Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

It's time for us to get on with it. The Australian people have said yes to marriage equality, yes to fairness, yes to commitment, yes to love. The time has now come to make that equality a reality.

This is momentous social reform, and the road to this day has been long and arduous. It is littered with injustice dealt out to men and women who dared to confess their love. Not so long ago, homosexuality was a crime in this country. Slowly—too slowly—parliaments and the people have changed their attitudes to gay men and women and extended basic rights. Homosexuality was decriminalised. Gay Australians were allowed to serve in the military. It was 47 years ago that Lucy's father, Attorney-General Tom Hughes, created a scandal which saw his preselection challenged in Berowra when he argued that homosexual acts should no longer be crimes. How times have changed.

Throughout my time in public life, whether in government or in opposition, I have sought to ensure that same-sex couples are not discriminated against and that their entitlements, be they in respect of medical benefits, taxation, superannuation or employment, are no different to those accorded to heterosexual couples. I remember in 2007 persuading John Howard's cabinet, on the eve of the election, that we should give partners in same-sex relationships rights to Commonwealth and Defence superannuation—the same rights as those in heterosexual relationships. I remember the Department of Finance had a few reservations, but they were purely financial. Then, in 2008, the HREOC reforms effectively eliminated all legal discrimination, at least at the federal level, but the issue of marriage remained.

The message today to every gay person in this nation is clear: we love you and we respect you. Your relationship is recognised by the Commonwealth as being as legitimate and honourable as anyone else's. You belong. I'm the first Prime Minister of Australia to be unequivocally and consistently in support of legalising same-sex marriage. It will be forever to the credit of the coalition that this momentous social change occurred with the overwhelming mandate of the Australian people under a coalition government.

I am very firmly of the view that families are the foundation of our society, and we would be a stronger society if more people were married—and by that I mean formally, legally married—and fewer were divorced. If consulted by friends about marital dramas, I always encourage the singles to marry, the married to stick together, the neglectful and wayward to renew their loving commitment and the wronged to forgive. I have to say that I'm utterly unpersuaded by the proposition that my marriage to Lucy or indeed any marriage is undermined by two gay men or women setting up house down the road, whether it is called a marriage or not.

Let's be honest with each other: the threat to traditional marriage is not from gay people; it is from a lack of loving commitment, whether it is found in the form of neglect, indifference, cruelty or adultery—to name just a few manifestations of that loveless desert in which too many marriages come to grief. If the threat to marriage today is lack of commitment, then surely other couples making and maintaining that commitment set a good example rather than a bad one. Are not gay people who seek the right to marry, to formalise their commitment to each other, holding up a mirror to heterosexuals who—regrettably, in my view at least—are marrying less frequently and divorcing more often? Commitment, loyalty, responsibility.

John Howard was most definitely not thinking of gay couples when he said in 1995 that 'a stable, functioning family provides the best welfare support system yet devised'. But the point is well made. Co-dependency is a good thing. If we believe two gay people are better off together than living alone comforted only by their respective cats, then why should we deprive that relationship of equal recognition? And, for those who see this as an ideological issue, recall British Prime Minister David Cameron, as he spoke for marriage equality six years ago:

And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it's about equality, but it's also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.

As I said at the start of the marriage survey, this is an issue of fundamental fairness. A society which promotes freedom and equality under the law should accord gay men and women the right to marry. We now recognise same-sex couples in every other aspect of the law—financial, medical, adoption—but we have not yet given them the right to call their relationship a marriage. This distinction will end with the passage of this bill. And, of course, it ends with the emphatic endorsement of an enormous majority of Australians.

