House debates

Wednesday, 6 December 2017

Bills

Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017; Second Reading

11:54 am

Photo of Pat ConroyPat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure) Share this | Hansard source

I am so relieved that, hopefully, by the end of this week we will have marriage equality in this country. It's with pride that I stand to make a contribution to the debate on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. I'm proud that almost 68 per cent of Shortland electors who participated in the survey voted for marriage equality. The people of Shortland have overwhelmingly endorsed marriage equality. In fact, 62,455 Australians in Shortland voted yes. Our community participated and voted in favour of marriage equality well above the New South Wales and Australian averages.

This was a fabulous result, but it was an unnecessary result. Let us be clear: this non-binding postal survey was unnecessary, damaging and a waste of taxpayers' money. The government wasted $100 million outsourcing parliament's job. This policy of the survey was driven by the majority of the coalition party room's desire to oppose marriage equality—to delay, to obfuscate and to avoid doing their moral duty of debating an important issue. We just heard the contribution from the member for Deakin, which I won't reflect on other than to say that we didn't have a plebiscite when the Marriage Act was changed 20 times previously to this. We didn't have a plebiscite when no-fault divorce was introduced into this country. We did haven't a plebiscite when IVF was debated, when RU 486 was debated or when the state parliaments debated decriminalising homosexuality. Not a single one of those required a plebiscite or a non-binding postal survey, yet they were undeniably issues of fundamental morality equal to what we're debating now. That proves that this entire thing was a sham to paper over the cracks in the coalition party room, and the Prime Minister now claiming that this process was a triumph is disappointing and quite pathetic.

I don't seek to be overly partisan in my contribution. I want to acknowledge and praise the courage and principle of the members for Leichhardt, Brisbane, North Sydney and Goldstein and Senator Dean Smith, who have been courageous, brave and principled in their approach. However, the Prime Minister's speech demonstrated a complete unawareness of the hurt that this survey has caused. The National LGBTI Health Alliance report presented a sobering reminder of the negative impact the postal survey had on already vulnerable groups of Australians. The report revealed that almost 80 per cent of LGBTI Australians and almost 60 per cent of supporters said they'd found the marriage equality debate considerably or extremely stressful. LGBTI Australian respondents' depression, anxiety and stress increased by more than one-third after the announcement of the vote, compared to the six months before the announcement. In addition, LGBTIQ phone counselling service QLife recorded a more than 20 per cent increase in the number of calls during the survey period. This is the legacy of the non-binding postal survey.

But we are where we are now. This debate fundamentally is about discrimination. Anytime we fight and eradicate discrimination for one group, we enrich everyone. We make society a better place. I'm principally descended from Irish Catholics. As such, I'm acutely aware of entrenched discrimination. I'm acutely aware of the use of the state through both legal and informal means to entrench discrimination. The current definition of 'marriage' is discriminatory. It prohibits an entire group of our fellow Australians from making a decision to marry their partner that, currently, heterosexual Australians are free to make. In the case of the institution of marriage, LGBTI Australians do not enjoy access to the same rights and privileges that heterosexual Australians do. It is a fundamental right. Surely, people who want to commit to spending their life together, to loving and looking after each other and maybe having a family as well, will greatly strengthen the fabric of our society? The proudest day of my life, besides the birth of my two kids, was when I got married to my wife. This feeling is probably one of the most common amongst human beings, and it's a feeling that should not be denied to LGBTI Australians. That's why I was a consistent advocate for marriage equality prior to being elected in 2013. I've always been very open with constituents and anyone who's inquired that, if this issue gets debated in parliament, I will be voting yes.

Regarding the foreshadowed amendments to protect so-called religious freedoms, I say this to those who want to move those amendments: this bill is not about Safe Schools, this bill is not about telling parents what they can teach their children and this bill does not compel churches to change their views or the way they preach their views. This bill is an instrument to simply remove discriminatory clauses in the Marriage Act. It does nothing more than that. It contains adequate protections for religious organisations. It creates a new class of religious celebrants, which I must state I am uncomfortable with. If I were writing the legislation, I wouldn't include that, but I understand the importance of that to people and, as such, I will support it.

But I will not support any measure that weakens our discrimination laws. I will not support any attempt to allow commercial vendors to discriminate against one group of Australians. This push is no different to bars banning Indigenous customers. This push is no different from employers refusing to employ Catholics, and that is why I am opposed to the amendments. I am opposed to anything that weakens the discrimination laws in this country.

In the time remaining, I want to reflect on how Labor has arrived at our position. It is a history that is very mixed. I am not seeking to be triumphant or to claim that Labor is the only political organisation to fight discrimination. However, I do want to point out the following: it was a Labor government that first decriminalised homosexuality. Of the seven states and territories that decriminalised homosexuality through legislation, five were Labor governments. The Keating government took significant steps around LGBTI rights, and I am proud that the Rudd government removed discrimination against same-sex couples from 85 federal laws. In 2012, the Labor member for Whitlam, Stephen Jones, introduced a marriage equality bill, and Labor allowed a conscience vote for its members. However, it failed due to the coalition binding its members. So I will not be lectured to by the coalition, that somehow they are the reason we are having marriage equality in this country. This is a history I'm proud of. However, we should not skate over the bigotry and the prioritisation of political self-interest that was the approach of some in the Labor Party. It is a disgrace that it took until 2011 for Labor's official platform to support marriage equality.

I want to acknowledge and thank the many Labor activists who fought for marriage equality both within and without the party for decades. These include, but are not limited to: Senator Penny Wong, the member for Grayndler, the member for Griffith, the member for Whitlam, the member for Sydney, Senator Louise Pratt, Penny Sharpe MLC and former senator John Faulkner. I apologise to anyone who I missed on that list. I want to thank and applaud all members of Rainbow Labor, including founding convener, Ryan Heath, who I had the privilege of working with in a past life. In particular, I want to say to Penny and Albo: thank you for your courage, dedication and determination. I can say without any fear of contradiction that we would not be here without your valiant effort over decades. It was a valiant effort aimed at ending discrimination on the simple premise that discrimination against one group of Australians—one group of humans, in fact—hurts and diminishes all humans. That's why this legislation is so important. By removing this discrimination, not only do we enrich the lives of LGBTI Australians, we enrich the lives of all Australians and enhance our society.

Finally, I want to say to the LGBTI community: congratulations, but also thank you. Thank you for the determination, respect and positivity you have shown in campaigning for this issue. Thank you for beating down the barriers of oppression with your love for each other and for Australians everywhere. There is no doubt in my mind that through this fight you have made Australia a better place now and into the future. I commend the bill to the House.

Comments

No comments