Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy Speaker, as I am sure you are aware, I have long been a strong advocate for marriage equality—and I think it is just that: a matter of equality. I do find that the current situation, where the Marriage Act explicitly demands that marriage can only be between a man and woman, is legislated discrimination. We have indeed come a very long way to deal with legislated discrimination in this country, but the Marriage Act still stands out as a glaring example and one that this parliament could fix and fix very quickly.

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you would also be aware that I have long been very critical of a plebiscite and in particular of the way this plebiscite has been proposed, as a non-binding opinion poll. I think it is the case that a plebiscite would be a very divisive moment in our nation's history, and it would be very costly. I have heard figures of up to $200 million. I would have only supported a plebiscite if it had genuinely been the only pathway to marriage equality, but, of course, we have another pathway available to us right now, and that is a parliamentary vote. So long as we have that other pathway to marriage equality, that is where I will put my support.

I am respectful of those people who would disagree with me. There are many Australians who do not want the Marriage Act changed. There are many Australians who passionately believe—they have a heartfelt belief—that marriage must remain only between a man and a woman. I respect that and I respect what they have to say, but I disagree with them. I disagree with the opponents of marriage equality in a number of ways. It is simply not the case that a public debate would be respectful. Unfortunately, there are what I will characterise as people with perhaps overly strong, even extreme, views on both sides of the argument who would cross the line and act in ways or say things which would be improper. Because I am a strong advocate for marriage equality, I suppose that is why I am on the receiving end of some of that commentary from people who oppose marriage equality. There has been a lot of correspondence to my office—a lot of emails, letters and phone calls from people who would say things like, 'Homosexuals are deviants,' or, 'Bringing in marriage equality would put us on a slippery slope to bestiality,' and all sorts of other bizarre arguments are made.

It is simply not the case that we can have any confidence that a public debate would be respectful. It is simply not the case that marriage has always been between a man and a woman. We seem to have forgotten in this debate that the Marriage Act was only changed as recently as 2004 during the period of Prime Minister John Howard. So, in other words, up until 2004 the federal Marriage Act did not explicitly require that marriage be between a man and a woman. So to say that the Marriage Act has always been the way it is is just not right. It is just incorrect, because in 2004, not with a plebiscite but with a simple bill through this place, the Marriage Act was changed.

It is simply not the case that we are like Ireland and that, like Ireland, it needs to be decided by the people. The fact is: because of Ireland's constitutional framework, genuinely the only pathway to marriage equality was indeed a popular vote by the people. But in our case it is not something that is addressed by the Constitution. It is something which is only covered in the Marriage Act, which is the work of this parliament—to make such an act, to amend that act as it did in 2004 and to amend it again, as it might do in 2016.

It is simply not the case that to not have a plebiscite would be undemocratic. While I respect the argument that is made by people who say that, I disagree with them. I think they are wrong. The fact is we are a representative democracy, not a participatory democracy. In other words, it is our job. When we are elected it is our job to come into this place and to represent our community. That is the way our democratic system works in this country. It is simply not a part of our system that we would routinely—or very often at all—go back to the public to find out what they think, because they have already told us what they think by electing us to come to Canberra and to represent them. We do not have a plebiscite before we declare war. We did not have a plebiscite in 2004 to change the Marriage Act. It is a very, very rare thing. That is because it is simply not part of our democratic system. We are, as I say, a representative democracy; we are not a participatory democracy.

It is not the case that the government must do nothing if it cannot deliver on its election promise of a plebiscite. The fact is political parties and candidates make all sorts of promises before an election—hopefully, in good faith; I certainly do. There is no doubt that the members of the Liberal and National parties promised in good faith that there would be a plebiscite. But if you cannot deliver on an election promise for a legitimate reason, then it is our job to find another pathway. For example, with superannuation reform, the members of the Liberal and National parties in good faith went to the election and promised there would be a particular set of changes to superannuation in this country. But the parliament formed; the numbers were clear, both within the government and between the government, the opposition and the crossbench, and it was clear that that reform could not be delivered as promised. So another pathway was chosen. So, too, in this case. The government made that promise in good faith, but it will not be able to deliver on that promise, it seems, so it needs to find another pathway. Politics is about the art of the possible. It is not about running into a roadblock and stopping dead in your tracks. It is about finding a way around the roadblock—finding a another pathway. Of course, a vote in this place this year is that obvious other pathway.

