towards Crisis: The Bleak Winter of 1975 . 25 4 . Budget 1975 . 37 5 . Prelude to Crisis . 43 6 . The Crisis Deepens: October 1975 . 49 7 . Early November 1975 . 63 8 . Remembrance Day . 71 9 . The Election Campaign . 79 10 . Looking Back at the Dismissal . 91 SPEECHES & OTHER PRESENTATIONS Part 1: Personal Philosophies Liberal Beliefs and Civil Liberties (1986) .
  • VOTES and PROCEEDINGS No

    VOTES and PROCEEDINGS No

    1978-79 THE PARLIAMENT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS No. 76 TUESDAY, 20 FEBRUARY 1979 1 The House met, at 2.15 p.m., pursuant to adjournment. Mr Speaker (the Right Honour- able Sir Billy Snedden) took the Chair, and read Prayers. 2 DEATHS OF FORMER SENATOR (MR A. G. E. LAWRIE) AND FORMER CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES (SIR ALAN TURNER): Mr Speaker informed the House of the deaths of: Mr Alexander Grieg Ellis Lawrie, on 13 December 1978, a Senator for the State of Queensland from 1965 to 1975, and Sir Alan Turner, C.B.E., on 26 November 1978, Clerk of the House of Repre- sentatives from 1959 to 1971. As a mark of respect to the memory of the deceased all Members present stood, in silence. 3 PETNros: The Clerk announced that the following Members had each lodged petitions for presentation, viz.: Mr Adermann, Mr Anthony, Mr Braithwaite, Mr Bungey, Mr Cairns, Mr Carlton, Dr Edwards, Mr Fife, Mr Garland, Mr Keating, Mr Lusher, Mr MacKellar, Mr Martyr, Mr Neil, Mr O'Keefe and Mr Porter-from certain citizens praying for the prohibition of pornographic material involving children. Mr Anthony, Mr Baume, Mr Hunt, Mr James and Mr Staley-from certain citizens praying that the Medical Benefits Schedule be amended to preclude payment of benefits for abortions. Mr Cadman, Mr Ellicott, Mr Keating, Mr MacKellar and Mr Uren-from certain citizens praying that small businessmen and their employees be retained in the retail oil industry. Mr Fife, Mr Neil, Mr O'Keefe and Mr Staley-from certain citizens praying that item 6469 be removed from the standard medical benefits table.