Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I guess here we are again, another occasion when the time of the parliament is taken up with this matter of same-sex marriage. I believe it was going to be five minutes each for 15 speakers and yet there has been trouble filling that list. Perhaps that shows that enough has been said on this matter and that what we really need to do is get to a vote to decide once and for all on the merits of the bill and the issue.

I do, however, question why we are here at all. Before the 2010 election it was very clear: the two major parties made the commitment that there would be no change to the definition of marriage. We know that voters so often make their decision based on the views they have gathered of a number of different policies, or perhaps just one policy. This is an emotive issue with many Australians, but when I consider how many of my constituents contacted my office to express their views, it does say that views on the subject are not extensively stressed: 1,224 of my 93,321 constituents have to date contacted my office to state their views on whether the definition of marriage should be maintained or changed. To put it in context, ten times more people in Cowan opposed this Labor government's attacks on private health insurance than want a change to the definition of marriage. It is important to put these matters in perspective, and I am certainly not trying to denigrate the strongly-held views of anyone; however, some 1.3 per cent of my constituents have expressed their views and of the total number in my electorate 0.3 per cent have expressed a view that the definition of marriage should be changed.

The next question may be why more people have not expressed a view. Perhaps more of my constituents are interested but remember that before the last election the Liberal Party said there would be no change to the definition of marriage. Perhaps they also remember that before the last election the Labor Party also said there would be no change to the definition of marriage. I therefore suggest that if the policies of the two major parties before an election are clear then the parliament of this nation should vote consistently with what was said before the election. Maybe that is the reason why so few people have expressed a view either way, because they are confident that what was said before an election will be adhered to after an election. So the people of this country in my view have not contacted their MPs in support of a change in the definition of marriage because they expect us to keep our word. If I say that I will do something before an election, I should maintain that exact position after the election. That is certainly the view of this side of politics, as the Australian people have become so clearly aware of on so many occasions in the last two years; but it is not the view of the other side. My contention is that this is clearly not a big enough issue for even a majority of Australians to contact their MP about and, given that the election promises of both sides were clear, there is only a mandate to maintain the definition of marriage. We said what our position was and the coalition maintains that position and will not break faith with the electorate.

As I said before, we have a stated position and we maintain that position, a clear contrast to the Labor Party. What is said by Labor before an election cannot be trusted after an election. The Labor Party was happy to hide its position on carbon tax and the definition of marriage before the election yet is gleefully willing to flip as it marches to the tune of the Greens after the election. Perhaps that is not correct with all who are in the Labor party. Before the election we knew how many of you wanted same sex-marriage legalised but just went along with no change to the marriage definition line to try to save the government. This is usual. Power always comes before principle with Labor—untrustworthy but nevertheless reliable in a perverse way.

But enough said on that. I think the time has come for this matter to be decided. Having seen betrayed every Australian who voted for Labor, influenced by the policy position of no change to the definition of marriage, it is now time to stand up and be counted. From my position, I know that 153 of my constituents will by unhappy with my vote—possibly very unhappy—and 1,071 will be happy with my vote. But what I say to them all is that, when I say before an election that I will maintain the definition of marriage with my vote in the House of Representatives, I will be absolutely true to my word. What I say to my constituents and those in this House of Representatives is that I respect deeply held convictions, because they come from beliefs about what is right and wrong. What I do not respect is suppression of such views for political expediency before an election and a reversal after the election. In this matter, every member of the Labor party knew that their side promised no change to the definition before the 2010 election and yet said nothing to demonstrate their alternative views. The Prime Minister had three choices before the election: she could have stated that there would be no change to the definition of marriage; she could have said that Labor's position was to recognise same-sex marriage; or she could have said that she would allow a free vote. But she and the Labor Party, the government, chose to have a policy of no change to the definition of marriage. That is the position, the banner under which almost every elected member of this parliament came into this parliament.

When those of us on this side say it, we mean it and we will carry on with it. I say again that we have seen plenty of time spent in this parliament debating this issue. There have been a couple of bills and I really think it is time that we moved on. I look forward to a vote and I think the people of Australia look forward to a vote. Everyone—either on no change to the definition of marriage or on change to the definition of marriage—wants resolution of the issue once and for all, and I look forward to this vote. I hope that it comes on as quickly as possible after this debate is concluded.

See this speech in context