Hague Kevin: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Hague Kevin: Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 27 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:9020. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take the first call in this Committee stage on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill. This is in fact a bill with a narrow scope and it is a bill with a pretty straightforward purpose. It is one of the shorter bills that this House considers but it has been a bill that has engendered some impassioned submissions both for and against and passionate debate in this Chamber which has stood Parliament in good stead with the public. The public have appreciated the tone with which members on all sides have debated the bill. But although those submissions that have been heard against the bill and the speeches against the bill that have been made in this Chamber have I am sure been sincere they have largely been motivated by fear—fear of concerns that are largely imaginary and fear that has been whipped up by a campaign in the community led particularly by a couple of individuals on a totally false basis. 
I know that in this debate this evening we are going to be considering a number of Supplementary Order Papers to address imaginary concerns. I do not in any way impugn the genuine nature of the members who are bringing those amendments. They believe that they are bringing those amendments to do something that is important but the concerns that they are raising are either ones that have already been dealt with in the bill or ones that are false concerns where there is no problem whatsoever. I will be taking I expect some further calls during the evening to address those Supplementary Order Papers. 
I want to particularly note that none of the Supplementary Order Papers that have so far been tabled to amend the bill have come from a member of the Government Administration Committee. I want to say I believe that that is because all of those members who sat through the bulk of the submissions—and I acknowledge that Tim Macindoe did in fact participate in a meeting right towards the end. All of those who sat through the submissions— 
Tim Macindoe 
: Two. 
KEVIN HAGUE 
: Sorry it was two meetings at the end. All of those who sat through the analysis of the submissions appreciate the complexity of the issues and understand why the select committee has made the very precise amendments to this bill that we have. All of the matters—literally all of the matters—that have been raised in the Supplementary Order Papers so far tabled are ones that were very seriously considered by the select committee and were rejected. 
I want to come to the Supplementary Order Papers about referendums because there are two that we are considering tonight. The idea was rejected in the second reading of this bill and along with all the other Supplementary Order Papers that have been tabled to date will be opposed by our party and I am sure by most members tonight. The thing about referendums is that they are good for some situations. They are great for constitutional matters for example but they are a terrible terrible way of addressing matters of human rights. Human rights are by their very nature inalienable. They are not an appropriate topic for referendums. They are also not an appropriate topic for the issue of minority rights because minority rights will of course be rejected by a majority. I take the particular case of the vote for women in Switzerland. Because of the nature of referendums and the use of referendums in that country it was achieved only in 1971.