Susan Templeman (Macquarie, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a privilege to be able to speak on this matter and, after many years of discussions within my community, to now be able to bring those thoughts to the chamber. In theory, having a public, mass vote on something is a nice idea. I can understand why people have been attracted to it. It sounds democratic. It sounds logical to give one vote one value—something New South Wales Liberals still seem to be struggling with! But it does sound sensible until you think about the months of campaigning that it would trigger. When you think about that, you realise that the concerns about the impact the debate will have on members of the LGBTQI community, their families and their friends—in other words, all of us—you have to say no to a plebiscite.

In my inaugural speech, like many others on my side and just as many on the other side, I spoke of the need for this parliament to tackle mental health issues. That, for me, becomes a really fundamental issue when thinking about a plebiscite. Let us look first at what children who live in same-sex parent families have said. The message they have been giving me is, 'Don't make us feel different.' Growing up is already a struggle. Having one more thing that singles you out as being in some way different from the majority can be really tough. Like many Labor MPs, I met Eddie when his family came to visit parliament a few weeks ago, as part of the Rainbow Families connection. He explained to me that—having experienced bullying previously, having changed schools and now being really happy in a new school—he did not think he deserved to be made to feel different or have extra attention put onto his two mums. Eddie's story is obviously very compelling, and I congratulate him for speaking out and coming and meeting with us.

My visitors that day also included Blue Mountains same-sex families. While in my electorate we live in a very harmonious community, these families are always aware of the dangers for their children in being singled out. And that is the thing—it only takes a tiny minority of people to do shocking harm and psychological damage to others. Clearly, there have been comments about children being raised in same-sex marriage in this chamber. For me, it is really important that every child has the best chance to be in a loving, secure family situation. I am very pleased we were able to listen to those who were most impacted, and I would like to think that Eddie's words have been heard. I should add that I am bit uncomfortable standing here as any sort of judge on the way anyone else raises their children. It is one of the most difficult things to do and to do well, and I think most of us do the very best we can.

If people could read some of the emails that my office has received and I have personally read and responded to—although there are some where I have chosen not to respond, and it is not a majority and not many of them come from my own electorate—they would have a better understanding of the reservations and fears that we have, not just about having a debate but about funding that debate. I listened to the member for Denison as he quoted some of the hurtful things that have already been said about same-sex marriage and same-sex families, and I commend him for putting those on the record. I will choose not to repeat those things. I am reluctant to repeat them, because they are so hurtful.

I know not everyone has the same view on marriage equality or on the plebiscite. Recently, at the Bilpin flower show, I met a cross-section of my electorate's LGBTQI community. It is a very small community in Bilpin, only around 2,000 people. Among them is Miranda Fair, a drag queen whose floral headdress is a feature of the opening of this community flower show. I met Miranda and several other individuals and couples who wanted to speak with me about the plebiscite. Not everyone asked me to oppose the plebiscite. I said to them all what I have written and said to many of my constituents: the dangers of the damage that a debate about same-sex marriage could bring outweigh any other arguments in favour of it.

Ken and Tony are residents of the upper Blue Mountains and they have previously been mentioned in this place by the Leader of the Opposition. They have a long, committed relationship and they want the chance to marry. When Ken urgently needed a kidney transplant, his partner was able to give him one, but he cannot have his partner's hand in marriage. They do not see a plebiscite, though, as the best way forward. Again, this is a couple living in a very harmonious and accepting community, but they fear the consequences of a plebiscite.

We have heard a lot about how well the Irish plebiscite went, so I was particularly grateful for the research that was partly funded by Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays Australia, which gave us some tangible data on what actually happened in Ireland. It is very hard for us, from a distance, to judge what it is like on the ground there. I was interested to note that the survey of more than 1,600 Irish LGBTI people found that only a minority of the respondents would have been prepared to face the referendum again if they did not know it would achieve a successful outcome.

The impacts are actually scarier than that. As the first study of the negative social and psychological impacts of the 'no' campaign in Ireland, it found that 75 per cent of participants often or always felt angry when they were exposed to campaign messages from the 'no' campaign before the referendum. It found that 80 per cent felt upset by the 'no' campaign materials and two-thirds felt anxious or distressed. You have to wonder why, knowing the sorts of impacts that the referendum had, we would deliberately choose to go down a path that would create more anxiety and distress for people. Even more telling, younger LGBTI people scored lower on psychological wellbeing compared with older people, including feeling anxious and afraid.

