Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 and want to offer my support for the bill. I want to thank the Prime Minister for making this issue a priority. I believe it is the first time the government has introduced a bill directly in relation to same-sex marriage. It is great that the Prime Minister has fulfilled the election commitment and promise that the coalition government took to the 2016 election. We are certainly delivering in a whole range of areas, but in relation to the same-sex marriage bill, which we promised to the people at the 2016 election, we are delivering there as well. I also want to acknowledge Senator Brandis and Senator Ryan for the drafting of the bill.

I want to start by making an observation that has survived generations and civilisations. It is that the family is the nucleus of society, and a strong family means stability, safety and less need for government intervention. There are so many types of families—nuclear, sole-parent and extended families. It is clear that in the majority of cases families are brought together by a marriage for the purpose of raising children. Millions of Australians have been able to unite under the sacrament of marriage, and changing the definition of marriage will impact all these people and their families as much as it will impact same-sex couples, because you are changing the meaning.

Forty years from now, if same-sex marriage is legalised and grandkids are looking back at family history and looking at the word 'marriage', they might see that right now the definition of marriage is a man and a woman in a lifelong commitment. When they look at it in the future, it might be that it is between two men, two women or a man and a woman. So the issue that we as members of parliament are facing is that this is not just another policy. We are not trying to fight unemployment here. It is not about infrastructure or taxes. As my colleague the member for Canning, Andrew Hastie, wrote in The Australian recently:

Marriage is the people's institution.

So the people should decide.

It was not that long ago that the Leader of the Opposition agreed with the member for Canning. Bill Shorten in 2013 said:

I would rather that the people of Australia could make their view clear on this than leaving this issue to 150 people.

That is what Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, said about gay marriage at the time. There are 150 members in this House and Bill Shorten's position was he would rather the people of Australia could make their view clear on this rather than leaving it to 150 people, he said. Why has he changed his mind? Why has he changed his position?

The Greens leader, Senator Di Natale, said in August 2015, just 14 months ago:

One thing we all agree on is that we need to deal with this issue and deal with it quickly.

I could not agree more. He also said:

… if there is to be a plebiscite it must be at this election and it must be the parliament that owns the plebiscite and drafts the question.

We are implementing exactly what Senator Di Natale was saying too, and it was an election commitment at the 2016 election. He said it should be the parliament that owns it and drafts the question. As far as I am aware, the Greens leader has not made any recommendations in relation to this plebiscite other than to record his opposition early on.

Same-sex marriage is not a recent topic or issue either. There has been a lot of history in relation to voting in this parliament on same-sex marriage. In fact, my colleague the member for Leichhardt's private member's motion last year was the 18th piece of legislation introduced to the parliament since 2004 to deal with the issue of recognising same-sex marriages, whether Australian or overseas. Only a couple of these motions progressed to a vote and these votes did not get very far.

Most recently, under the 43rd Parliament, led by Labor's Julia Gillard, three bills designed to amend the Marriage Act were presented in the House. These bills were the subject of two parliamentary committee inquiries but were not passed by the parliament. I would just like to remind the House that in 2012 Mr Stephen Jones MP introduced a private member's bill, the Marriage Amendment Bill. Many people voted against same-sex marriage, including many of those opposite: the member for Watson, Tony Burke; the member for McMahon, Mr Bowen; the member for Hunter; the member for Chifley; the member for Fowler; and three prime ministers, Mr Rudd, Mr Abbott and Ms Gillard. The member for Blair also voted against same-sex marriage. So did the member for Lilley, Mr Swan.

So we have had votes in parliament. On this bill in relation to same-sex marriage, the opposition say: 'Let the parliament decide. Get to work! That's what we're paid to do.' We have had many votes on this in the parliament, and every time it has been defeated. I note the member for Kingston voted for it at that time. I cannot see your name on there, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell. I am not sure if you abstained or what, but there have been many votes on this issue in the parliament.

When Labor came out with their 'Mediscare' campaign during the recent election, I did not think they could go much lower, but to play politics with this, with people's lives, is very serious. The previous speaker, the member for Barton, made some extreme and hysterical comments yesterday, I think, in her contribution to this debate. She said:

I can see this campaign clearly. I can see those opposed to equal marriage link this to the safe schools programs …

I am not sure what she is saying there. Is she saying that the safe schools program is wrong? She also talked about 'writing the fringe-dwelling bigots a cheque for millions of dollars'. She also said:

I am concerned that this plebiscite, with an aggressive campaign—

so straightaway she is assuming it will be an aggressive campaign—

will see people disengage from our democratic process, putting at risk our chance to change the Constitution to recognise First Peoples.

Linking those two together I do not think is right either. There are many Aboriginal people who do not support same-sex marriage, including Aboriginal elders who have signed the bark petition.

