Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. This bill is being debated in this House as a result of the Australian people having their say on marriage in the Australian marriage postal survey. This is not a matter where members have a free vote, where they can vote according to their own conscience on this issue. Members gave up their right to vote according to their own conscience when they supported dealing with this issue by plebiscite, when they decided to give the Australian people their say on whether two people of the same sex should be permitted to marry. Even if members didn't support the survey, they are duty-bound to honour it.

I have made it very clear to my constituents that, if I'd been a member of parliament in 2015, when my party, under Prime Minister Abbott, decided to adopt the position of a plebiscite, I would have argued against it. Parliamentarians are rightly elected in our representative democracy to determine these issues and, in my view, same-sex marriage should have been decided by a free vote according to conscience. That being said, the plebiscite policy was adopted. I accepted it and I was elected with that commitment, as was the government.

I've always said that the process to deliver a social change is an important part of the social change itself. Any good process where a decision is made to make a significant social change must result in the broad acceptance of that change, especially from those people who did not support the change itself. The government was elected with a policy of giving Australians their say on the issue of same-sex marriage. The government was, rightly, duty-bound to deliver on that commitment. However, when the government tried to give people their say, the Labor Party frustrated our ability to do so. I strongly believe that the government could not be elected with the policy of giving the Australian people their say, only for that to then be taken away from them. Moreover, you cannot remove the Australian people from the process and then expect those who have opposing views to accept the outcome. This is why I strongly supported the continuation of our plebiscite policy. Sadly, the Labor Party and the Greens killed off legislation to establish the plebiscite in the Senate. Labor and the Greens wanted this issue determined in the corridors of Canberra, without the mandate of the people. I hope, on reflection, they consider the error of their position.

The government, true to their word—and despite opposition from the same-sex marriage lobby, Labor and the Greens—progressed with giving the Australian people their say in a marriage postal survey conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The government overcame a High Court challenge; we were determined that Australians should be part of this decision. Personally, I actually preferred the postal nature of this ballot, as opposed to having Australians required to attend a polling booth. A real credit to this process is that I've had many 'no' voters contact me in the weeks after the survey results were announced. They were saying that they've accepted the result; they generously accept the will of their fellow Australians. They were not saying that same-sex marriage shouldn't be legislated, and this broad acceptance validates the importance of not taking from people their say, and ensuring that even those people who don't agree with the change can accept it.

My vote on the question, 'Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?' counted no more than anyone else's in my electorate. But I had made it no secret that, if there'd been a free vote in the parliament, I would have voted to maintain the traditional definition of marriage, according to my conscience. The institution and meaning of marriage predate parliament, and I would have had difficulty in parliament taking the role of redefining the term 'marriage'. That said, I would have actively supported the legal recognition of same-sex relationships without using the term 'marriage'. Same-sex couples should be equal before the law, and I'm pleased that past parliaments have removed from federal law discrimination based on someone's sexuality. Same-sex relationships should be recognised under the law.

I could not advocate for a plebiscite and then not respond to the will of the Australian people. In defence of the plebiscite and then the survey, I committed to respecting the will of the Australian people and to making sure that their will was implemented, and that's why I'll be voting yes to the final legislation. The marriage postal survey returned a vote of 61.6 per cent in favour of same-sex marriage. My electorate of Tangney was the only electorate to record, to the decimal point, the exact same result as the national result—quite an interesting fact. Seventy-eight thousand, four hundred and twenty-eight, or 84 per cent, of the people in Tangney participated in the survey, one of the top 20 response rates in the nation.

I respect the opinion and the views of others, and I want to congratulate the 'yes' campaign on their success and the 'no' campaign on their efforts. In the lead-up to the plebiscite there were screams about the impact that the campaign would have on our society, but I always held great respect for the ability of the Australian people to maturely engage in our democracy. On the whole, we should be very proud of the campaign and how we handled it as a society.

There were unfortunate instances that disappointed me. In my own electorate, because of my support for letting the Australian people have their say, my office was vandalised. Signage in my community that includes my image and my contact details as a local member, which was completely unrelated to same-sex marriage, was vandalised. My image was transformed into Hitler's and the word 'Fascist' was added with the words 'marriage equality now'. Also added was that I'm a 'gutless Liberal prick' and I wanted to 'waste $122 million of taxpayers' money on a postal vote'.

Criminal damage has no place in our democracy and should be denounced at every opportunity. The damaged property was cleaned, repaired or replaced. I didn't seek media attention; we just moved on. However, the adult, a prominent lead campaigner on the issue who should know better, who gloated publicly about doing some of it and who was caught on CCTV, has been dealt with by the police and in the coming weeks will be dealt with by the courts, as they should be.

As a parliamentarian, I now have to give careful consideration to how to implement the will of the Australian people, how to make sure this process continues in a way that brings Australians together, how we can pass the best possible legislation that delivers same-sex marriage whilst maintaining the freedoms that are so vitally important in Australian society. The Australian people have told us they want same-sex marriage, but they didn't tell us how to do it. It's our job to work that out.

Freedom of religion is essential in Australian society, and I'll be considering each amendment very closely to ensure that we maintain freedom of religion and protect the rights of parents to teach their children their religious beliefs. As Menzies said in his Forgotten People address:

When we claim freedom of worship we claim room and respect for all.

The amendments to this bill deserve special and careful consideration, and that's what I'll give them. I will be voting for a number of them. There were some amendments proposed and detailed in the media over previous weeks that, in my view, went too far. I could not have supported them. However, the amendments that I was concerned about are not proposed before the House.

Other speakers have talked about how this should be a unifying moment for Australia, and it should be. Millions of voters voted yes; millions of voters voted no; more yes than no. We will deliver and I will vote for same-sex marriage this week, but we can deliver same-sex marriage in a way that unifies our nation, respects the will of the Australian people and maintains our freedoms. Let's not lose this unifying opportunity, when we have 'no' voters who, as I've said previously, have accepted the result, who generously accept the will of their fellow Australians and who ask, quite reasonably, that the legislation be passed, with some amendment, to make this historic change and to keep what's good and free about our nation. Conservative governments are best placed to manage significant social change. I'm far happier that this change is happening on our watch rather than under Labor and the Greens, but we need to do it properly.

In conclusion, the Australian people have spoken. Same-sex marriage will be legislated, hopefully with amendment, this week. In the same way the member for Warringah so warmly and graciously advised the House that he was looking forward to attending the marriage of his sister, Christine, and her partner, I too look forward to attending the weddings of my gay friends and family members to celebrate the legal recognition of their relationships despite the form of that legal recognition of their relationship not being as I would personally prefer. The Australian people, in partnership with the parliament, have delivered same-sex marriage in the most cohesive way.

See this speech in context