Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to contribute to this debate. I want to start by thanking the 83,194 people within the electorate of Dickson who took part in the electoral process. It was an important democratic process, and I pay tribute to those people who voted, yes or no. In the end, my electorate recorded a high 'yes' vote of 65.2 per cent, which compared with 61.6 per cent overall and the 60.7 per cent vote in Queensland. I want to pay tribute also to the 7.8 million people who, across the country, voted yes and the 4.8 million people who voted no. There is no moral high ground in this debate, and we shouldn't be chastising the 4.8 million people who, we recognise, have firmly-held beliefs and have voted no in this plebiscite; we recognise the value of their vote and their opinion, and they are not diminished through this process at all.

I want to make just a couple of points on what obviously has been an emotive debate over a long period of time. I can remember, going back to the Howard government days, debates within the party room and within the ministry around the issue of the prospect, at least, of changing the definition of marriage, and, in my judgement, from the moment when the Abbott government took the decision to ask the Australian people about whether or not a change should take place, it was obvious to me that the public would support a change in the definition of marriage, and so it followed. I pay tribute to my colleagues, both within cabinet and across the party, for the grace with which they've conducted themselves in this debate. It is an emotive debate. People have held strong views for a long period of time, but I think the fact that people have been able to respect those differences and contribute to the debate is a great credit to each of them.

I acknowledge what has been an important process through the postal plebiscite, which was contentious to start with but necessary, in my judgement. I thank those people who were in favour and those who were against such a process. We had a number of conversations with people, but, in the end, it resulted in 11 million or 12 million people plus voting and having their voices heard in this debate. Had we had a parliamentary vote where several of our colleagues had crossed the floor in a five-minute-to-midnight move, it would have been a bad outcome for the government and a false start to this change in social policy. Given that an overwhelming number of Australians have voted in favour of the change, it gives a legitimacy that would not otherwise have existed had a parliamentary vote taken place. For any important social change, whether you're in favour of or against that change, it is important for the Australian public to know that the process has been a proper one, that the majority have been heard and that those people that have conducted themselves during the course of the debate have ultimately had the ability to cast their vote. I made it very clear during the course of this debate that I would vote no during the plebiscite but I would vote for the bill in parliament if a majority of Australians voted yes, and that's what I will do. I believe that if we proposed a democratic process—and I pushed very hard for the postal plebiscite—we should adhere to the outcome of that vote. That is what the government has undertaken and that is what we are in the process of delivering.

It is important that further protections be provided within this bill. I will support sensible protections that are being proposed. I pay tribute to a number of my colleagues, including Senator Seselja, Michael Sukkar, Andrew Hastie and others from the Senate and this place for the courage they have demonstrated in relation to this debate. There have been a lot of critics around whether we have been active enough in the 'no' campaign or in the subsequent process. I'll leave that for others to comment on, but I pay tribute to those colleagues and thank them for having the courage of their convictions and for working through that process. It is very hard to see how those protections can survive the vote in this House, as was the case in the Senate. The fact is that on a good day, as we know, we have a one-vote majority in the lower House and, given the circumstances of this debate, where Labor—shamefully, in my judgement—has bound its members to a position of not supporting amendments, it makes it near impossible for that vote to get up. Nonetheless, the debate will continue over the course of the next 48 or 72 hours or so. Perhaps there is some prospect, but in this business we face the reality of arithmetic, and that is the reality in this parliament, which, given our one-seat majority, is what led to the plebiscite.

I pay tribute to colleagues, including Trevor Evans, the member for Brisbane; Warren Entsch; Tim Wilson; and others on the other side of this debate, who had a very passionate view and prosecuted their argument. I thought that during our discussions with them around the plebiscite they conducted themselves in an honourable way, and I acknowledge that. It is the case that, as I said in my opening remarks, the definition of marriage was always destined for change when the Abbott government took a decision to go to a plebiscite. The Labor Party and Mr Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, had been opposed to change for a long period of time. Julia Gillard, the former Prime Minister and Leader of the Labor Party, had been opposed to any change to the definition of marriage, and Labor had done nothing to change the law or introduce same-sex marriage during the six years of their time in government. Mr Shorten, of course, has now flipped his position and has, remarkably, claimed credit for the outcome, even though he was quite a passive participant in it.

The decision having been made to go to a plebiscite process, it's hard in this country to carry a debate or, in this case, to see a successful 'no' case prosecuted when, essentially, this argument distilled down to one of religious belief. Much of the argument around children of same-sex couples has been dealt with and legislated for by state governments over the last decade or so. When this distils down to a question of religious belief or practice, the case remains that it is difficult to prosecute that particular argument when even the churches were absent from the argument or, in many cases, were advocating a case for change of the definition, including Jesuit priests in Sydney. That's the reality of the debate.

I believe very strongly that the postal plebiscite was the right judgement. It was the right decision for this government, and the number of people who turned out—the number of people who have had their say in a peaceful democratic process—was very important. We embrace social change when it happens and that's the job of this parliament. There have been social changes and changes to legislation that people have agreed with or not, and election outcomes that people have agreed with or not, but, in the end, we abide by the outcome that the people provide. I congratulate those people who have been involved in the 'yes' case, some of whom I mentioned in my earlier remarks, and acknowledge the work that they've done to achieve an outcome that they saw fitting.

I don't think there will be success around the level of protection that is required to enhance this bill. It's not a frustrating process, in the sense of delaying the passage of this bill through the parliament, but I do think it would be improved if we had additional safeguards in place—sensible safeguards and safeguards that I believe that people would, in the majority across the country, support. If they gave proper contemplation to what is being proposed over the course of the next couple of days, I do believe that Australians would support those safeguards. It's why it is important for us to have another process, which—and I can understand the arguments for and against this—the Prime Minister has announced will be led by Phillip Ruddock and will report back next year, because I think there is a proper debate to be had in this country around religious protections, around parental protections and around parents being able to have a say about how their children are taught, particularly if they make a decision to send them to an independent school. I think it's important for us to respect, even if we don't share the same Christian values or beliefs, people's right to practise their religious belief unhindered. Out of the shadow of the marriage debate, once this law has passed and once this question has been settled, we'll have a greater chance of success next year because people, including the churches, will be able to advocate for this position, not in the context of the debate surrounding same-sex marriage but in a fresh light, and I think that is important because those protections are necessary. This debate—this trend; this vilification—is heading in one direction. We need to, as many other democracies have where same-sex marriage has been legislated for a long period of time, have religious protections in place. We need protections because the fundamental belief structures are what underpin our society. Our success as a human race and our civilisation depend upon those pillars going forward. It is incumbent upon us, in the new year, to have a more sophisticated debate than we've been able to have in relation to the protections aspect in recent months, and I think that is important. It's a process that I will support.

I hope that some of the protections that are being proposed by honourable members are successful in this place, but, as I say, the arithmetic, in my judgement, dictates otherwise. This is an important debate to continue, and I think it has greater success of public traction, of greater understanding within the public's mind and of greater contemplation of the complexities that have been proposed, the difficulties that we seek to address and the attacks that we seek to neutralise during the course of debate next year. I think that is incredibly important. I said at the start that my intention is to vote yes on this bill, and I commit to that again tonight

See this speech in context