Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move the following motion:

That the House:

(1)notes:

(a)the Prime Minister has previously said he supports a free vote on marriage equality;

(b)former Prime Minister John Howard supports a free vote on marriage equality;

(c)Members of the Prime Minister’s own party have said that they would not respect the result of the Prime Minister’s plebiscite on marriage equality;

(d)a plebiscite on marriage equality would cause a divisive national debate, which would harm community cohesion and give voice to extreme bigotry; and

(e)lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians and their families are just as valued as every other member of the Australian community; and

(2)calls on the Prime Minister to be the Prime Minister that Australians hoped he would be and allow a free vote in the Parliament on marriage equality; and

(3)suspends so much of the standing and sessional orders as would prevent private Members’ business order of the day No. 1 in the Federation Chamber relating to the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, being returned to the House for further consideration, being called on immediately and being given priority over all other business for passage through all stages by no later than 6.30 pm on Wednesday, 2 March 2016, with the question on the second reading being put immediately.

Leave not granted.

I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Griffith from moving the following motion forthwith.

That the House:

(1)notes:

(a)the Prime Minister has previously said he supports a free vote on marriage equality;

(b)former Prime Minister John Howard supports a free vote on marriage equality;

(c)Members of the Prime Minister’s own party have said that they would not respect the result of the Prime Minister’s plebiscite on marriage equality;

(d)a plebiscite on marriage equality would cause a divisive national debate, which would harm community cohesion and give voice to extreme bigotry; and

(e)lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians and their families are just as valued as every other member of the Australian community; and

(2)calls on the Prime Minister to be the Prime Minister that Australians hoped he would be and allow a free vote in the Parliament on marriage equality; and

(3)suspends so much of the standing and sessional orders as would prevent private Members’ business order of the day No. 1 in the Federation Chamber relating to the Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2015, being returned to the House for further consideration, being called on immediately and being given priority over all other business for passage through all stages by no later than 6.30 pm on Wednesday, 2 March 2016, with the question on the second reading being put immediately.

It is well past time for marriage equality in this country. We know it and the Prime Minister knows it. Everyone in this country knows it is well past time for marriage equality and we can do it today. We can make marriage equality a reality right now. We can do it today. We can do it in this parliament. We have the power. The High Court says we have the power. The community knows we have the power. Everyone in the this room knows we have the power to make marriage equality a reality right now.

I call on Prime Minister Turnbull to agree to put this cross-party marriage equality bill to a vote. I call on him to allow his MPs a free vote rather than requiring them to vote against marriage equality as is the coalition's current position. Standing orders should be suspended so that we can vote on this bill and make marriage equality a reality together. Members of this parliament should do their job and legislate and that includes for marriage equality. We can reach across the aisle and pass marriage equality together. We can reach across the aisle to today. We can pass marriage equality together as a parliament. It does not have to be part of a divisive election or a plebiscite campaign. Standing orders should be suspended so that we can vote on this bill and make marriage equality a reality together.

Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians and their families should not have to wait any longer to have the same rights as everyone else in this country, including most people in this room. The best time for marriage equality is already. The second best time is now without further delay. So let's all do our jobs and legislate. Let's all get together, let's reach out, let's legislate and do our job. Standing orders should be suspended so that we can do so.

A majority of Australians support marriage equality. Parliament should get on with doing its job and make marriage equality a reality. It is our job. This is a representative democracy. If members in this place do not believe in representative democracy then what are they doing here? If you do not believe in representative democracy then what are you doing here?

I do not often agree with former Prime Minister John Howard—it does not happen to me very often—but on this point here he is absolutely right. Former Prime Minister John Howard says that he believes in representative democracy. For the current Prime Minister, representative democracy was good enough for him as a means of becoming the current Prime Minister. He was perfectly happy to have a representative democracy to become the Prime Minister. I believe in representative democracy.

Mr Watts interjecting—

Yes, member for Gellibrand; he did, didn't he? He says one thing and does another. That is his form.

Now is the time to do our job. Now is the time to work together. Everyone in this room knows that all we need to do is suspend standing orders and bring on the bill. It is a cross-party bill. It is a bill that is moderate, that is pragmatic, that has support across the parliament and support across the community.

I want to acknowledge Australian marriage equality—PFLAG, Rainbow Labor—I am proud of all the organisations across the country who have worked hard for marriage equality. They all want us to get this done. I acknowledge: Warren Entsch, the member for Leichhardt; the member for Werriwa; the member for Brisbane; the member for Indi; the member for Melbourne; and the member for Denison—all of whom are the movers or cosponsors of this bill. They have acted in the spirit of non-partisanship and we can do it now.