I had a conversation at the Bilpin flower show with one gentleman who just wants marriage equality. It does not matter to him what has to happen to get there. But, as I said to him, he and I are not young; we are probably able to have a robust discussion and not have any consequences as a result of it. I asked him to think about himself as a teenager or a young man trying to work out his sexuality and struggling with coming out: would it have been as easy for him back in those days?

The importance of this survey is that we do have data. When asked if they were prepared to face a referendum campaign again, 30 per cent of people gave positive answers, 15 per cent were undecided and the majority, 54.5 per cent, responded negatively. In fact, the largest single group, 36 per cent, said they would be 'not at all happy' to have to go through a campaign again.

In terms of the fear that people have about the consequences of a funded damaging debate, this argument cuts both ways. I spoke to the mother of a young man who is studying to be a minister. She is equally concerned about the divisive debate. Her concern is: what will people say about her son, who has his own views about marriage equality? Will he also be vilified in some way? I think we always have to talk about what might happen as a result of the minority but might affect the majority.

At this point I would like to make clear that I do believe in marriage and I certainly believe in same-sex marriage. For me, it is very simple. I have two children, both in their 20s, neither married. I wish for them the long-term, stable relationship that I have had—I have been married for nearly 30 years. They have seen the importance of that marriage; that the civil bond helps bring our society some stability. No, it is not for everybody. I am equally respectful of people who can maintain long relationships without the bonds of marriage. But I want my children to have a choice. Should they decide to marry someone of the same sex—should that be the person they fall in love with—I want them to have the same sort of long-term relationship that so many of us do. I do not think it matters which sex they choose to marry. What matters is that they find someone they want to be committed to. For me it is very simple. I put my 'mum' hat on and say: what do I want for my children? I am not sure why it is so hard for some people to see it that way but I do respect that there are a range of views. In particular I respect that for some people their position is tied to their religion. That is why I completely agree that, on the issue of marriage equality, churches should be able to make their own decisions about whether they marry same-sex couples within their church.

Let us return to the issue of the plebiscite. There are so many practical reasons why we do not need a plebiscite. John Howard did not have one when he change the Marriage Act in 2004. It is hard to see why, when you have changed the original piece of legislation, a change back should require a different sort of process. No other form of discrimination has required a plebiscite. We have not needed one when we were changing legislation to ensure that women could not be discriminated against, to ensure that old people could not be discriminated against and to ensure that people of other nationalities could not be discriminated against, so I do not see why we need one here. This is a human rights issue.

Another practical reason why we do not need a plebiscite is that polls have already shown that people do want marriage equality. That is really all this is: a great big opinion poll. Why do we need another opinion poll, particularly one that is going to have the price tag that this one does and particularly when the outcome will not be binding on anybody? We have already heard that there are a number of people who have said they will not be swayed by the findings of a plebiscite and that they will perhaps be more interested in what happens in their own electorates than what happens at the national level or more interested in what happens in one state than what happens in another. It is very hard to argue the need for a $200 million hit to the budget for a plebiscite that no-one has to be bound by.

More importantly, we are a representative democracy and we simply do not need a plebiscite legislatively. We actually need to do the job that we are paid to do, which is to make decisions and legislate. That is why we should be having a vote in this chamber. The issue of marriage equality and the issue of the plebiscite were very well explored in the lead-up to the most recent election, but we have only just been elected. I think we, as local members, are incredibly informed about how our community feels. In my electorate in particular, the Blue Mountains Regional Business Chamber is very supportive of marriage equality. They see that this is actually an opportunity for them and have established a pink chapter. They hope that marriage equality becomes law soon so that the Blue Mountains can become a place not just for opposite-sex couples to get married but for same-sex couples to get married. It has to be one of the most beautiful places to have your wedding.

In Mental Health Month, we really need to ask ourselves why we would consider deliberately spending money to do damage to people for something that simply does not need to happen. I can think of some pretty obvious places for that $200 million to go. Interestingly, $200 million is the same amount of funding that is used to keep 100 headspace sites operational for a couple of years. They are sites that are designed to help young people who are feeling anxiety, depression or some other form of mental ill health. It is a place where they can go and get help. That would be a much better place to be spending this money than on a plebiscite.

See this speech in context