Mackey Moana: Civil Union Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
Mackey Moana: Civil Union Bill — Procedure Third Reading 
[Volume:622;Page:17655] 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in support of the third reading of the Civil Union Bill. In my second reading speech I outlined why this bill does not provide for gay marriage and I was pleased to have that view validated by a high-profile opponent of the bill. Mr Brian Connell said on the radio this morning that his gay friends do not support this bill because it is “a cop-out”. He went on to say that they want to have gay marriage and that this bill does not deliver gay marriage. I say to Mr Connell that for once in this debate we are in complete agreement. The administrative procedures for civil unions are based on the Marriage Act because as a relationship-registration process it has worked pretty well for the last 60 years. Having civil unions registered with the same organisation will not undermine marriage any more than the fact that we also register deaths with the same organisation. 
Although I have some recollection of the emotions and turmoil that surrounded the Homosexual Law Reform Act in 1986 I was quite young at the time. I have grown up in a generation that views homosexuality very differently from previous generations. I do not believe it was the mere passing of a law that so drastically changed opinions. It was because freed from the threat of prosecution gay people did not have to hide who they were. We found out that they were actually successful business people artists sportspeople politicians and pillars of our community—dare I say it just like anyone else. Maybe with the passing of this bill and the subsequent civil unions that will follow we will be able to recognise the long-term committed relationships of gay couples as well and maybe the beliefs about the promiscuity of homosexuals held by those who would deny them the ability to formalise their relationships will also disappear. 
I do not remember whether gay people said they wanted to be different from everyone else at the time that the Homosexual Law Reform Bill was passing. I can certainly understand though how a group of people who were forced for so long to pretend to be something they were not might have felt liberated at finally being able to be who they are and that they would have wanted to celebrate that difference. But my friends who are gay and who were at primary school when that happened want their voices to be heard now. Apart from their sexual orientation they are no different from myself and my straight friends in any respect. They want to meet someone and settle down have a family or maybe get some cats. Some are commitment-phobes while others lurch from one tragic Bridget Jones - style relationship to another and many are in long-term relationships. But all of us want to have the support companionship and emotional fulfilment that comes from a loving intimate relationship. We are not very different from one another even though the inordinate amount of time we spend on talking about our difference could lead us to believe otherwise. 
In talking about the destructive effect that this bill will have on families it seems we are suggesting that gay and de facto couples do not have or are not part of families. Of course they are and if this bill does not pass today that fact will not change but their families and in particular the children in their families will not enjoy the security of family status that the rest of us take for granted. They do not know what will happen to their families in the event of the death or incapacitation of one partner particularly if that partner is the only biological parent. Not everyone can afford to put in place complex legal arrangements and those who can often do not get around to doing it as we do not always plan for the unthinkable. Heterosexual de factos may not feel as concerned as same-sex couples about having a secure family status as they are more likely to have the support of their families. But for those who do not have the support of their immediate families and who do not have the option of marriage there is no security for them or their children. How is that good for the fabric of society? A civil union certificate is all that those couples need in order to show that their relationship is legally recognised under our country’s law and it takes from third parties the onus of having to decide between the partner and the family when there is a conflict. 
Research is clear on the fact that children do better in two-parent families than in single-parent families but what opponents of gay and de facto parents then do is try to extrapolate the outcomes for children from single-parent families to those for children from any family outside of marriage and that is not the case. Peer-reviewed methodologically sound research shows no significant differences in outcomes for children raised in same-sex families from those raised in marriage. Marriage on its own does not make good parents. The existence of good de facto and gay parents and of bad married parents is proof of that. Some people have pointed to worse outcomes for children in de facto families and have claimed that is because of the family structure. Do they honestly think that the many de facto couples in this House who are parents are more likely to abuse their children than married couples? Did they even know those couples were not married until this week? In reality marriage does not make good parents; good parents are simply more likely to marry. So are we serious about supporting families and the children in those families or do we want to support only the children who grow up in married families? Does it not seem illogical to say we will support all marriages from the great ones right down to the destructive ones but not the many other functioning relationships and families that do not adhere to the traditional nuclear family structure? How does that help the fabric of society? 
All relationships are not equal but I challenge members to resist the temptation to take the easy road of simply blaming gay and de facto couples for all society’s ills. I urge all members to think about the taxpaying law-abiding real families and real people who will actually be directly affected by this bill. They deserve our support.