Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 that is before the House—a bill I strongly believe ought to be supported by all members of this House.

Up until this point, the path that we have taken as a government on this issue has been straightforward and reasonable. Following a deeply respectful and consultative party room meeting, the coalition took a promise to the last election to resolve this issue of same-sex marriage through a vote by all Australians in a national plebiscite. This is not just a narrowly targeted opinion poll, as some have called it—we have plenty of those. It is a detailed, comprehensive chance for all Australians to have their say.

Soon after 2 July, the result was clear: the coalition retained government and a plebiscite was part of the suite of policies that were endorsed by the Australian people. Now we have honoured that commitment that we made, with the introduction of this plebiscite bill and the release of an exposure draft of the proposed legislative amendments to the Marriage Act.

As the secretary of the coalition's backbench committee on legal affairs, I have witnessed the consultative, respectful and thought-through process that has taken place in constructing both the bill we are debating today and the exposure draft to change the Marriage Act. This part of the process has been rightly straightforward. But, as many of us on both sides of this House are aware, the issue itself is certainly not straightforward. Despite attempts by advocates to take this issue hostage, there is a desperate need to have a conversation that goes well beyond the narrow scope that we have seen so far, to capture the full and far-reaching implications of changing the Marriage Act.

Changing the definition of marriage is not simple, because it alters what is possibly one of the most fundamental cornerstones of life as we know it. There are a number of deeply significant and foundational questions that still need to be socialised with the Australian people—questions that I will raise today and which I believe have not been publicly canvassed in a way that enables fulsome and proper debate on what marriage is or even what it should be.

Redefining marriage is not something we should just get on with and not a decision to take simply because other countries have done it or it is a 'gentle evolution of marriage'. Put simply, changing the definition of marriage would be to change the very nature of marriage itself. I acknowledge that there are people and organisations on all sides of this issue—for and against same-sex marriage, for and against a plebiscite—who are passionate and committed and who have deeply held personal views on both the substance of the debate and the process by which it will be decided. I respect those views. But, sadly, it is hard to respect the Labor Party's approach to this issue. By refusing to acknowledge the decency of the Australian people and their ability to have a respectful debate, Labor has cynically played politics with this most important issue by opposing the plebiscite bill. In doing so, Labor has rejected the wishes of the Australian people to resolve the issue by plebiscite and simply refused to deal with the government in good faith.

Standing up for fundamental principles is not entirely easy, especially when the debate has turned from the substance of the issue at hand—allowing same-sex couples to marry—to the process, namely a plebiscite to determine the outcome. That is what we are debating: an actual process. Having spoken with hundreds of people in my electorate, it is sad to see that even Labor representatives on the Central Coast, such as the Labor senator for New South Wales Deborah O'Neill, have failed to stand up for their convictions and principles on same-sex marriage. Back in 2011 the then Labor member for Robertson took a very strong view to the New South Wales Labor conference. The Sydney Morning Herald reported at the time that Ms O'Neill said people who were opposed to gay marriage, like herself, were unfairly maligned as bigoted, intolerant or homophobic. Ms O'Neill put on the record that the Marriage Act should only unite a man and woman.

Regardless of culture, time or place—

she said—

the organic nature of the family unit that is the natural consequence of the union of a man and a woman is a key social unit …

She said it is on this unit that 'the state of society is built'. Ms O'Neill said, as quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald:

It is a commonly held position in the broad Australian community.

Yet in an interview on ABC Central Coast radio last week the now Labor senator for New South Wales refused to stand on these principles and would not discuss her own view about this vital issue. Instead, she sharply criticised the government's plebiscite, which she described as an 'unnecessary conversation and a glorified opinion poll'. It is another clear example of Labor playing politics with this very serious issue. My question to Senator O'Neill and the Labor Party is: what is so unnecessary about having this important conversation? What is so unnecessary about a clear and democratic path to resolving the issue of same-sex marriage? Why is it wrong to allow the Australian people to be heard? Perhaps it is because Labor did nothing to progress same-sex marriage during their six years in government.

It is deeply concerning when we see somebody who took such a public and principled stand, as Senator O'Neill did just a few short years ago, back down and retreat to the cynical Labor talking points. In the same-sex marriage debate these talking points, like 'marriage equality' and 'love is love', tug at the heartstrings. They certainly tug at my heartstrings. They are designed to lead you down a path to what advocates say is the only logical and morally right conclusion. The result, of course, is an attempt to make the question so persuasive that there can only be a single answer—broadly, that same-sex marriage is all about love, equality and wedding bells. Alternative viewpoints have been shut out and disregarded as irrelevant before they have even been debated, tested and weighed.