To all of you, I say we can all actually pass marriage equality in time for Mardi Gras. Imagine Mardi Gras on the weekend if we are all together celebrating marriage equality? We can hold this up as an example of a parliament working together to deliver something for the community. We can stand together. This can be something that we have delivered as a parliament, not as the Liberal Party or the Labor Party or the National Party or the Greens Party, but as a parliament as one, in unity.

I acknowledge, of course, the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and I also acknowledge every single member past and present and all of my Labor colleagues who have fought for so long for marriage equality. The Deputy Leader, the Leader of the Opposition, the leadership in the other place—these are people who have campaigned for a very long time to deliver marriage equality, and I particularly want to single out the Leader of the Opposition for his leadership in this.

But I also acknowledge, as well as the people who are in this place leading this debate and who are on the national scene leading it, every single person who is waiting for us—every single grandparent who is waiting for us to do our job; every single parent who is waiting for us to do our job; every single person who is waiting for us to do our job so that they can get married.

Shelley Argent OAM, who is the leader of PFLAG, was here last week. She is 66 years old. How long does she have to wait until one of her sons has the same right as her other son? How long do your friends and my friends have to wait? How long do our family members have to wait? How long does my grandmother have to wait? She is in her 80s—how long does she have to wait to see my cousin get married? How long do my friends in their 70s and 80s have to wait to marry the long-term partners that they have had for almost their whole lives? How much longer? How much longer do they have to put up with the people on that side using the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah's, obstruction tactic—the tactic that he deployed to try to prevent marriage equality and that has now been adopted 100 per cent holus-bolus by this Prime Minister?

Why should Australia have to wait because the current Prime Minister is too weak to overcome the impediments imposed upon him by the former Prime Minister? It does not have to be this way. The parliament has the power to make marriage equality a reality. The High Court has told us so. The Constitution confers upon us the power to legislate. We have been elected to legislate, and that is why we should suspend standing orders.

Let's not outsource. Let's not abandon our posts. Let's just do our jobs and get on with it. I know it is a novel idea for some of the people over there, but let's just do our jobs and legislate. Standing orders should be suspended so that we can do that. Everyone in this place knows the plebiscite was former Prime Minister Abbott's attempt to block marriage equality. It is a waste of time and it is a waste of $160 million. Guys, can you not think of a better use for $160 million than for a plebiscite to tell you what you already know and what some of your own members have said they will not follow?

To be honest, they have people on that side who are saying, 'Oh well, we're not going to abide by the plebiscite.' They are saying they want to have a free vote. They are saying it is going to be a free vote. If we are going to have a free vote, then I have a good idea: how about we have it today? Let's have the free vote today. If we are going to do it anyway, let's save the $160 million. We are all here; we are all ready to have that free vote. There are people here who are ready to have that free vote. There are so many people of goodwill in this parliament of all persuasions who are ready to have a free vote because they want to see marriage equality made a reality.

This is a serious matter. If the Prime Minister believes, and he has previously argued that he does, that marriage equality should be a reality, and if the Prime Minister understands—and I know he does, because he has previously argued for it—that it should be done by a free vote in this parliament, then we can do it now. That is why we should have a suspension of standing orders. We should not have an ultimately futile plebiscite that people on the other side have already said they will not abide by.

We should not spend the $160 million and, most importantly, we should not have a national vote on whether some kids' parents can get married when other kids' parents cannot get married. We should not have a national vote where kids are going to hear that their families are in some way inferior to the families of other people in the community. That is the disgrace in this issue. That is at the heart of the problem with this plebiscite idea that the former Prime Minister bowled up to the Australian people: it is going to hurt people. It is going to hurt families.

In a country where discrimination, exclusion and marginalisation of LGBTI people contributes to anxiety, depression and suicide, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging this idea of a plebiscite which is just a political fix to block marriage equality. Let's get together, let's suspend standing orders and let's make marriage equality a reality now.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the motion seconded?

Tanya Plibersek (Sydney, Australian Labor Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do second the motion, and I am delighted to do so. We should suspend standing orders because gay and lesbian Australians have waited too long for this change. On the weekend thousands of people will gather to march in Sydney—including, for the first time, the Leader of the Opposition, the alternate Prime Minister of Australia. Since the first Mardi Gras in 1978, much has changed. Just this month we heard the New South Wales parliament's moving apology to those people who marched in 1978 who were subjected to violence, who were outed in the newspapers at the time, some of whom lost their jobs and many of whom lost connection with their family because of the political action they took. Much has changed since 1978, but there is one last great piece of unfinished business, and we should suspend standing orders today because we can deal with that today.

