Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I withdraw in the interests of proceeding with the debate, although I notice that's a term your own members use all the time in relation to the conservatives and it has been in the newspaper a lot. But, anyway, let's move on. As I was saying, in your brilliant way, you came up with the worst possible solution to the Prime Minister's spinelessness: an optional, Dolly-Doctor style, 'answer and tell us only if you want to' kind of quiz, to obstruct, delay and stymie.

The only silver lining to this mess is that the Australian people have stepped up wonderfully with a turnout rate around 80 per cent, which has given this whole sorry, shameful exercise sufficient validity to finish it now. This was not because Australians wanted to have their say, as the Prime Minister keeps waffling. The real scientific polls would suggest quite the contrary. People stepped up and sent back their surveys when we, the parliamentarians and the legislators, failed to do our jobs. I'm greatly relieved the national turnout was strong and that the people took charge when we failed them.

Senator Smith was absolutely correct when he described his own government's policy to hold a plebiscite on this issue as 'abhorrent'. A waste of $100 million, this weak, pathetic excuse for a Prime Minister called it 'an investment'. Yet, here we are, finally doing the work we were elected to do at a cost of $100 million just to get to the starting line and open the debate. This is only the financial cost. We heard at the outset that this would be a harmful and divisive debate. And so it came to pass. Sadly, the warnings of mental health impacts have been more than borne out with a reported surge and enormous spike in demand for mental health support for too many LGBTQI Australians and their families. For that we should all say sorry. Most especially, Senator Canavan, should say sorry for his callousness and lack of empathy—pretty much every time he opens his mouth. A touch of compassion, understanding and generosity would not have gone astray. Indeed, it would have been the decent, Christian thing to do, and people might dislike him a little less.

We heard that the debate would be disrespectful. I think most Australians conducted the debate about the definition of marriage quite respectfully. Most people put their views on the issue at hand sensibly, at least in my community from what I heard. I had many thoughtful conversations with many of my constituents and heard a wide range of views. The problem was the licence that this weak Prime Minister's quiz gave for all sorts of other vile rubbish. It is a pity most of the national 'no' campaign seemed to be about everything and anything but the actual question at hand. It is probably good the standing orders preclude us from reading into Hansard many of the horrible emails we all received. Probably the worst stuff was said about the children of our LGBTQI families.

But, truth be told, the primary reason for my strident and abiding opposition to this quiz is quite simply because this is not how we make laws in Australia and it is of no legal effect. The fact that we now have to have this parliamentary debate proves that. Under our Australian Constitution, this federal parliament has the power to legislate on this issue and the responsibility to do so. Mob rule is not how laws are made in a diverse, liberal, representative democracy like ours. The last time we tried plebiscites was in 1916 and 1917 on the issue of conscription. This tactic also divided the country, community and families.

I understand and share the euphoria and the relief of the 'yes' campaigners and my fellow LGBTQI Australians when the result was announced. I congratulate and applaud everyone who campaigned so hard, for having the strength of their convictions and for giving voice to their values. While I do believe that equality will ultimately win in Australia, the land of a fair go, change is not inevitable and is never easy. Change and equal rights are only secured through the efforts of social warriors like those who fought for this. I record my thanks and acknowledgement of the wonderful Tim Gartrell, who led the national 'yes' campaign and should be applauded for his work and commitment.

These people continue, and honour, the proud decades-long legacy of those who came before us fighting for decriminalisation and equal rights—as the member for Grayndler so elegantly articulated earlier today—drawing on the heritage of the '78ers, those who marched in the first Mardi Gras. That was not a celebration on TV; they were being pelted with rocks and eggs. I am not that old, but, not that long ago, homosexual acts were still criminalised in every part of Australia. It sounds ridiculous to modern ears, but, even worse, there are many Australians alive today who were born when, in some states, being gay was an offence still punishable by death.

There is not enough time today to explore the sad similarities between many of the conservative arguments run by the 'no' case—indeed, we heard some with the previous speakers—and the arguments that were put every single time the issue of equal rights came up in the past such as 'but that's just how things are' and 'it's against nature'. 'I have nothing against them but it's a slippery slope.' The same arguments were used years ago to oppose decriminalisation of homosexuality, interracial marriage, the abolition of slavery and women's right to vote. I am pleased the matter has been resolved decisively by the Australian people, and my vote will reflect that outcome. But I remain troubled by the dangerous precedent of 'the quiz', which I hope our nation never repeats. Who will be the next minority group you put to a vote? It is a very serious question that warrants careful, quiet reflection by so-called people of conscience. I hope we learn from this and Australia never does this again.

