Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Central to this motion today is the idea that members of parliament in this place should consult with their constituents on important issues, including that of same-sex marriage. The member for Melbourne, Adam Bandt, said in his speech in the House:

We want those who are still stuck in the old way of thinking to go out and engage with the people in their electorates to find out where they are now at.

Imagine my surprise when I went to look for Mr Bandt's survey on his website. Nothing. I looked for his community forums. Nothing. Don't get me wrong. There were a lot of 'click here if you agree with me' petitions, but no survey about how you could tell him what is important to you. He has asked members in this place to do what he himself is not prepared to do, and that is to genuinely consult with his electorate about the issues important to them.

When challenged on this issue on JOY 94.9FM, Adam Bandt said, 'We did have a consultation. It was the election.' He said:

I went to the election saying 'I want to make this an issue.' I stood on this as a platform and I expressly said, 'One of the reasons I asked people to vote for me was so it was understood that this was an important issue.'

I could be stating the obvious here, but I thought that everyone in this place was elected on a platform. Tony Abbott, Leader of the Liberal Party, ruled out a carbon tax at the last election. Warren Truss, Leader of the Nationals, also ruled it out. The Prime Minister herself, only six days before the election, said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.' The only person in the House who explicitly ran on a platform of imposing a carbon tax was Adam Bandt. He is one representative in this place amongst 149 others. If you take Mr Bandt's argument to its logical conclusion, that is that he has a mandate to implement his platform, why then does he ignore the mandate provided to all other members of this place on the issue of the carbon tax? Why does he get to pick and choose?

Mr Bandt said in his original speech on this motion that 'recent polling shows the majority of Australians support a move to full equality for marriage'. He reiterated this again today. Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has stated that such surveys are 'proof, or evidence, that the law needs to be changed'. Yet again they do not apply the same test on other issues, including the carbon tax. Both the recent Newspoll and Galaxy polls clearly state that the majority of Australians are against the carbon tax. Yet the Greens refuse to listen. This is hugely hypocritical of them.

As the federal member for Higgins I did not need a motion to tell me how to do my job. Unlike the member for Melbourne, since becoming a member of parliament I have sought the views of my electorate by conducting 10 community forums in different parts of Higgins, by regular listening posts at my 23 train stations, regular mobile office meetings at shopping strips and regular meetings with my constituents and community groups.

I also have a survey on my website and have directly mailed this survey to 17,234 people in my electorate. In my newsletter that is distributed to every household, I have also asked people to fill in my survey online. My survey asks people to let me know about the top four issues that concern them. There are 15 issues listed, including same-sex marriage, but I also give constituents the option to fill in their own issues or to provide more detail. The result of my survey to date is the top four issues that people identify are government waste and mismanagement, investment in mental health care, choice in education, and securing Australia's borders. That is not to say that same-sex marriage is not an important issue to many people in my electorate; it is. For some it is a decisive issue and the one that will determine their vote, but there are also other issues in my electorate of Higgins that are important to the people who live there.

There can be no question that social change is complex. There is a need for those who want to make change to take the community with them. I think it is important for representatives in this place to have time to reflect on social issues. I will always do just that. This reflection is something that should be ongoing, assessed and reassessed.

It is my view that arbitrary deadlines have more to do with political grandstanding than achieving genuine community consensus. In my view the Greens have done more to put back this debate and discussion than to move it forward, to coin a phrase, because they have tried to play politics with it. They have stood on platforms with people who have denigrated those who have a different view as homophobic. While there are some people in the community who are, sadly, homophobic, this is not the majority view. Name-calling will never be a persuasive argument. It will not convince people. It is, ultimately, dishonest. It does not go to the core arguments. And can be used as a tool to silence people.

As I see it, there are two aspects to this debate but only one element that has received the headlines. The first is whether we should recognise a union between two loving adults of the same sex. The second is about children and whether same-sex couples should have the same access as heterosexual couples to IVF and adoption. I know that there are people with goodwill and deeply held personal views on both sides of this debate. Unlike Adam Bandt, I have met with these people. I do not denigrate them for their view. I have listened. And I have also shared with them my personal view that I do not believe that the churches, mosques or synagogues should be forced to marry anyone that they do not want to. I have shared my view that strong and stable relationships are the building blocks of any society. Like my colleagues in the coalition, I support measures to end discrimination against same-sex couples in Commonwealth legislation. I have shared my view in support of civil unions for same-sex couples. And I have also shared my view that there are legal implications that flow from same-sex marriage. And those legal implications affect children. As a society, something that has serious consequences for children and for family deserves very serious scrutiny. As a result, the threshold for making change to existing laws on this issue is, in my view, high.

It is my view that the people who want change bear the onus and responsibility for making the argument for that change. I have not been convinced by the need for change at this time.

See this speech in context