When Labor was last in government federally we removed discrimination from every piece of Commonwealth legislation—in health care, in immigration, in taxation, in family law, in benefits—except for this last one. And now is the time for this parliament to deal with this last remaining piece of discrimination. We should suspend standing orders today because this Prime Minister has broken the hearts of gay and lesbian Australians. He is a Prime Minister who in the past has supported marriage equality. He is on the record as supporting marriage equality. This is a Prime Minister who very recently said that this parliament is the place to legislate for marriage equality, but he sold out those values to get the support of the right wing of the Liberal Party for his prime ministership.

Of course, it is not just me saying this parliament should legislate for marriage equality. I was helpfully handed the copy of the Constitution that the member for Kingsford-Smith carries with him everywhere he goes, and you only need to go to part five, section 51, placitum (xxi) to see where it says this parliament is the place to legislate for marriage equality.

But you do not need to believe me and you do not need to believe the Constitution of Australia. Those people on the other side, for whom John Howard, former Prime Minister of Australia, is the font of all wisdom, only need to go to John Howard's comments earlier this week, where John Howard said this parliament is the place to legislate for marriage equality. That is why we should suspend standing orders today, because everybody agrees that this is the place that should legislate.

We do not need a plebiscite; we can legislate this today because there is a bipartisan private member's bill before the parliament. People may remember some of the genesis of this. About two years ago, in March 2014, I wrote to all of those opposite and asked them to co-sponsor a bill in this parliament. Not one single response did I get. Then it was time for the Leader of the Opposition to put forward his private member's bill. What happened? The then Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, said: 'This should be above politics. We should get the backbenchers to do it so we can move on it quickly.' We did that. We actually stepped aside in an effort to move this along, with goodwill, in the hope that this parliament could get this piece of unfinished business done.

I recognise the member for Leichhardt and other members opposite who have been public in their support for this. They have worked with my colleague to make sure that this is a bipartisan issue. Instead, what do we get from the rest of those opposite? Instead of the goodwill that we have shown in working in a bipartisan fashion we get another delaying tactic: a $160 million plebiscite that will without doubt send a message to the LGBTI community in Australia that there is something wrong with them. Kids growing up who are same-sex attracted, who already experience higher rates of bullying and higher rates of social exclusion, what are they going to hear? They are going to hear that there is something wrong with them. It is going to send a message to kids who are growing up today with same-sex parents that their families are somehow broken. It appals me to think that people growing up today, whose mums and dads love them so much, will hear that there is something wrong with those families. We should suspend standing orders today to bring on this legislation and finish this business.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on this motion to suspend standing orders. I would make the point that this really is too serious an issue for acrimony and shouting. It is too serious an issue for publicity seeking and playing politics. I think it is very disappointing that the Labor Party have chosen to try to make a political issue out of the relationships of men and women who want to be treated equally under the law. I was aware that they were going to move this political stunt today, and it is very disappointing that Labor would come into the House and try to get some political benefit out of what many Australians, good people—Liberal voters, Labor voters, Greens voters, Independent voters—want, which is to have marriage equality; to be treated the same under the law.

My views on this matter are well known. I support marriage equality. But this is not a debate about whether or not you support marriage equality; this is a debate about whether there should be a suspension of standing orders to have a vote on this private member's bill. That is what this debate is about: whether there should be a suspension of standing orders to stop all other government business in order to have a vote on a private member's bill.

So, what is the process for private members' bills? All members in the House know what the process is. They know there is no vote on private members' bills or private members' motions. They know that therefore many motions and bills are brought into the House and put on the Notice Paper for a debate in this chamber on issues that need to be aired and elevated. That is a good part of private members' business; that is the idea. Some things are brought into the House to be elevated because there will not be a vote. Members know that they can give their constituents a hearing, a platform, but they do not have to disagree with party policy, they do not have to determine government policy, because it is private members' business, and private members' business does not come to a vote. Therefore this motion to suspend standing orders is entirely out of order. It would allow a vote on a private member's bill, which would establish an important precedent and be stepping outside the role of private members' business. That is one reason that the government will not support this suspension of standing orders, the second reason being that we on this side of the House do not want to play politics with this issue. It is too important, and people take it too seriously, for people to try to play cheap politics around it.

