Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I oppose the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 for three basic reasons. Firstly, parliament should not treat gay and lesbian Australians differently when it comes to legislating to determine their rights under Australian law. Secondly, the proposed plebiscite is simply a waste of taxpayers' money. The result can be achieved through a free vote of this parliament, and done very quickly, saving the taxpayers a lot of money in the process. Thirdly, representative democracy is Australia's form of government, and we, as representatives of our communities and as legislators, should perform that role through a free vote of this parliament. If we did so, we could do that this week. The result would be the same, it would save money for the Australian people and we would avoid dividing our nation through a vitriolic and unnecessary debate.

Marriage equality is a reform whose time has come. Australians overwhelmingly support amending our laws to allow same-sex couples to express their love for one another through marriage. The current definition of marriage in the Marriage Act is discriminatory. It discriminates against gay and lesbian Australians and it does not provide them with the ultimate expression of love that other Australians are entitled to through marriage. For many years same-sex couples in Australia have had many of those discriminatory barriers broken down. It was the previous Labor government—the Rudd government—that removed almost 80 pieces of discriminatory legislation that were harming the lives of gay and lesbian people in Australia. As a result of those reforms, gay and lesbian people in Australia can now share property and income, they can bequeath property and income and they can have and adopt children. They are equal before the law in every respect except for what is probably the most important expression of love that a couple can go through: the right to wed.

In this day and age this parliament should not any longer stand in the way of that reform being achieved in Australia. Through this bill, this is exactly what this government is doing. It is standing in the way of this parliament making a decision to amend our Marriage Act to remove the discrimination that exists under Australian law. The Australian parliament should not discriminate against gay and lesbian Australians in the manner in which we determine their rights and the manner in which we make laws that affect their welfare, but this is exactly what a plebiscite and this bill does. It discriminates, by its very nature, against gay and lesbian people in Australia, because their rights have to be determined through a vote of the Australian people. That has never ever happened before in the history of our federation. So, gay and lesbian people are justified when they ask this government, 'Why should gay and lesbian Australians be treated differently in the manner in which the parliament determines their right to marriage compared with everyone else?'

When we initially established the Marriage Act in Australia we did not have a vote of the Australian people. When we establish other rights that affect Australians we do not have a vote of the Australian people. But when it comes to this particular issue and the rights of gay and lesbian people to express their love and their sexuality, we are going to have a vote? We are going to call the whole of the Australian public together and change the method by which we make laws in this country through a plebiscite vote? That does not make sense. It is abrogating the responsibility that a government has, through representative democracy, to pass laws for the welfare of the people of Australia. This has never occurred before in the history of our nation. The first plebiscite that took place in Australia was 100 years ago and it related to conscription. There were two plebiscites that related to conscription. Then of course we had a plebiscite about expressing favour for a particular version of a national anthem in 1977.

This plebiscite, if it were to continue, if it were to succeed, would result in a vitriolic and divisive debate in Australia, and a particular group of Australians' sexuality and their rights would be the focus of the nation's attention. In the two months that lead up to the plebiscite, that will be the focus of national attention and that will get all the media's attention and that will get all the social media attention and it will be the backyard barbecue debate in homes throughout Australia. This group of Australians' sexuality will be the attention of the nation—whether or not someone is going to vote yes or no to determine their right to express their love through marriage.

We have all manner of divisive debates occurring in Australia. We have people coming up and saying that gay relationships are unnatural and saying that gay couples and lesbian couples who have kids are living in unnatural relationships and that they are not a real family. These sorts of debates harm people's psychology and their mental wellbeing and they particularly affect kids who are the products of those relationships. This will be fuelled by the current government, because an important part of this bill is that the government will provide $7½ million to the yes and no campaigns to run their campaign and run their propaganda in the wider community. They will be stoking the fire of division in terms of the no campaign by the Commonwealth.

That is unheard of and is something that this government should not be involved in. No Australian government should be involved in providing Commonwealth funding to undermine the rights of another group of Australians when it comes to marriage equality. That is not the role of an Australian government. That is not representative democracy. Indeed, it is un-Australian, because it has never occurred before in the history of nation. In the 1960s when we have the referendum on the rights of Aboriginal Australians to be recognised in the Constitution and recognised under Australian law there was no funding for a no campaign, because it would have set a very dangerous precedent. Yet, as part of this bill, there is funding for the no campaign. That is something that is un-Australian, in my view.

