Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on this motion to suspend standing orders. I would make the point that this really is too serious an issue for acrimony and shouting. It is too serious an issue for publicity seeking and playing politics. I think it is very disappointing that the Labor Party have chosen to try to make a political issue out of the relationships of men and women who want to be treated equally under the law. I was aware that they were going to move this political stunt today, and it is very disappointing that Labor would come into the House and try to get some political benefit out of what many Australians, good people—Liberal voters, Labor voters, Greens voters, Independent voters—want, which is to have marriage equality; to be treated the same under the law.

My views on this matter are well known. I support marriage equality. But this is not a debate about whether or not you support marriage equality; this is a debate about whether there should be a suspension of standing orders to have a vote on this private member's bill. That is what this debate is about: whether there should be a suspension of standing orders to stop all other government business in order to have a vote on a private member's bill.

So, what is the process for private members' bills? All members in the House know what the process is. They know there is no vote on private members' bills or private members' motions. They know that therefore many motions and bills are brought into the House and put on the Notice Paper for a debate in this chamber on issues that need to be aired and elevated. That is a good part of private members' business; that is the idea. Some things are brought into the House to be elevated because there will not be a vote. Members know that they can give their constituents a hearing, a platform, but they do not have to disagree with party policy, they do not have to determine government policy, because it is private members' business, and private members' business does not come to a vote. Therefore this motion to suspend standing orders is entirely out of order. It would allow a vote on a private member's bill, which would establish an important precedent and be stepping outside the role of private members' business. That is one reason that the government will not support this suspension of standing orders, the second reason being that we on this side of the House do not want to play politics with this issue. It is too important, and people take it too seriously, for people to try to play cheap politics around it.

The third reason the government will not support the suspension of standing orders is that we have a very clear policy on this matter. We will not be having a vote of the members of this parliament to determine whether we support marriage equality. We will give every Australian a free vote in a plebiscite after the election.

The extraordinary flaw in the member for Griffith's argument is that she says we must have a free vote in 2016—that we must do it today—but the Labor Party's policy is that in 2019 they are not allowed to have a free vote. Apparently in 2016 they must have a free vote at all costs but their policy is not to have a free vote in three years from now. What a ludicrous position! The principle is that you are either in favour of a free vote or you are not. If you are in favour of a free vote then have that policy into the future until you achieve one. But the Labor Party policy, apparently brokered by the deputy leader at the ALP conference this year, is this ludicrous hybrid policy where they would have a free vote now but in 2019 will not have a free vote. It is utterly ridiculous and exposes the Labor Party as utter hypocrites on the issue, because if they genuinely believed in a free vote why would they deny their members a free vote in three years from now?

See this speech in context