It is simply not the case that this matter is about children. I have noticed that the opponents of marriage equality are, more and more, bringing their part of the debate back to children. They are creating this impression that, if we have marriage equality, gays and lesbians will start caring for children and having children, and that would be bad for children. What the whole line of argument completely and utterly misses is that in this country currently there are thousands upon thousands of children being brought up in same-sex families. Indeed, when I look at the 2011 Census figures there were 6,300 children of same-sex couples. That was five years ago. Interestingly, that figure in 2011 was much greater than the Census before that. We can, I think, quite reasonably make the judgement that the figure is growing strongly and that this year's Census will show an even much greater figure. When you consider that this is one of those sorts of things which would tend to be underreported, I would go so far as to say that the number of children of same-sex couples in this country now is multiple that 6,300 that were identified five years ago. In other words, regardless of whether or not we change the Marriage Act, there are already many thousands of children of same-sex couples and there will continue to be many thousands of children of same-sex couples. So the debate about the plebiscite, the debate about whether or not to change the Marriage Act, has nothing to do with children—nothing at all.

I refute in the strongest possible terms this argument that is sometimes made that gays and lesbians are bad parents, or would be bad parents. That is just simply not the case. Unless children come through previous relationships, if a gay or lesbian couple want to have a child it is, obviously, not something that can happen by accident. It is something that they have to put a large amount of thought and effort into to make it happen. In my experience, gays and lesbians generally make very good parents. In fact, a woman I know who I would even go so far as to say is the best mother I know is in a lesbian relationship.

It is not about whether children are in a family with heterosexual parents or a family with same-sex parents; it is about whether or not it is a loving family and whether or not all their needs are being met. That is what matters. We have many excellent heterosexual parents and some dreadful heterosexual parents. We have many wonderful gay and lesbian parents and some dreadful gay and lesbian parents. It is not about whether the parents are heterosexual, gay or lesbian. It is about whether they are good parents, whether they love their children, whether they create a loving environment for their children, whether all the needs of their children are met. That is what matters.

I would go further and say a parent does not even have to be part of a couple. There are some wonderful single mums out there who are doing a great job. There are some dreadful single mums out there doing a terrible job. There are some wonderful single dads out there doing a great job, and there are some dreadful dads out there doing a lousy job. It is not about the relationship. It is not about whether they are heterosexual parents, gay parents, lesbian parents or single parents. It is about whether or not they love their children. That is the only thing that matters. And I make the point again: there are already gay and lesbian parents and there will continue to be gay and lesbian parents. That has nothing to do with whether or not the Marriage Act is changed.

I will talk raw politics for a moment. The pathway that I keep referring back to is obviously one of the private member's bills that are before the House. The Labor Party, to their credit—and I do not think it is politics by the Labor Party; I think it is well intentioned—have a private member's bill, and there is a crossbench private member's bill. When this plebiscite is dead and buried, for the life of me, I will not be able to understand why at least a few government members would not cross the floor and support that crossbench private member's bill to suspend standing orders to bring that bill on for debate, to put the question and decide the matter this year. Now, sure, while the coalition party are still pursuing a plebiscite, let them continue to pursue the plebiscite. I do not begrudge them that. But, when the plebiscite is dead and buried and there is only one pathway open to the government, I would suggest to honourable members of the government that at least a few of you do the right thing and support the bill and bring it on.

If you are in this place for policy outcomes, if you are in this place in the pursuit of the public interest, then that is what you will do. If you are in this place just because you are another party hack who got elected because you are party hack, and you come in here and are happy to take the gold coin but, at the end of the day, only care about your self-interest or your political party's interests, then so be it—but you are letting the public down. But I do not think that will be the case. I think there are enough good men and women, people of good heart, in the government who, when the plebiscite is over, or when the matter of the plebiscite is finished, will see the sense in supporting us on the crossbench and dealing with the matter.

Some people say that, if they do that, that will bring about the destruction of the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. It will not bring about the destruction of the Prime Minister. In fact, it could be the saving of the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister, to his credit, is sticking to his election promise. I do not agree with it. But, to his credit, the Prime Minister is sticking to his election promise. When he cannot deliver on his election promise, if a few of his party cross the floor and help us bring on a private member's bill, he will still have been true to his word. We will get the reform in the public interest, and then the matter will be finished and we can all move on. It may well be the saving of Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull. It is at least the least bad course of action that he might confront.

Deputy Speaker Mitchell, thanks for letting me have my say. I will obviously not support this plebiscite. I will continue to prosecute the case for a vote in this parliament and I will continue to lobby members of the government to support the Labor bill or perhaps, more likely, the crossbench private member's bill.

See this speech in context