The third reason the government will not support the suspension of standing orders is that we have a very clear policy on this matter. We will not be having a vote of the members of this parliament to determine whether we support marriage equality. We will give every Australian a free vote in a plebiscite after the election.

The extraordinary flaw in the member for Griffith's argument is that she says we must have a free vote in 2016—that we must do it today—but the Labor Party's policy is that in 2019 they are not allowed to have a free vote. Apparently in 2016 they must have a free vote at all costs but their policy is not to have a free vote in three years from now. What a ludicrous position! The principle is that you are either in favour of a free vote or you are not. If you are in favour of a free vote then have that policy into the future until you achieve one. But the Labor Party policy, apparently brokered by the deputy leader at the ALP conference this year, is this ludicrous hybrid policy where they would have a free vote now but in 2019 will not have a free vote. It is utterly ridiculous and exposes the Labor Party as utter hypocrites on the issue, because if they genuinely believed in a free vote why would they deny their members a free vote in three years from now?

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The member for McEwen on a point of order?

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, it is all right.

Christopher Pyne (Sturt, Liberal Party, Leader of the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not intend to take my entire time. The government is happy to put its position why we will not support it and then get on with the vote. The Labor Party's position about a free vote today but no free vote in three years is so ridiculous that they actually lost a senator over it. Joe Bullock resigned last night as a senator for Western Australia because he sees the flaw in the Labor Party's position. They have lost a senator from Western Australia because of this harebrained scheme they came up with at the ALP conference.

On this side of the House we will give everyone in Australia a free vote. Your vote will be the same as my vote, Deputy Speaker Scott. You will be back in civilian life, as we say in the parliament for those who have been here a while, and your vote will be worth the same as my vote, assuming the good burghers of Sturt re-elect me at the coming election. Everybody in the gallery will have the same vote as everybody on the floor of the House. That is a genuine request asking the Australian people what they think. That is a good policy because this is a difficult issue for the Australian public.

This is a significant societal change. I support that change. One of the reasons I support that change is my experience as a member of parliament. I have seen the impact of same-sex households not having legal rights and, because of that lack of legal rights, not being able to support the children that they have been fostering or adopting. I think it is time to give those same-sex households the same stability, the same rights as those in opposite-sex households. So I do support a yes vote in the plebiscite, and that is how I will campaign, assuming I am re-elected, after the election. But there are people in my electorate who strongly disagree with me, and I want to give them the chance to have a vote and make a decision. If the Australian public's view is that there will be no change to the Marriage Act then that is the decision of the Australian public, and it is right and proper that they should be able to make that decision.

So we will not be supporting the suspension of standing orders. We do not want to play politics with this issue. There is a fundamental flaw in the Labor Party's position, which is that they demand a free vote today but they deny a free vote in three years time. I believe and the government believes that we have the right policy, which is to ask the Australian people what their view is and give them the opportunity to indicate to us where they want us to go in the plebiscite.

I should deal with one last-minute issue. The member for Griffith said some members of my party and the National Party have said that they will not follow the views of the plebiscite. They are allowed to say that. This is a democracy; it is not a Stalinist state. The point is that it is obviously beyond the wit of the Labor Party to work out how to get around that issue. But it is not beyond my wit. The easiest thing to do is to pass a bill through this parliament establishing the plebiscite and the last act before royal assent as the question of the plebiscite and whether it says yes or no to that bill. The bill will never come back to the House of Representatives for people to vote against the will of the people. It can easily be in the act of parliament that the plebiscite is the last part of the process and then, once it is passed—if it is passed—it goes directly to the Governor-General for royal assent. It is not beyond the wit of this parliament to make the plebiscite—the will of the people—the final act that determines whether the law changes. The fact that the Labor Party cannot work that out is kind of indicative of many of the flaws and weaknesses in the Labor Party's gene pool, which is why they are not fit for government.

The government will certainly be voting against the suspension of standing orders and resuming normal programming because we have a significant agenda to work through while the Labor Party continues with these pathetic political stunts.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We should avoid a repetition of the spite that we have heard over the last few days about Safe Schools. It would have been good if Labor had supported bringing on our private member's bill in the last parliament. The Greens lead, Labor follows a couple of years behind and the coalition comes in our coat-tails. So let's support this. It would have been good if we had done it in the last parliament when we had the opportunity. The member for Moreton and the member for Grayndler know exactly what I am talking about. We could have had a vote. So let's bring it on for a vote now because it might be our last chance to avoid a plebiscite. (Time expired)

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the motion be agree to.

The House divided [15:42]

(The Deputy Speaker—Hon. Bruce Scott)