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

The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Luke Howarth (Petrie, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 and want to offer my support for the bill. I want to thank the Prime Minister for making this issue a priority. I believe it is the first time the government has introduced a bill directly in relation to same-sex marriage. It is great that the Prime Minister has fulfilled the election commitment and promise that the coalition government took to the 2016 election. We are certainly delivering in a whole range of areas, but in relation to the same-sex marriage bill, which we promised to the people at the 2016 election, we are delivering there as well. I also want to acknowledge Senator Brandis and Senator Ryan for the drafting of the bill.

I want to start by making an observation that has survived generations and civilisations. It is that the family is the nucleus of society, and a strong family means stability, safety and less need for government intervention. There are so many types of families—nuclear, sole-parent and extended families. It is clear that in the majority of cases families are brought together by a marriage for the purpose of raising children. Millions of Australians have been able to unite under the sacrament of marriage, and changing the definition of marriage will impact all these people and their families as much as it will impact same-sex couples, because you are changing the meaning.

Forty years from now, if same-sex marriage is legalised and grandkids are looking back at family history and looking at the word 'marriage', they might see that right now the definition of marriage is a man and a woman in a lifelong commitment. When they look at it in the future, it might be that it is between two men, two women or a man and a woman. So the issue that we as members of parliament are facing is that this is not just another policy. We are not trying to fight unemployment here. It is not about infrastructure or taxes. As my colleague the member for Canning, Andrew Hastie, wrote in The Australian recently:

Marriage is the people's institution.

So the people should decide.

It was not that long ago that the Leader of the Opposition agreed with the member for Canning. Bill Shorten in 2013 said:

I would rather that the people of Australia could make their view clear on this than leaving this issue to 150 people.

That is what Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, said about gay marriage at the time. There are 150 members in this House and Bill Shorten's position was he would rather the people of Australia could make their view clear on this rather than leaving it to 150 people, he said. Why has he changed his mind? Why has he changed his position?

The Greens leader, