Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Today is a historic day. It is a day that this parliament is given a choice to end centuries of marginalisation of some Australians and make them full citizens for the first time. It is a day when we can choose to reaffirm the voluntary bond of marriage for the 21st century and encourage the commitment it provides to take individuals to form families as the foundation for community and nationhood. It is the day in this place when my party properly returns to its traditions and allows a free vote on a matter of conscience.

I will be supporting the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017, and I do so wholly acknowledging that the bill is not my first preference. My preference is, has been and always will be a bill that could only be delivered when those opposed recognised that public sentiment shifted against them over a decade ago and when those who advocated change respected that some people's views would never change, and both were accommodated in law. The former Prime Minister John Howard reminded me of my words from May 2014:

The primacy of the human right to freedom of worship should not be simply dismissed in pursuit of advancing the civil right to non-discrimination.

I still agree with that statement. It is one of the critical reasons the postal survey was not my first preference. Some took a 'stop change at all costs' approach, and the full costs now come with it. That was their choice, not that of those seeking change and not mine. My conscience is clear. The bill is a compromise on the political situation before us. My hope is that my party will reflect on this debate and learn from it. In an effort by some to prevent this parliament from confronting this issue, they have been prepared to discard numerous principles: parliamentary supremacy, representative democracy, our party's tradition of a free vote, fiscal prudence and free speech. I take great pride in being able to say that at every single occasion I stood up to defend our institutions, traditions and freedoms ahead of the politics of the day.

My focus has been and always will be on how we take our country forward together. Some of us are Liberals, real Liberals, living Menzies's address to his 1965 federal council that we are 'not the party of the past, not the conservative party dying hard on the last barricade', but one with 'a lively mind and a forward-looking heart'. We believe in conserving our culture and our institutions by shaping the future and bringing them forward to give life to one of our most important institutions and its relevance in the 21st century.

I take all people's freedoms seriously—very seriously. A free society does not seek to homogenise belief or conscience but instead affirms individuality and diversity and fosters tolerance and mutual respect. The choice that has always faced our country is whether we are a social democracy or a liberal democracy. Social democracies empower government and legislate permissible conduct. In a liberal democracy, we remove barriers to freedom, just as the bill before us today is doing. We are expanding the freedom to marry. The unlimited freedom of conscience is the freedom to hold and form opinions, religious or otherwise, and that is not inhibited by this bill. Freedom of speech is the freedom to express and communicate ideas and your conscience, and that is not inhibited by this bill. As all members know, I will always stand up against laws that make it unlawful to offend, when they arise. Religious freedom is the freedom to manifest your conscience. A person's faith does not end at the church door any more than sexual orientation ends at the bedroom door. They inform the fullness of a life, our character and our choices. Free speech and religious freedom have always been tempered by law to respect the rights and freedoms of others. They are not an unlimited licence. If you care about everyone's freedom, not just your own, the objective should be to enlarge the space for these freedoms—I always will and do.

The bill before us today is the answer to a simple question: should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry? This bill honours those who fought harder before us for less and those today who've had to fight for their equal place at this nation's table. It represents the opportunities of generations to come—the mature and adolescents—without unnecessary doubt. People like Edward Crossland, who grew up in the Goldstein electorate, who wrote to me saying, 'The recent debate has really made me question my validity as a person.' Edward, question no longer. Hayley, Katie and Ada, from Sandringham, wrote, 'I know you will understand when I say it has been hard, but it was particularly heartening to know that an overwhelming majority of our neighbours support us.' Yes, they do, Hayley, Katie and Ada. Dale Hardy and Steve Humphreys were going to get married in March at the UK consulate in Melbourne, but now they can be married in the nation they love—congratulations. It also affects families. I was reminded of this when I popped into netball in Hampton last Saturday when Kris Pierce told me lovingly of her uncle Kevin and his partner of 44 years, John, and how much she was looking forward to the ending of the silence of their relationship—the silence will end.

