Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is quite a personal debate for a number of people. This is also a debate about our democracy. I would like to start with that argument first of all and with why I am opposed to the plebiscite and I support the amendment that has been moved. Contrary to the claims of the government that this plebiscite they have proposed is about free speech, we are already having a public debate about marriage equality. But the way that the government is going about it is not about free speech. It is about their party room. If the members of the government were serious about supporting our democracy and if they respected our Constitution, then we would not be having this debate. If we had a free vote of members of the 45th parliament and if we had support for a free vote in this parliament, then I believe that we would have marriage equality.

The democracy argument is something that the government is choosing to brush over, which I find quite odd because they are such champions—or believed to be such champions—of our Constitution, of the queen of this parliament. I talk to school groups and they say, 'Why don't we have marriage quality?' I say, 'It's a very good question that you have asked. You need to start lobbying members of the government.' Our Constitution is quite small. It is very hard to change as well. We have tried to change it a couple of times and we have really struggled. But one of the things it actually states very clearly about the role of this parliament is—under part V, powers of the parliament: legislative powers of the parliament—that this parliament has legislative powers in relation to marriage. From the very beginning of this democracy and the creation of the Australian government, the Constitution said that the people in this place have the power to legislate the Marriage Act.

We know that states have tried. They have tried to introduce their own Marriage Act, only to be smacked down by the High Court because it is this place that changes the Marriage Act. Pushing marriage equality off to a plebiscite is really misleading to the Australian people because unless you legislate that the plebiscite will be binding, it is not binding on the people in this place. You can understand why the community is outraged—absolutely outraged—about spending $200 million on a vote which is not binding. They want us to get on with the job that we were elected to do. They want us to respect to our role, to respect the Constitution and to debate the other bill that is before the House around marriage equality. It is time that we did our jobs.

This is nothing more than a very expensive opinion poll. There are two other times we have had plebiscites of this nature in our past. One was around the First World War and conscription. After Billy Hughes's—which to Labor people is not a name you mention—fraught attempts to have conscription, he ended up—

Mr Frydenberg interjecting—

He was Labor, then he ended up in the Country Party. In fact, he ended up as the federal member for Bendigo for a period of time after leaving the Labor Party. The other time we had a plebiscite of this nature was around our national song—what our most popular song was and what was going to be our national song.

This issue is not like these issues. This issue is about marriage. It is about love. This issue is about rights. It is about respecting and acknowledging two individuals and giving them the opportunity that other people in our population have. If government members really respected our Constitution and this parliament they would allow there to be a free vote. They would not be using their numbers as a government to stop the debate.

A lot of people have contacted me about this issue since before I was a federal member. It is an issue in my electorate, which is a regional electorate, where the popular opinion to support marriage equality has existed for quite some time. We are now at a stage where the vast majority of Australians—over 70 per cent—support same-sex marriage, marriage equality. It has become a very personal debate for so many, because this issue is personal.

It is true that marriage has not always been about love. I grew up in a household where marriage was not a good thing. I grew up in a household where I had a very negative opinion of marriage. My parents were not happily married. When I was a child I thought that marriage was about control. I thought that marriage was entrapment. It was only when I became older that I discovered that it was my parents who had an unhappy marriage. It was only when I was older that I started to understand that two people can love each other and be together—but at the moment it is only if you are a man and a woman. That is why this needs to change.

Marriage, once upon a time, was about property transfers. Marriage, once upon a time, was about ownership. Today it is not. Marriage has changed as we as a society have changed. That is why we need the Marriage Act to reflect today's society, to reflect today's opinions. That is the role of being a representative. It is to understand. It is to listen to the people, before the people, and amend the Marriage Act to reflect what the people believe the Marriage Act should reflect.

I want to share a few personal examples. My former workplace is going through a baby boom. Everyone is having babies! It is beautiful to catch up with them. They are all talking about vomit. They are all talking about baby names. There are five couples who have had babies in the last few months. One of those couples is married. Two other couples have decided not to get married—one had a life celebration, a commitment to each other; they still had the party. One other couple is engaged but they cannot get married. And the other couple has chosen not to get married.

Why I bring that up is because all of them are going through the same conversations. Their families are similar. These children will grow up together. But of the five couples, two couples have been denied a right. This is just one workplace. This is modern Australia. This is modern workplaces. They are celebrating the birth of their babies. They are excited. They are all new parents together. Yet two of those families are denied a right, the right for parents to choose whether they wish to get married or not.

