Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in continuation in the debate on the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016. As I said in my previous contribution before we were interrupted, I do not understand why we are having this debate. We put this question to the Australian public at the last election. This was an issue that was debated thoroughly in the lead-up to the election. There were two crystal clear positions. One was that of the coalition—that, if the coalition were successful and formed government, we would have a plebiscite as soon as possible during this term of government. The other was that put by Labor and the Greens—that, if they formed government, they would introduce a bill to the House which would be binding upon Labor members.

I know that many Labor members do not get it, but they lost the election. The coalition formed government. We have a crystal clear mandate for the plebiscite to go ahead. Otherwise, what is the point of even having elections? Why go through all the processes of having debates and policy platforms if, after the election, whichever side comes to power and forms government is not allowed to introduce that legislation?

Firstly, it is very disappointing that we see members of Labor and the Greens, and also some of the Independents in the Senate, giving an indication that they will not support what the public voted for. And one of the red herring arguments that they put forward is that somehow the results of the plebiscite are not binding.

This emphasises a fundamental difference between those in the Liberal Party and the Nationals and those in the Labor Party. We know that, on the Labor side of politics, independent thought is not allowed. For every single bill, they are frogmarched in here and told by the caucus how they will vote. And if any of them on the backbench decides to show a skerrick of independent thought, we know what the punishment is: it is execution at dawn—their preselection will be taken away from them.

In contrast, on this side of the parliament, for the Liberal Party and the National Party, on the backbench we have the opportunity to look at every single piece of legislation that comes to the House and make a decision on our conscience if we will support it or if we will not. That is a fundamental difference.

It has been very clear, on our side, that, if the plebiscite goes ahead and if the plebiscite is successful, that bill will be introduced into the House. And I make a commitment that, should that plebiscite go ahead, I will support whatever way the vote goes.

The other issue to note is: there are often demands made from the media and from Labor members of parliament that members of the coalition should support the way the electorate votes, should the plebiscite go ahead. I would ask: how will members of the Labor Party vote? Will they support and respect the decision of the Australian public at the plebiscite? Should the plebiscite go ahead and should it be passed by the Senate, will members of the Labor Party respect the wishes of the Australian people? That is the question.

I see many Labor names on the list of those to speak in this debate, and I would like to hear every single one of them make a commitment that, if the plebiscite goes ahead, they will support the wishes of the Australian people. And perhaps that is why those in Labor oppose the plebiscite: because, at their heart, they do not think that the Australian people should have a say in this matter. At their heart, they want to shut the debate down. They want to say, 'We are right,' and to deny the Australian public the chance to have their say.

Mr Neumann interjecting—

I hear some interjections from over there, and I give them the opportunity—there are provisions in this House for members of the opposition to stand up and put their position. What will your position be if the plebiscite goes ahead? Will you respect the wishes of the Australian public? Dead silence. It is very simple. The answer is either yes or no.

On this side, we say that we will respect the wishes of the Australian public. If the vote is yes, to change the Marriage Act to include same-sex marriage, the bill will be introduced, and this side of the House will support it. The opportunity is there. I leave it for members of the opposition.

The other thing that has come about during this debate is the disdain that we have seen from the Labor Party for our democracy—complete disdain. We have seen them unable to make a commitment, unable to respect the vote of the Australian people at the last election, unable to even make a commitment that they would respect the vote of the plebiscite. It is very alarming that we see it over and over in this nation. We even see it in this debate: they are simply saying that there should not be a debate. They are saying we can no longer have debates in this nation because it may offend or upset people. This is against every principle of Western civilisation. There are many debates on many subjects that we have in parliament that will cause offence or insult for one group or another in society. But that is the fundamental basis that our democracy is built on. And yet, time and time again, we see the Labor Party, those on the left, against the opportunity of free speech.

We also see that in the recent debate with the Human Rights Commission: in this country today, they are coming after the cartoonists To think that they want to close the debate down! They want to shut the debate down. They simply do not want to allow free speech and allow democracy to flourish. We have seen it time and time again. We saw it during the 2010 election and the 2013 election. The Labor government went to the 2010 election with the simple promise that there would be no carbon tax should they win government. And what happened? They completely reversed their position after the election. This is why the public cannot trust the Labor Party.

We also saw it with the shameful 'Mediscare' campaign. It was not just a matter of Labor members saying one thing and that being rebutted by the coalition; what we saw with that 'Mediscare' campaign was Labor sending out millions of text messages that created a false impression that it was an official message from Medicare. This was a disgrace. You would think that members of the opposition, having been part of an attempt to hoodwink Australian voters, would come into this parliament and be embarrassed. Instead, they laugh and joke about it.

Supporting this bill is about supporting the democratic result of the last election.

See this speech in context