Parliament

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (4:13 PM) - I rise today to contribute to this debate, but before I get into it I want to acknowledge that this is the third, the fourth or perhaps the fifth time in the last six months that we have had a similar debate here in the Senate.

Senator Hanson-Young -I want to pick up on that last point, that surely part of the problem is that people will not know that they have been unfairly judged because they are not necessarily going to be told they did not get the job, or they did not get a promotion or they are not going to be let into a course to work with children based on something that has been delivered in this report of their past convictions.

Senator Hanson-Young -I am about to dash off. I take your point that you believe the bill is not necessarily too broad, but there was the example of somebody who in their younger years did something silly, such as got involved with shoplifting. At what point do we say, 'These things are not relevant and these other types of convictions are'?

Senator Hanson-Young -I want to pick up on that last point, that surely part of the problem is that people will not know that they have been unfairly judged because they are not necessarily going to be told they did not get the job, or they did not get a promotion or they are not going to be let into a course to work with children based on something that has been delivered in this report of their past convictions.

Senator Hanson-Young -I have a question directly following on from that. It sounds to me that you have put unmarried parents in the same category as people who defame and people who murder. That is what you just did. Are you suggesting, as the organisation, FamilyVoice Australia, that the children of unmarried couples-parents-are in the same category as people who deliberately defame others or are murderers?

Senator Hanson-Young -Firstly, to Jason and Adrian, thank you for appearing today. Based on the fact that you have been trying to have your own relationship legitimised under Australian law in the country that you are citizens of, appearing before a parliamentary hearing takes great courage. I would just like to thank you for that.

CHAIR -Thank you, and thank you very much to the four of you for your opening comments.

Senator Hanson-Young -Do you think in accepting homosexual relationships that the view of the Christian community has changed over time? Can I preface that by acknowledging the support that the Australian Christian Lobby gave to the last round of reforms that the government put forward.

Senator Hanson-Young -Mr Irlam, I thought your synopsis of the submissions and the process was really good-and thank you for that. I want to pick up on the point that you made about same-sex couples who are married overseas and come back to Australia and step off the plane at Sydney international airport and all of a sudden their marriage is not valid and that perhaps we are contravening conventions and treaties that we had agreed to.

Senator Hanson-Young -Professor, I just wanted to pick up on something that Mr MacDonald said and that you reiterated several times-the idea that men and women are not the same. I would like to point out that that is exactly the same argument that was used as to why women should not be allowed to work and should not be allowed to vote. It is the same argument.