I think it goes further than this. We have also seen the member for Sydney bully her colleagues in relation to this by saying that what the Labor Party should do is make sure that everyone—that is, members of the Labor Party—must vote for same-sex marriage. We saw the Western Australian senator Mr Bullock bullied out of the party last year, and we have seen many of the people who voted no, whose names I just read out before, perhaps change their mind. But when you read the contribution from the member for Barton and when you read the contribution from the member for Sydney, they accuse those opposed to same-sex marriage—equal marriage—of all sorts of things. Well, what about the people that voted against it previously—including three prime ministers, the current Manager of Opposition Business, Tony Burke, and their former Treasurer, Mr Bowen? These people were capable in 2012 of having a debate in a civilised way and making people with a different view feel that they were okay.

You know what? I trust the Australian people that we can have a debate on this without the extreme hysterical comments that those people opposite vent in relation to this bill. I am sure that you will continue to see those comments as the opposition stand up and talk about the extreme Right, bigots and homophobia—all because some people do not share their view or do not believe in same-sex marriage. Australians can be trusted. Australians can have a debate on this issue. I repeat that the opposition leader said:

I would rather that the people of Australia could make their view clear on this than leaving this issue to 150 people.

Labor talks about same-sex marriage as if changing the definition of marriage will only affect same-sex couples. It will, in fact, affect everyone who has ever been married under Australian law. Only about four per cent of Australians identify as homosexual; 96 per cent are heterosexual. Those people can be trusted. If we were to force a parliamentary vote on this issue—even though we have had many, including the one I mentioned a moment ago—anybody who thinks the results of that vote would be accepted by everyone straightaway is kidding themselves. I think that if we can have a plebiscite, and even if 40 per cent of the population vote against same-sex marriage and 60 per cent vote in favour, then it will be passed through the parliament straightaway. And I think those 40 per cent, who will have expressed their view that they do not support it, would get on board and say, 'Hey, the majority of Australians have spoken and this is what they want.' I actually think it would be better for same-sex couples if it were to happen that way rather than be forced through the parliament because the opposition leader and the Leader of the Greens want to backflip on positions they have stated previously.

According to the polls, there is strong support for same-sex marriage. Newspoll said that 62 per cent are in favour of same-sex marriage and 32 per cent are against. The member for Leichhardt is right: there is too much interest and emotional investment in this issue now for a vote in parliament. But Bill Shorten would now rather drag this process out than trust the Australian people with a vote.

Quickly looking at the bill, the time line is for 11 February 2017, less than four months away. After so many years and so many years of debate, we could have a verdict and give same-sex couples certainty within four months. If we do not get this legislation through, if the vote is not held next year because Labor votes against this bill, then these people will have more uncertainty and wait longer.

The bill is very simple. It will authorise a compulsory, in-person vote in a national plebiscite that will ask Australians simply: 'Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?' It is a very simple question. It will be conducted very much like a standard election. It is no secret that the bill will have a cost. The financial impact to our federal budget will be about $170 million—not the $200 million that everyone opposite states. This includes $15 million to be divided equally between official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns, and it also includes the cost of holding the plebiscite and employing AEC officials, like at every election. That is what it costs. So it will cost $170 million for people to finally get their say on same-sex marriage, and Labor thinks it is not worth it. Labor says that this is too much money. I remind Labor that we are currently spending $300 million per week on the debt it racked up—$1 billion per month. We are currently spending $300 million a week on interest on debt, and when we bring bills to make savings into this House those opposite vote against a lot of them. Now Labor wants to say that $170 million—3½ days interest—is too much to give people certainty and to give the Australian public a say!

Those opposite argue against this bill on the grounds of mental health. We can have a grown-up discussion. I trust the people in the gallery, I trust the people in my electorate and I trust Australians to get this right. We can have a discussion where I am okay and you are okay. No-one is any better than anyone else in this country; it does not matter whether you are a federal MP or you are homeless in the street; people are equal. Australians can be trusted to make sure that this debate is done right, just like we will when we have referendums in the future in relation to Aboriginal recognition in the Constitution. The money argument is blown out of the water. It is equal to 3½ days interest for an important issue.

That MPs should decide this not Australians is another argument that the Labor Party opposite make. But we have had many votes on this, and three prime ministers and the current Manager of Opposition Business have all voted against gay marriage. We now need to give the Australian people their chance and get this settled. The other argument that those opposite make about this is that it is non-binding. There are many members from the Prime Minister down who have said that if the majority of Australians vote for same-sex marriage in the plebiscite then it will be decided and it will be put through in law within the next four to six months. We would give same sex-couples and many people in the LGBTI community that want certainty on this issue the chance to have that.

I ask the House to vote yes in relation to holding the plebiscite. It is good policy and it is good for democracy.

See this speech in context