Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I present to the House today the commitment that we made in the election campaign to put the question of whether same-sex couples will be allowed to marry under Australian law to the Australia people in a plebiscite.

We believe that that commitment is one that all members of this parliament should support and respect. It is thoroughly democratic. It is thoroughly democratic. Every Australian will have their say and, if the opposition support the plebiscite in the Senate, the plebiscite can be held on 11 February, which is the soonest practicable date.

There has been over the years, relatively recent years, a very rapid change in attitudes to same-sex marriage—to same-sex couples, indeed. All of us have seen the way in which discrimination or disadvantage for same-sex couples was removed, whether initially in respect of social welfare legislation or pensions legislation. I remember very well the debate within the Howard government in its last year about whether same-sex couples should have equal rights in respect of Commonwealth and Defence superannuation. To John Howard's great credit, he supported that change and took it to the 2007 election.

So there have been a series of changes over time, and the one issue that has not been addressed is the issue of marriage. Indeed, I remember discussing this point with President Bush many years ago, at the time of APEC in 2007, when we were discussing what were the big moral issues in Australian politics. We talked about this issue of equal access to superannuation, and I remember the president said: 'Well, those are all issues of financial fairness. The big moral issue is the one about marriage.' And we have to respect that it is a very big moral issue. It is an issue of conscience. It is an issue of conscience for millions of Australians who have different views on it—and sincerely held views. It is vital that we respect all of those views in this debate.

I would say to all honourable members: it is utterly wrong, and it shows dreadful leadership on the part of parliamentarians, to characterise those people who do not believe the parliament should change the Marriage Act to allow same-sex couples to be married as being homophobic, as hating homosexuals. This is so often being injected into the narrative at the moment. It is profoundly disrespectful. Some of the remarks the Leader of the Opposition has made—I will not repeat them—to which great exception has been taken, he should not repeat. We have to respect there are sincerely held views on this issue. They are views very often informed by deeply felt conscience; informed by religious commitment, very often; informed by faith. We have to respect, we must respect—and I can say the government respects—the diversity of views on this issue.

As it happens, as honourable members are aware, my view and that of my wife, Lucy, is that the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry. We have been married for over 36 years and we do not believe that if same-sex couples are allowed to have their union recognised as marriage that will undermine our relationship of long standing. I believe there are great threats to marriage in our society and I say from the bottom of my heart that our society would be stronger if more people were married and there were fewer divorces. If there was something we could do to make families happier it would be a wonderful thing. We know that the breakdown of the family unit is one of the great causes of hardship, of poverty, of so many of our social ills. So we are a government—and I am sure the opposition joins with us on this—we are a parliament committed to marriage, and we are committed to people supporting each other and sticking together, working hard, supporting their children and their families and enabling their dreams. And that is why I support same-sex marriage. David Cameron summed it up very well some years ago when he said, 'I support same-sex marriage not despite being a conservative but because I am a conservative, because we value commitment.'

So, that is where I stand; that is where Lucy stands. When the plebiscite is held, we will be voting yes. But there are many other Australians who are equally filled with love, equally respectful of gay couples, equally respectful of the families of gay couples, of same-sex couples, who will in thoroughly good conscience vote no, and they will do so not because they disrespect gay couples, not because they disrespect the couple who were in the House yesterday with their little boy; they will do so because of a deeply felt conscience. It is a matter of conscience and we should respect it.

The passage of change in our society has been one where—and this is where it has differed from the progress in some other jurisdictions; it is an important point to make—one after another of, if you like, the discriminations or the disadvantages affecting same-sex couples were removed. Some were removed during the Howard government and previous governments; more were removed under the Rudd government. That process has been ongoing and it has reflected a very strong social change. As I noted in the lecture I gave, the Michael Kirby Lecture, in 2012, I had always regarded—and I think I can speak for a number of my colleagues here today in saying this—the marriage issue as, if anything, an obstacle to removing these disadvantages. In other jurisdictions—for example, in the United States—the motivation to recognise same-sex marriage was driven, as much as anything else, to remove certain disadvantages, whether it was in social welfare, or tax, or superannuation and all of those areas that had hitherto been addressed in Australia. So we have progressed in Australia, I would say, in a characteristically Australian pragmatic way. We dealt with the issues. The HREOC issues that were addressed in the early years of the Rudd government were a good example of that—a long list of matters that were dealt with and were supported in a bipartisan way. We come now to this issue of marriage. It is a very, very heartfelt one, it is a matter of conscience, it is a matter of faith for many people, and it is one we must respect.

Let me deal with the arguments that have been addressed against the plebiscite—and there have been different views held on the plebiscite by many people. The Leader of the Opposition expressed support of one some years ago. He has got a different view now. Fair enough. We do not criticise him unduly for that. He is entitled to change his mind. But the fact is this: the two arguments that I think have weight against a plebiscite are, firstly, that it is not part of our traditional parliamentary process. That is certainly true, and that is why many conservatives would say it is too much of a novelty—it is too much of an innovation, if you like. Of course, we are in the age of innovation, as I have said before, so that should not be a disqualification. The other one is the cost—and that is substantial—but then you have to ask yourself: what price democracy? So those are two arguments that are valid. We have dealt with them, we have considered them and we have decided to proceed to the plebiscite.

The arguments that are addressed most vocally today by the opponents of the plebiscite are ones that we must reject, because basically the argument against the plebiscite that we hear today is that Australians cannot be trusted to have a civil conversation, that the Australian public are so immature, so unbridled, so reckless that they cannot be trusted to have a debate and make a decision on this issue. That insults the Australian people. It disrespects the Australian people. If ever there was an issue to be put to a plebiscite, this is one that can be and should be, because it is a very straightforward question. It does not have the same kind of implications—far-reaching, often unknowable implications—of, for example, voting on Brexit, as the British did recently. It is a very straightforward question—in many respects more straightforward than a number of the questions that we have addressed in constitutional referenda—so it is perfectly suited for that.

The real reason, I think, many people oppose the plebiscite is because they believe that if there were to be a free vote in the parliament same-sex marriage would be supported, and so they do not want to run the risk of the Australian people giving them the wrong answer. For our part, we put our faith in the Australian people and we know that their answer, whether it is yes or no, will be the right answer, because it is theirs. This is an institution, thousands of years old, that we are talking now about making a fundamental change to. I believe the time has come to do that. Many others in utterly good faith and good conscience do not. And they want to have their say. I would ask the members of the opposition this: cast your mind back to the Gillard government. Remember when Julia Gillard said, 'I believe in our society with our traditions, marriage has a special place and special definition, marriage will be defined as between a man and a woman. The Marriage Act will stay the way it is so that marriage is defined as a man and a woman.' These were her many statements on that subject; that was the position of the Labor Party then. Was she denounced by her colleagues as homophobic? What would have happened if the Labor Party had said, 'Let's have a plebiscite'? Of course, the supporters of same-sex marriage would have welcomed it.

Mr Dreyfus interjecting—

See this speech in context