A number of people have written to me and I want to place on the record a couple of their comments, in relation to marriage equality and the plebiscite. Jakob, organiser of the queer community group Friends Alike Bendigo, in central Victoria, called for the plebiscite to be blocked. He said: 'We’ve already seen what lifting the lid on a plebiscite results in, the kind of language and comments, the way in which my community is attacked.' The government has failed to explain how this bill will support my community to achieve marriage equality. It is about delaying an opportunity for my community to have the same rights as others.

Harry wrote to me and said: 'The right to marry is significant to my partner and me because it allows our relationship to be as valid as any other relationship and it celebrates the dignity of the love that we share.' Harry is, actually, Irish and spent most of his life in Ireland but now calls Bendigo home. It was reported that the Irish LGBTI helpline had almost 77,000 people access information and support during their debate. 'As the Irish nation debated the referendum,' Harry said, 'many LGBTI people sought support from the helpline to help cope with the intensity of having their lives in the public debate or to deal with negative attitudes expressed by family members or friends.'

What the government forgets is there are people at the centre of this. This is such a personal and deep issue for so many people. When I was growing up in the eighties and nineties people did come out, but it was hard to come out then. It has always been hard for people who are same sex to come out. This debate, if we go to a plebiscite, will make it even harder for young people. We do not want to go back to those days.

Harry continues: 'My community has fought for its rights for hundreds of years; homophobia and transphobia is no stranger to us,' and it is hurtful, particularly 'when it comes from the very people who are meant to protect us.' He said: 'I want to call on our elected representatives to get this job done; its time Australia.' It is time, Prime Minister, for you to be on the right side of history. Harry is right.

Graeme, who lives in Kennington, said:

My rights shouldn't be decided by the general population. My rights should be the same as everyone else's. I wish this wasn't still an issue. Let's get it done and get it over and done with. My partner recently came out and already feels like an outcast because of his honesty; this would take some of that pressure off for him, and for all of us who just want our equality to be recognized.

He said, 'We want to be equal.' Ann-Maree from Bendigo said, 'Let's just get this done! Let the people speak what is in their hearts. Love is love. Love will triumph.'

Early in the last term the Bendigo Catholic College visited me here at Parliament House. They asked me this question: 'Lisa, why don't we have marriage equality yet?' I said: 'Because we haven't had a free vote.' And they said: 'Well, we're going to have a vote.' They put the question to themselves—'Who here supports marriage equality?'—and every hand went up. Since then our large Catholic community in Bendigo has embraced this and said: 'We want to see our children have the same rights.' You know the community has shifted when people stop you in the street and say: 'I have three children. They are all in loving relationships. I can attend the wedding of two but not the third.' We heard the new member for Longman talk about how one of her sons does not have the same rights as her other sons.

It is time the government started to listen to the people and just get on with it. People in our community are over this debate because they want to see the government do what parliamentarians are elected to do. They know this is about their party room. They know this is about trying to keep together the unhappy marriage of the Liberals and the Nationals. There is no mandate to push forward with the marriage equality/same-sex marriage plebiscite because the numbers just are not there.

I would remind people in this place and in the other place about our Constitution and about the fact that it is up to all of us here to define the Marriage Act. Society has shifted on this issue, as it has done on so many issues. Society will always set the agenda for this place. It does come down to power and how power is being exercised. Pick any issue going back to when the Constitution was created and we have always had a situation where conservative, white middle-aged men have tried to control social issues. Whether it be women's right to choose or marriage, we have always had to stand up and fight for change.

To the LGBTI community in Bendigo I just want to say: 'Let's continue to stand together. Let's continue to rally and call for change.' This is one of those issues where through grassroots action, standing together and telling personal stories we will create change. We have done so in the past and we will again in the future. Marriage equality is personal. It is a right that people are seeking that their relationship be recognised by others. The right to be able not just to say 'I love you' but to commit to somebody under the Marriage Act should be afforded to all adults regardless of gender. This is an issue about rights. This is an issue about equity before the law. This is about saying to a group of Australians: 'We won't discriminate against you anymore.' This is about saying to Ann-Maree, Graeme, Jacob and Harry from my community: 'We recognise your rights and your relationship.' This is about saying to all the United Voice bubs: 'Your parents are equal and will have equal rights.'

See this speech in context