Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

It is a great honour to speak in a debate—the debate on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017—that will make such a big difference in the lives of many. Parliaments are sometimes confronted by serious decisions that need to be made on behalf of the nation—decisions made ahead of time or far from a position that some in the general public are comfortable to hold. What is clear to many of us is that many in the Australian public have been well ahead of their parliamentarians. This has become blazingly evident in the last few weeks, where the nation, with a strong voice, indicated it wants the parliament to remove discriminatory legal barriers set within the Marriage Act.

I'm a parliamentarian who will lend my support to this push. I have been up-front about this since I announced in May 2015 that I would support marriage equality. But that statement itself admits that I was not always a supporter of that effort—and I wasn't. When the matter was considered in 2012, I voted against it. I argued then that, in the electorate that I represent, I could not detect the will to change the Marriage Act. The outcome of the recent marriage postal survey for the Chifley electorate demonstrates that my reading of the local mood was right, with a majority of residents opposed to altering the Marriage Act. While my reading of the mood of my fellow residents was right, my actions in opposing this reform were not. I would like to explain that reasoning in a moment, particularly as it applies to the way I intend to vote on this bill.

But let me first reflect on my position back in 2012. Back then, I maintained a position that I didn't detect a mood for change. However, people from my electorate wanting to see that change and disappointed in my position would say that, while others may not have a sense of urgency for change, change meant a great deal to them. Constituents would ask me, as their representative, 'Why can't you support us in the things we want to do in our lives?' These situations made me think deeply about this issue. If there is no logical reason to prevent this change, why stand in the way of it?

I also reflect on this: as a country, we have welcomed people from nearly every corner of the globe to become Australian citizens. Seven million people have made their home here since the Second World War. They looked different, spoke differently, ate different foods, thought differently, acted differently and might have come from countries where they couldn't do that and paid a high price for difference. Many Australians take great pride in the fact that our nation has become one of the most successful multicultural nations on the planet. This did not happen by accident. There were no magic ingredients. It was a typically Australian low-key straightforward commitment to the important principle of fairness—fairness that included.

It is that commitment to inclusion that I reflect upon now. It was our understanding that if people committed to the nation and its laws, there was a place for them. We did not use our laws to divide; we used them to bind and unite. I approached the survey and this vote in the very same way, recognising that this is our generation's opportunity to make its down payment on that inclusive approach for the benefit of those that follow by including, not by using the law to exclude.

As I've reflected earlier, I represent an area that voted against change. I want to express my profound respect for the views expressed by my fellow residents, some of whom have approached me to ask how I could support change when the electorate I proudly represent has a different view. My decision is not taken in defiance or without regard to those views. But I submit this for the consideration of those that questioned the decision I intend to make: I believe strongly that parliamentarians should think carefully when they propose to legislate to discriminate, where we might use our special position as parliamentarians with our ability to cast laws in a way where we might impose the will of majorities on the way others live their lives.

Remember, this act will not change the way others who have married live their lives. Nothing changes for them. There will also be no change in the way religious bodies express their beliefs about marriage and how it is formed. Again, nothing changes. But not voting for change stops others in the way they wish to live their lives. This comes to the heart of the view I have of my role in this place. In a place where we dedicate much of our energy to highlighting differences, I would hope that we can find strength in the common purpose of bringing people together and giving people the space to live their lives unburdened by stigma, free of the sting that comes from being excluded. That's not just how I live my life as a parliamentarian but is what I believe in deeply as a citizen—as an average person—as someone who has benefitted from the nation's generosity in allowing my family to settle and participate in its daily life. This nation has provided me with a humbling honour—the ability to stand in this very spot, where I now say I will play my part to ensure that y fellow Australians are included and that they can savour the feeling, just in the way that I have benefitted from it.

I could make a whole lot of points expressing views about the postal survey process. I prefer that we focus on the positive important change we are about to make in peoples' lives. I would ask those within government who make much of the postal survey process to remember this point: it is probably unlikely that their ears would have felt the sting or hurt felt or triggered by hearing comments made during the survey process. But that hurt was felt and it may well linger for some time. What we owed to those who relied upon positive change to the law was courage, that as parliamentarians we could make those legislative changes free of the process forced upon the nation.

In speaking of courage, I would like to reflect on the courage of others who have walked this path well before me, people like Senator Penny Wong and Senator Louise Pratt, and other colleagues of mine, like the member for Griffith, Terri Butler. Also, on the other side of the political fence, Senator Dean Smith, had to have the courage not just to admit he was wrong but to make a difference as a result of that.

I also want to express my gratitude for the courage of another colleague of mine, the member for Whitlam. In days when it was hard to express that view and to translate that view into legislation brought to this place, he not only argued that process within this place but also outside, where he had to confront views which, if expressed today, would be staggering to consider, and the way in which they translated potentially as a threat to his position as a parliamentarian. He displayed exemplary courage, and I want to commend him for what he has done, as I said, in walking a path—treading that path—well before I did.

At any rate, we are here now. We should make the change that must be made. And we should ensure that our nation can earn its place as one of the world's most inclusive places.

See this speech in context