Trevor Evans (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Today I rise, as Queensland's first openly gay MP, in support of achieving marriage equality and to fulfil the election commitments made by myself and every member of this government. Marriage equality is a very important and deeply personal issue for me. I have naturally been interested in this public debate for a long time. It is with much personal pride in mainstream Australians that I observe how quickly the debate on this topic has transformed in recent years. Basically, this parliament is now arguing over the method by which to bring about the reform, rather than the substantive topic itself.

There are many in our community, including many constituents in Brisbane, and indeed myself, who want to achieve this reform as quickly as possible. I hear and I sense the impatience and frustration of many of my constituents in calling for this reform. And it is worth reflecting for a moment on why there is this frustration and impatience in some parts of the community.

Australia has just had a coalition government, a Labor government and, in between those, a Labor government operating in a formal coalition with the Greens. None of those governments achieved this reform, not even the Labor-Greens coalition, which was, incidentally, the only one of those governments with a majority in its Senate. Those of us who have observed this debate over many years will remember how our three former Prime Ministers over those years—Prime Ministers Rudd, Gillard, Rudd again and then Abbott—all opposed marriage equality, although only one appeared to oppose it through consistent principle, while another changed their mind when it was all too late.

That brings us now to the Turnbull government. Our Prime Minister is the first Prime Minister our country has ever had who has been consistently in favour of marriage equality. This is the first ever government Australia has ever elected with a platform that includes a way forward on marriage equality. In being elected, this government, incidentally, achieved something momentous for the cause of diversity, with the election of Australia's first ever openly gay members of this House: Trent Zimmerman, the member for North Sydney; Tim Wilson, the member for Goldstein; and myself in Brisbane. Now, for the first time ever in Australian history, a federal government is putting forward a government-endorsed bill that paves a way forwards for achieving marriage equality.

A plebiscite might not be described, even by its closest friends, as the simplest or most perfect way to achieve a reform. I am only a new member, but I suspect that very little that passes through this House in a perfect way, given the compromises needed today to scrape together majority support for almost any reform. Indeed, the most perfect way to achieve marriage equality was presumably lost to us years ago before my time here, when the opportunity first arose for a former government to recognise that community sentiment had begun to shift and finally a majority of Australians started to support this reform.

If this issue was such a simple one for our country, then it would likely have been achieved by one of those former governments. That we find ourselves here is a reflection of how difficult this topic has actually proven to be for both sides of politics. While I strongly support achieving marriage equality, I recognise and respect the many Australians, including many Brisbane voters, who have alternative views. A plebiscite may not be the preferred way forward on this topic for me, for our Prime Minister or for many of our colleagues, yet nobody should be surprised to see this government trying to implement its election commitments, nor should they be surprised to see government members supporting this promise we made to our own constituents. No-one should feign outrage over a policy that has already been taken to an election and been endorsed by the Australian people.

This is the first time in history any Australian government has put its numbers behind a bill paving a way forward on marriage equality. In supporting this bill, I will incidentally be one of the few people in this House to have a consistent voting history in favour of marriage equality. Most of those opposite, who vote no to this bill today, will be condemned by historians not only for voting against the first ever government-endorsed bill presented here with a way forward on marriage and not only for today delaying marriage equality for who knows how long but for taking no action when they had the power to and for failing to try anything to achieve this when they had their chance. Indeed, for many of them, they will be condemned for having voted against marriage equality in past parliaments and in their own party rooms. From the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten down—including the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Penny Wong—they have voted no to achieving marriage equality when they were in government. They were supportive of this plebiscite just a few years ago, as were the Greens, and so their record is, tragically, inconsistent and impotent. It is one I certainly will not ever replicate.

I am voting here today in support of achieving marriage equality, consistent with a strong history of Liberal Party achievement when it comes to diversity and LGBTI rights. The rights of gay people were first mentioned in this House many, many decades ago by an Attorney-General from our side of politics. In Queensland, the Liberal Party was the first party to support ending the laws that previously prohibited homosexuality.

The first victories in this House giving same-sex couples legal equality in federal laws were won by a coalition government, addressing the potential for discrimination in the approach our Defence forces. That government also produced the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission report entitled Same sex: same entitlements, which was ultimately acted on by the Rudd government and supported in a bipartisan fashion to achieve legal equality for same-sex couples in areas such as superannuation and welfare.

In the election a few months ago, as I said, the Liberal Party achieved a victory for diversity with the election of Australia's first openly gay MPs. That follows naturally from the achievements of the Liberal Party in other areas of diversity: having the nation's first female MPs and ministers, having the first Indigenous MP and producing the oldest and the youngest ever representatives in this House.

Now, let me be as even-handed as I can in addressing what are regarded as the strongest arguments against a plebiscite. Firstly, to the question of division: a plebiscite will not create a single new line of attack or offence, nor will it create a single new platform for communicating such messages. If we take a moment to think of whatever examples we possibly can where somebody in a plebiscite may say something on any communication platform which could be hurtful, offensive or inappropriate, we find that it can already be said now by that person on that communication platform—today.

