Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak against the motion. It is my understanding that what is about to happen is that the Marriage Amendment Bill, introduced by the member for Throsby, is about to be brought back from the Federation Chamber and quickly put to a vote here. There should be no vote on this bill until members of the coalition have a conscience vote on the question of marriage equality.

This is a central issue of equality, as many on the Labor side of the House know. We should not have two standards of love in this country. There should be one very clear message sent from this parliament that for all people in this country your love is equal. It is important not only for those individuals who want to marry the person they love; it is also important for the young boy in a country town who is working out who he is attracted to or to the girl who wants to go with her partner to the high school formal but cannot because they are in a same-sex relationship. We have an opportunity here in this parliament to change the law to send a message to the whole of Australia that all love is equal.

But this is also a central matter of freedom of choice. There are those in this House, predominantly sitting on the opposition benches, who come in here and tell us routinely that the state should not interfere with an individual's right to make their own decisions in their personal life unless there is harm to others. If you believe that, then that principle should extend to the most fundamental of all decisions, which is the right to marry the person you love. Government should have no role in telling an individual in this society that they are not allowed to marry the person they love.

A question of freedom of choice should also go to how one is able to exercise a vote on this issue. We are now in the paradoxical situation where the Labor Party members are able to exercise a free vote, but the party that prides itself on an individual's freedom of choice, and an individual MP's right to vote according to their conscience, is not allowing its members to vote the way they want. This is a significant problem and a significant roadblock in the way of reform, which is why we should not allow this matter to be put to a vote today.

I have spoken with members of the coalition who agree with the bill and who agree that we should have marriage equality in this country. I have spoken with members of the coalition—and indeed we heard some of them speak in the Senate this week—calling for the right to exercise a conscience vote. They have said that if they could have a conscience vote they would vote to remove discrimination from our marriage laws.

This is a matter that the Greens have been pursuing in this parliament for some time, not just in this parliament but in previous parliaments as well. We have been at the forefront of the push for marriage equality. We have always known that there is no point in putting up a bill only to see it voted down, simply for the purpose of grandstanding or trying to clear it off the political agenda. We want to see reform.

I accept that there are members, of goodwill, on the Labor side who do want to see reform, who do want to see this law changed. But, equally, there are members on the government side who just want this issue cleared off the agenda, and they have said as much publicly. They have said that they are sick of parliament having to debate this most fundamental of issues. It is for this reason that I fear we are about to witness a very cynical move to put this to a vote quickly in an attempt to clear it off the political agenda. That would certainly be very consistent with what senior factional figures within the ALP have said. That is not something we should countenance. This issue is too important, and we have too good an opportunity to see reform, for it to be subject to cynical manoeuvrings and put to a quick vote.

When you look at the international experience you see conservative parties around the world joining with other parties to recognise that the time has come for marriage equality. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron, has said he believes there should be marriage equality. And, of course, we have seen other significant figures who are not on the conservative side of politics, like President Obama, who have said that even though they went to an election saying there should be no change they have since had the opportunity to reflect on the issue, talk to those close to them and understand that there are many in committed same-sex relationships who are working for them, and they have changed their minds. I firmly believe, and the Greens firmly believe, that with enough time we can change the minds not only of the Labor Party, who managed to change their position at their conference, but also of the coalition so that those on the coalition side who believe in freedom of choice can vote the way I know they want to.

We need that additional time to campaign, because we know that, although people may not have thought about this issue much before, public opinion has moved on. We know that from the House inquiry into these bills. Some 64 per cent of the respondents to the online survey supported a change in the law—and that was out of over a quarter of a million responses, one of the largest responses ever—which is consistent with the results of every opinion poll conducted on this question. If we truly wanted to give effect to the public will, we would change the law and we would give members of parliament enough time to move along with their communities—to take the temperature of their communities and to understand that this is not something which is going to cost them votes but is something which will gain them votes.

I fear that we are about to witness a cynical attempt to get marriage equality off the political agenda, but it will not work. It will not work for a number of reasons. The Greens still have a bill to remove discrimination from the Marriage Act before both houses of parliament—and today's move will not deter us from proceeding with that bill. This should be an issue next year, an election year, and it will be, whether or not the government and the coalition like it.

In the two years this parliament has sat, never before have we had a situation where a private member's bill has been brought on for a vote with notice of just an hour or so. It is usual practice for the Selection Committee to determine that a bill is coming to a vote. Then, once it is known that a vote is to be scheduled, a couple of weeks are usually allowed for final lobbying. Instead, this bill is being brought on with a very short notice period. While some in this chamber may have known when it was being brought on, the public did not. That is significant—members of the public should have had the chance to make some final efforts to get their MPs to vote one way or the other.

I do hope that we do not see a vote on this today. If we do, my message to those who are campaigning for change is: do not lose heart from a losing vote today because we, the Greens, will be bringing marriage equality back to this parliament through our own private member's bill. Those who are campaigning for change should know that, ultimately, history is on their side and that history will leave behind those who today vote against change. If Catholic Spain can vote for change, modern-day democratic Australia can vote for change as well. Whether or not it happens today, we will get there.

See this speech in context