But digging deeper into this issue reveals that changing the definition of marriage actually requires us to ask more questions. The way that the same-sex marriage debate has unfolded means we are left to tackle more and more slogans, in particular from the Labor Party, most recently that a plebiscite would be 'expensive and divisive'. I would like to suggest that the expense and the argument are potentially the price of democracy—the chance to hear the voice of the Australian people. It does cost money, yes, but I see this as an opportunity cost. As the Prime Minister said, what price do we place on democracy? We have the claims that a plebiscite will be divisive and will fuel hostility. With respect to members opposite, isn't the heat in this debate the very reason we should have a full and proper conversation before a decision is made? If there is more to say, what could be more necessary than a carefully considered structure to hear these views?

What if for a moment, as part of this debate, we dared to think through other possible implications of a fundamental change to the definition of marriage? What if it were about more than 'love'? What if it were also the question of a legacy for our children, our grandchildren and the generations that follow? What if we carefully thought through the implications of changing a social framework for families and the raising of children—our next generation? To take this further, what if we had a genuine conversation about the generational implications for the upbringing of children in changing the definition of marriage? What if we dared go even further and asked ourselves: 'Does this matter?' That is not 'Does this matter for ourselves?' of course, because the ones who want to make this decision are grown, consenting adults; it is: 'Does this matter for children—for our children and their children—beyond just the legal recognition of their parents' relationship?'

As we know, families today are not just nuclear families that reflect the so-called traditional marriage framework but also single-parent, same-sex and blended families living in towns and cities and on farms right around our country. Given this reality, is the current definition of marriage even relevant today?

I would argue that it absolutely is. Regardless of whether you are married, a de facto couple, a single parent or a same-sex couple, in my view the institution of marriage exists as a reference point for families.

I believe it works as a reference point or a framework that recognises that children, where possible, need a mother and father or a mother and father figure to help them best make sense of who they are as they grow. It is a framework that has existed for centuries now and a framework that works well, even in a society where marriage is no longer the only family structure where children are raised. That is because it actually means that regardless of what type of family you belong to, there still exists a reference point in law that states the significance of a male role model and a female role model for children. Does this no longer matter? Does gender in marriage—or degendering marriage—if you like, no longer matter? I think it does matter.

But even if I am wrong and even if gender and mother and father role models are no longer of any consequence, the current narrow definition that we have been hearing—that marriage is just about love and equality—provides little opportunity for us to be able to explore the full personal and social consequences of changing the Marriage Act. I read a recent article from Michael Pascoe in Fairfax Media online. He claimed in a so-called open letter to backbenchers that we could 'make our mark in history' by crossing the floor to vote to bring in same-sex marriage. My response to Mr Pascoe—and others who claim that we should just get on with our job—is that I would hope all of us in this government, regardless of whether we personally support same-sex marriage or not, consider support for the plebiscite as much as a matter of personal integrity as party policy.

In the name of deeply held Liberal views about true democracy, freedom and courage of our convictions, I believe we are, in fact, leaving a mark by being prepared to stand up for free speech and free thought and to be prepared to risk a outcome in order to encourage an open and democratic debate. If the Australian people vote yes in a plebiscite, marriage will be changed forever. But in doing so, the nation will have fully worked through the implications of such a fundamental change, rather than having this change foisted upon us because we were too frightened to broaden the debate in a respectful, considered way.

Paul Kelly highlighted many of these issues in The Australian. In November last year, Mr Kelly wrote that:

The consequences far transcend the definition of marriage itself. Same-sex marriage is provoking an upheaval about freedom of conscience, religious liberty and the norms that govern our democratic discourse.

He said:

For Australia and its alleged open spirit of debate, this is an unprecedented situation. It reveals an aggressive secularism dressed in the moral cause of anti-discrimination justice but with a long-run agenda that seeks to transform our values and, ultimately, drive religion into the shadows.

Reading these words made me consider that this debate on both the plebiscite and the issue of same-sex marriage will be a mark of our maturity as a nation. I commend the bill to the House, and urge the Labor Party to do the same.

See this speech in context