It is true that a plebiscite will likely increase the sheer quantity of the arguments being made in the debate around marriage equality for a period of time, yet that is also true for every single other approach. A parliamentary vote, for example, would similarly—as seen now—increase the quantity of debate on every platform. Increased public debate is unavoidable in achieving most reforms. There is no way that this reform can be made in secret. Nor is it desirable to achieve social change secretly. For example, we will not ever defeat racism, xenophobia or populism by being quiet about it and stifling community debate. We will not defeat domestic violence by being quiet about it and stifling community debate. And we will not defeat homophobia or any inequality by being quiet about it and stifling community debate, either.

Quite frankly, it appears from the way this matter is heading now that if this bill is defeated it will prolong the public debate, leaving this topic a very live one for far longer than a plebiscite would take. Indeed, one of the clear benefits of a plebiscite, compared to the alternatives, is that the debate would be done and dusted by 11 February. For the romantics hoping to get married under these reforms, I note that the date is three days before Valentine's Day.

On the topic of division, I want to recognise that, in reality, there is right now a base level of ongoing divisiveness in our country targeted towards some in the LGBTI community. It existed before this debate and it will continue afterwards, especially in the absence of us creating any big watershed moments, as a successful plebiscite would. We all have a very serious responsibility here to shelter from harm those who are vulnerable in our community. Naturally, I feel this responsibility very strongly about my own constituents. That is why I attended the Queensland pride march last month, the IDAHOT rally in June and the Brisbane candlelight vigil for the victims of the Orlando massacre. It is why I have already had so many meetings with individuals and groups representing the LGBTI community around Brisbane, including specifically around the challenges faced by vulnerable trans and intersex constituents. I look forward to working very closely with them all for many more years to come.

In a plebiscite, I could foreseeably be one target for some hurtful and offensive comments. Equally, however, I would also very willingly and energetically be a strong leader and a loud defender of the vulnerable if I ever saw anything inappropriate targeting them. And I know I would be joined by countless more constituents in Brisbane and around Australia who are ready to stand up and argue for a fair debate.

Indeed, my genuine and heartfelt confidence in the people of Australia, in the power of liberal democracy and in the disinfecting virtues of free speech means I have never been overly worried about the conduct or the result of a plebiscite. Every national poll that has been conducted on this topic for many years shows that if we gave Australians an equal say on this topic, they would vote overwhelmingly for marriage equality.

Probably the most crucial thing that can be said about a plebiscite is that it offers a profoundly comprehensive way to resolve the issue. I say 'comprehensive' very deliberately, thinking about so many other policy areas where political games have been played in recent times, where contentious issues have not been resolved by a parliamentary vote—rather, those debates were amplified, then continued to be used in political games for many years afterwards. A plebiscite would have the Australian people make a decision and own the decision in a way that would force most politicians to toe the line. I am concerned about the possibility that a parliamentary vote may not resolve the issue and instead may lead to the LGBTI community continuing to be used as a political game for many more years to come.

To the issue of cost: $170 million is a lot of money. To put it in its proper context, it is about one per cent of the budget repair work that this government has achieved in the last month. It amounts to about 0.05 per cent of Labor's failed pink batts program or 0.01 per cent of their rorted school halls program. It is about the same amount as the cost to the economy being imposed by Labor's lockouts in Queensland, although, of course, the costs of those lockouts will continue to be paid by Queenslanders every year, not just once. And those lockouts, incidentally, have the effect of shutting down the safe spaces of so many in the LGBTI community.

One hundred and seventy million dollars is about the same amount as holding a royal commission, if you look at the average cost of the last three. The fact is that nation-wide activities and national reforms often do cost money. My considered view is that if the $170 million resolves this issue once and for all and puts an end to the political games that have been played with the lives of LGBTI people, then it would be worth it.

In closing, it appears that this bill is headed for defeat in the Senate, despite it being an election commitment endorsed by the Australian people. It begs the question, what next? I do not know the full answer to that question. Those voting against this bill do not have a plan for what happens next, nor do they have the numbers to achieve any plan because they are not in government. There is a real risk that voting no to this bill will stall reform in this area for a long time, possibly many years. That saddens and frustrates me.

I would like to take a moment to thank the people of Brisbane, the community members, the members of the LGBTI community and their interest groups who have spoken with me about this issue, keeping the dialogue open and constructive. I caution some against the idea that a change of government will achieve marriage equality. You would be banking on what a future Senate looks like and counting on an opposition that did not fix this when they had the chance in government. Plus, history will tell you that oppositions do not usually win federal elections.

This government, with the nation's first ever Prime Minister to consistently support marriage equality, is the biggest opportunity the LGBTI community has ever had to achieve reform. If this parliament does not ultimately find a way forward to achieving marriage equality, I extend my arms to all of those to not just in that community but also their supporters in the wider community: keep the conversation alive, keep your passion for reform and keep the dialogue open with this government. I strongly believe this reform will be made by a Liberal government.

See this speech in context