A few words are in order to acknowledge that the result of the quiz in my electorate was against the overwhelming national response. I love my electorate and I love my community. I have said numerous times that the human diversity in Bruce, especially the multiculturalism and the high percentage of first-generation migrants, is something I take daily delight in. I'm so proud to serve and represent my wonderfully diverse and caring community in this place. Of course, I know my community well and I'm not entirely surprised that the result of the quiz was a bit lower than the national vote. In significant part, there is a nationwide and decades-long established pattern that many first-generation migrants have fairly conservative views on some social issues. Bruce also is a little older age-wise than surrounding seats and the youth turnout was well below the average. These factors combined to produce a result lower than the national response—although, of course, many older people and many migrants voted and campaigned 'yes' in support of equality and we can't generalise too much. But the most common view I heard from people—from both those supportive and those opposed—was bemusement that the parliament couldn't just have a vote. And there was utter frustration that we were not dealing with what most people in my community perceive to be more important issues—jobs and the economy, the rising cost of living, the increasing taxation burden on PAYG taxpayers, fixing Medicare and the mess of the NBN.

I remember a conversation I had with a lovely woman at a community event. She had migrated from South Asia some years ago. She told me she would tick the 'no' box, consistent with her cultural tradition, although she wasn't overly fussed. She told me that, being from a developing country where there is enormous need and poverty, Australians, to her mind, seem downright crazy to be spending $100 million on this. I could not disagree with her. A common view regarding marriage I heard from many people who had nothing against gay people but feel strongly about the traditional definition of marriage was to ask why marriage must be legislated at all—why not have a common national civil union under the law, so that people are equal, and leave marriage to whatever institutions people want to deal with it according to their traditions and preferences? Personally, that is a view I have much sympathy for. But the reality is that the Constitution specifically empowers us to make laws with respect to marriage, and that is what we must do. Ultimately, this is a national issue and these are national laws. Like everyone here, I too feel bound to respect the overwhelming national support for marriage equality.

There is one other important point I want to make. I want to make it very clear, as I have done since the moment I was preselected to run for the seat of Bruce, that equality is a core and overriding principle that I am, and will be, guided by. In representing such a diverse community, I will always keep to my word and vote to back equality under the laws of Australia for everyone, every time, every day of the week. I do so now in this parliament on this matter, and I assure my constituents and this House that I will do so in the future should one part of our community ever suffer, or be at risk of, discrimination under Australian law. We are one of the most diverse nations on earth, and I don't believe that politicians should pick and choose on equality, including in relation to love and marriage. People love who they love.

Personally, I've never been married or desired marriage. My daughter was born when I was 22, and it was never a question then between her mum and I. I do quite like weddings, especially those that are palpably, tangibly filled with love, and I was at one, with my friends Daniel and Paula, trying not to drown in the rain in their backyard on Saturday night, surrounded by their kids. But this isn't about my personal choices. I believe my role as a legislator, as I said, is to ensure equality before the law of Australia so that people are equal, and free to make their own choices.

Finally, in relation to this bill, I've said consistently that I'd never support legislation that forces a religion to marry people against their tradition and that proper protections for religion are also important. Religious freedom is a serious topic which deserves proper consideration. The issues raised are much broader than marriage, which this bill deals with, and the bill before the parliament does not stop religious traditions or people of faith from expressing their view of marriage. We need to give careful thought, in a separate process, to what may be necessary, and I will carefully consider the outcomes of Philip Ruddock's panel next year. But we must not use this issue as a licence or pretext to expand discrimination.

Some in this debate are misusing the notion of religious freedom, confusing it with religious privilege, and also forgetting that freedom from religion is, for many people, just as important in the public sphere. I'm glad that the Prime Minister—I'll say this—found at least one vertebra and killed off Senator Paterson's self-promoting bill. It's astounding, though, that Senator Paterson even actually came up with it, and he'd do well to remember that this is the national parliament, where we make laws that impact on real people in the real world; it's not like a brainstorming session at the IPA right-wing lobby group where he, no doubt, excelled. We shouldn't really be surprised, I suppose, that that was his second notable contribution to public debate, following on from his stunning debut, where he proposed that we sell the national art collection and bank the proceeds! But anyway, that's enough.

This whole episode has diminished this parliament, and the Liberals should get no credit for it. As with the history of every other social reform where they happen to have been in government, they've been dragged kicking and screaming to it. 'Leading' to them means 'being the last one to act' when public opinion is overwhelming and the activists—mainly from our side—for decades have done all the hard work. But here they are. Liberal Party HQ should be sent a giant invoice for the cost of this quiz, kind of like the reverse of the old big cheques—remember the old big cheques that were so popular in yesteryear at launches and grant announcements?—and they should cough up $100 million and a big apology note.

But, as I said, I'm thankful—and I'll record that again in closing—that the Australian people have stepped in and stepped up when this parliament failed to do our job and that the people have expressed a clear, overwhelming view, which I respect and am now guided by. So I hope we get this done quickly so that those whom this change will affect—not many, in the scheme of the population—can live their lives the way they want to, and so that we in this parliament can then get on and actually deal with the many critical issues that demand our attention.

See this speech in context