Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016. I do not intend to dwell on the substantive question of same-sex marriage at any length. Those in my electorate know well that I made my position clear both before I was preselected in 2012, again before the general election in 2013 and, of course, subsequently, in the lead-up to the most recent election in 2016.

This is a matter on which decent people can differ. Just like the former Prime Minister and his sister have different views on this question, so too do I and my sister. Indeed, my sister has told me that if the plebiscite gets up she will forcefully campaign on behalf of the yes case. I suppose that is the point: through this mechanism we are seeking to provide an opportunity for decent people with different views to argue their case.

I think this parliament does its best work when it brings Australians together. The counter is not true: we do our worst work when we seek to divide Australians, when we take action which is divisive. So what has saddened me most deeply about this debate is that we have before us an opportunity to unite Australians on a very difficult question. We have an opportunity to unite Australians and to come to an outcome on which the 24 million Australians take some ownership.

I will unpack that a little. If we are to have a parliamentary free vote, which those opposite so vehemently argue for—I will mention that I am concerned about their motivation in that regard; I think it is born of base political advantage—but if we are to have that vote, I am very concerned that we will end up with a situation where very many Australians will not accept the legitimacy of that outcome. That has me concerned. On the other hand, if we have a national plebiscite vote where 24 million Australians are engaged in the political process—not 226 privileged politicians—then there will be a sense of ownership of the national outcome.

Those opposite are very quick to suggest that this is a non-binding process which will not bind those in this place. I say this: having asked the Australian people to cast their vote on this question, it would be folly for anyone in this place not to respect it. That is clear. So what we would have if we proceeded with this plebiscite is a process of ownership of this question by the Australian people.

If I could play it out: if we go through a plebiscite and the Australian people support a change and it is subsequently legislated in this place and across the way, then I am confident that those people who share my view—that is, that there is no need to change the definition of marriage in the Marriage Act—would accept that outcome, as they do every three years or so when those that support my particular brand of politics either win or lose in an election. It is accepted. There has been a exercise in democracy and there will be that sense of ownership. I am very concerned because we had created an architecture for a community vote which would have the effect of bringing our nation together on this very difficult question.

That is the first thing which has saddened me about this course. It is a massive lost opportunity to unite Australians on this difficult social question. The second thing that has saddened me—and it has saddened and hurt me most deeply—is the suggestion that we cannot have this debate because, by the nature of the debate itself, we will harm our fellow Australians. During the course of the recent election the candidates in my seat from the Xenophon team, the Greens and the Labor Party were very strong in suggesting that we simply cannot have this debate—Australians would not respect the nature of the debate and would participate in a debate which would ultimately be hurtful and harmful. On every occasion that I got the chance, I would indicate to my opponents that I had greater faith in the Australian people than they did. I thought that in this great country of ours we could have a debate like this in a respectful way. I would be the first person to shout down anyone arguing the no case who argued it from a position of discrimination or of making a hurtful attack on a fellow Australian. I would expect those opposite to do exactly the same with respect to anyone advocating the yes case in an inappropriate way.

What concerns me about the position we find ourselves in is that there is a suggestion now in the Australian discourse that, if the question is difficult—if there is the risk of harm in a debate—we simply should not have the debate. I think that is the first time I have heard this argument raised. A former Prime Minister would often say to us that the answer to a very bad argument is, of course, a very good one. The answer to a hurtful argument is, of course, a careful and respectful one. Others have made this connection, but I make this point: if we cannot have a debate on this question, which I began by saying is a difficult question on which decent people can differ, how are we going to have a national debate about the recognition of Australia's Indigenous peoples in the Australian Constitution? There will be people in this country who espouse racism and hate during that debate and it will be incumbent on every single Australian to shout down those arguments. But, if we are going to close down a debate because there is the risk of harm to Australians during the course of the debate, I think we will have closed off a whole section of civil political discourse that we can ever have in this country.

That brings me back to why that argument is used. That argument is used because those opposite do not want this question put to the Australian people right here, right now. They do not want it put to the Australian people because they are concerned about what the Australian people will say when they deliver their verdict on this question—and we should never run from democracy and we should take every opportunity to empower the Australian people, not disempower them. Either those opposite are scared of what the verdict might be or they see a political advantage in continuing this debate. If we are talking about harm to those in the LGBTIQ community, I think there is a lot more harm in dragging this debate out.

There is an advocate in my community on this question who is very high profile and very forthright. I met with her before we had adopted a policy of a plebiscite and said that I would support in the party room the idea of her casting a vote that would equal the value of my vote. She could cast her vote on 11 February next year. She and her long-time domestic partner could be married by March. But those opposite do not want that to happen. They see a political advantage in dragging this question out. They see an opportunity for Bill Shorten to enter the Lodge on the back of this question—on the back of the hurt that they are going to occasion the likes of my constituent over the next while, instead of the marriage that she could have in March were the question answered in the affirmative.

I think this is a really sad day for this place. It is a sad day for the democracy of this nation. We should all reflect on the fact that, with respect, none of our political careers are worth occasioning harm to people in our community.

See this speech in context