The other point to make—and I have consulted with gay and lesbian members in our community and their advocacy groups—is that they do not want a plebiscite. That is quite clear. The gay and lesbian community in Australia do not want a plebiscite. I think it is interesting that almost everyone who is calling for a plebiscite is not gay or lesbian. That is the real reason the government is out of touch when it comes to this particular issue, because those are calling for this are not the ones who are going to be affected by the vitriolic and divisive debate and having others, including their friends and others in their communities, question their sexuality and their right to equality under the law through marriage in Australia—another reason that this plebiscite should not go ahead.

The second reason is the cost. So far it is going to cost $180 million, and rising, to hold this plebiscite. So much for the fiscal emergency. So much for reining in the budget deficit. So much for the budget emergency and the government saying they need to save every penny when it comes to government expenditure. Here they are going to waste upwards of $180 million for a plebiscite that many on that side of the conservative ilk will not abide by anyway when it comes to the vote in this parliament. That does not make any sense whatsoever to the average Australian. Why are you going to have a plebiscite to determine what we say about marriage equality when some of you are going to ignore that and vote against it? Come on. You want to spend $180 million on this in the environment of, as you say, 'a budget emergency'. It does not make sense. We all know that the result would be the same if the parliament had a free vote anyway. I have no doubt that if we had a plebiscite it would pass, but the result would be the same if we had a free vote in the parliament. We would save the money, we would save the vitriolic and divisive debate and we would not be setting new precedents in terms of determining Australians' rights under the Australian Constitution through a public vote.

The final point I would like to make is that we live in a representative democracy and it is a representative democracy that has served our nation very well. In the finest tradition of the Westminster system, people have been chosen at regular elections to represent their communities and put their views in this parliament and matters, particularly legal reforms, have been determined through a vote of the parliament. It has served our nation well. Yet on this issue of determining the rights of individuals who happen to be gay and lesbian we are going to divert from that tried, trusted and true course of action for determining laws and hold a very divisive and vitriolic debate. Almost every other nation except for Ireland has gone through a representative democracy model of determining the issue. We are elected to do a job—to represent our communities and to determine laws through votes in this place after we have had a fulsome debate and, where it is required, committee investigation into details. We should do that with respect to this issue. We should get on with it, do what we are elected to do, hold a free and open debate and vote in this parliament. If we did that, we could determine that matter next week. We could have marriage equality here in Australia next week.

The question needs to be asked: why is the government doing this? My wife asked me: 'Why is Malcolm Turnbull doing this?' We all know that he believes in marriage equality. We all know that he has said in the past that he does not support a plebiscite. In fact, in the wake of Tony Abbott's political deal to get his plebiscite up in the coalition party room, Malcolm Turnbull said in a media conference the next day that the Liberal Party had been 'branch stacked', in the words of the minister for innovation, with the National Party being involved:

One of the attractions of a free vote is that it would have meant the matter would be resolved in this parliament one way or another in a couple of weeks.

That is the view of the Prime Minister. I could not agree with him more. I actually agree with the Prime Minister on this issue. It could have been determined and voted on in a couple of weeks time. It would not have lingered and we would have had a vote under a representative democracy model.

That is the view the Prime Minister held prior to doing a deal with the National Party and the conservative wing of the Liberal Party to become the Prime Minister. That is the great shame about this whole thing. That is the answer to the question: why? It is a backroom political deal. This bill we are voting on here today is nothing more than a backroom political deal by the Liberal Party and by the Prime Minister to become the Prime Minister of our nation. That is how he sold his soul. That is how he abandoned his conviction. That is how he abandoned his previous views that many in the Australian public were attracted to and the reason why they did like him in the past.

He abandoned those convictions when he became the Prime Minister and it has resulted in this vitriolic and divisive debate. It has resulted in the delay of this important reform. It has got us to this position we are in at the moment where we are arguing across this chamber about the rights of an important group of Australians when we should just be getting on with it and holding a vote and determining this issue right here in this parliament. We are elected to represent the people to determine these issues and that is the manner in which this should be determined. That is why I and my colleagues are voting against this bill.

See this speech in context