The postal survey was one of the most remarkable political events in my lifetime, and I believe in the lifetime of many Australians. It was a voluntary postal vote for an allegedly apathetic nation, where anyone under 40 apparently did not know what a letterbox was, let alone where it could be found. And of course it had no prospects in the High Court either. Well, we won seven-nil there, Mr Speaker. My prediction rate for High Court cases is down to fifty-fifty, so I don't want to lower the average any more, but we did very well there. All of those assumptions were shot to ribbons. The survey was brilliantly designed, managed and executed, and great credit is due to the ABS, to the AEC and of course to Senator Cormann, who was the Acting Special Minister of State. But, above all, the credit is due to the Australian people, 80 per cent of whom cast a vote. That was remarkable. Nobody predicted that or expected that. In a general election, where we actually fine you if you don't vote, the participation rate is only a little bit above 90 per cent. This was a remarkable turnout and it proved what we always said: that Australians wanted to have their say.

The survey had many opponents, most notably on the other side of this chamber. In fact, this moment would have come far sooner if the opposition had supported our original plebiscite proposal in this parliament. It was an exercise both in good planning and execution, and also in legal ingenuity, to find a way to deliver on our election promise to give everyone their say and do so without legislation, which of course the Senate had denied us.

So we delivered on our promise. We promised the Australian people their say. We said, 'If you say yes, then we will have a free vote in the parliament,' and that is precisely what we are delivering. It is, I must say, a matter of great regret that the Labor Party is denying its members a free vote on the amendments, both in the Senate and in this House.

The best thing about the result has been the tremendous affirmation of same-sex couples—indeed all gay Australians—in the result. In voting yes, Australians have thrown their arms around fellow Australians who are gay and said clearly, 'We accept you. We accept your relationship.' I hope that in that positive affirmation, the most positive you could have in a democracy, same-sex couples take comfort in the acceptance and the love of their fellow Australians.

There were many who voted against change, but I know that they will accept and respect the democratic outcome of the process. They voted no for many different reasons. Some believe homosexuality itself is sinful. Others simply wanted to keep the legal definition of marriage as it has been for thousands of years. I respect the vote of every Australian, both 'yes' and 'no'—we made sure they could be heard—and I recognise the fundamental importance of ensuring that freedom of religion and speech are protected. The bill has been designed, as Senator Smith said in the Senate when he moved it, to ensure religious freedom is protected. I do not believe that the bill threatens our cherished religious freedoms—there is nothing in the bill, for example, which prevents anyone from maintaining or adhering to the teaching of their church on marriage or morality—but we must not fail to recognise that there is sincere, heartfelt anxiety about the bill's impact on religious freedom. That is why I will support several amendments to the bill which will provide that additional reassurance in respect of these fundamental rights and freedoms.

This is a historic moment of inclusion, of recognition, of respect. It has been talked about for many years. Previous governments have failed to take it on. The Labor Party did nothing about it for six years in power. But now with this strong message from the Australian people, which my government enabled, the way is clear. We are united in our diversity. Our values of mutual respect have made Australia the most harmonious and the most successful multicultural society on the planet. Australians have shown by the enormous turnout that they're deeply engaged with this issue. They voted overwhelmingly for a country built on equality, where the law does not discriminate against you on the basis of your sexual orientation any more than on the basis of your race, religion or gender.

Today is a day of which every Australian should be proud, proud that we can conduct and did conduct—despite all the naysayers—a very civil debate and proud that, given the opportunity to vote, far from being apathetic as the naysayers predicted, we participated in such enormous numbers. This is a day to be especially proud that all of our friends, our colleagues, our neighbours, our brothers and our sisters can marry the people they love. For those who voted no and remain disappointed with the result, it is a day to be proud that your voices were heard and that you have a government that ensured your voices were heard, as you wanted. They were counted and, ultimately, as you acknowledged, the majority was decisive. The postal survey gave the ultimate democratic seal to this historic change.

I commend all the men and women who fought for decades to bring this reform about—so many of them, indeed, in my electorate of Wentworth. This is a cause I understand and have been close to for many years. It is a long list, but surely in this place at the head of the line of advocates stands perhaps the most unlikely but in many ways the most patiently persistent: the member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch. Most of all, I say to same-sex couples in Australia: you are equal, you are respected, you are loved. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context