There's no point pretending that this isn't deeply personal. It is a journey that I started when I was 12-years-old; it was referenced in my first speech. Like so many others at 18, I confronted the choice before me about whether I should live my life honestly or not at all. I still remember my thoughts at that crucial moment: if you give in, they win. That moment followed years of self-inspired haunting doubt that was externally reinforced by the legacy of social, cultural and legal stigmatisation. I suspect many people find understanding these journeys difficult. It's so paralysing because you can't seek help from others. The people you should be able to turn to are the ones you fear speaking to the most because the cost of rejection is so high. As the Attorney-General remarked in another place, it can sometimes overcome. This bill rams a stake into the heart of that stigma and its legacy. If I could go back and tell that scared 18-year-old kid he'd be speaking here—surrounded by Trevor Evans and Trent Zimmerman, and also representing the party of his values with his partner, Ryan, in the gallery—on this bill, he wouldn't have believed me.

Ryan, I still remember the day all those years ago when we rose before the sun to watch a new day on One Tree Hill on Hamilton Island and I gave you the ring on our left hand and said, 'I don't know what this ring represents or means, but will you take it as a sign of my commitment?' Thankfully, the answer was yes. I also remember the bittersweetness of the days that followed. Anyone who has been engaged will know that moment in life: the joy amplified by the mutual celebration of others. Our friends were happy for us and with us. Always with an eye to the future, the member for Kooyong and his wife, Amie, sent flowers. But, when we told others, many simply didn't know how to react. Many SMSs were not responded to. In conversation, some people politely changed the topic or fell silent entirely. For a while, Ryan kept pushing for an engagement party. The truth was, I kept delaying it, perhaps wrongly, because the strong message I took from so many people's silence was that no-one would come. On informing one person of our news, they responded, 'Why bother?' At the time I fell silent, and I've never had an answer to that question, but the Australian people have now answered it for me. Our society doesn't have a tradition that communicates the seriousness and commitment of a relationship, except for marriage. It is a commitment between two people and held together by the love and expectation of families, friends and community. It is the foundation of our nation. And as my dear friend Paul Ritchie wrote in his book Faith, Love & Australia:The Conservative Case for Same-Sex Marriage:

Marriage strengthens society, mutual responsibility strengthens the social fabric and interdependence is the core of every community, the law should support and affirm the most important of human relationships - the person we choose to share our life with.

And he's right. My uncle recently asked whether, without a bride, my parents would still have to chip in for the wedding. Look on the bright side, Mum and Dad; you get to start a new tradition.

To the people of Australia: this debate was always about the type of country we want to be, and you own this moment. To the second love of my life, the people of Goldstein: when you charged me with your trust, you knew we would solve this debate together. You delivered the highest per capita participation rate in the nation and delivered a 76.3 per cent 'yes' response. Thank you for your tolerance, because now we can move on, together. To Tiernan Brady, Anna Brown, Janine Middleton, Tom Snow, Clint McGilvray and the many others who have worked tirelessly: thank you so much. To those in it for the long haul, particularly the staffers who worked for the government through this difficult process, such as Ben Bartlett and Luke Barnes as well as many others; to the Liberals and Nationals For Yes team, led nationally by Andrew Bragg, fronted by my dear friends Christine Forster and Virginia Edwards, and organised in the great state of Victoria by Rory Grant and David Kitchen: thank you so much.

To the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull: you found a pathway through the obstruction of those on both sides of this debate—and it was on both sides of this debate. This is a marker in your legacy, and that of the Attorney-General, the immigration minister and the finance minister: thank you. To my trusted confidante Alex Greenwich, who I'm very happy to see in the gallery today: Alex, we fought through and together on this debate when the public and so many of our contemporaries were against us, so no-one deserves more credit for this outcome than you—no-one.

I suspect the term was originally developed as a means to demonise, but the members for Brisbane, North Sydney and Leichhardt, who I'm very proud to have surround me today, as well as Senator Smith, can claim the title of 'rainbow rebel' as an exclusive moniker of courage and conviction. A heavy burden fell to us, and you have all lived lives of consequence, particularly you, Warren. Trev, Trent, Deano and I fought with our hearts because this debate chose us; you chose this debate because justice rests in your heart.

With the indulgence of the Speaker, the person I have to thank most is my partner, Ryan. You've had to tolerate more than most because you had to put up with me.

See this speech in context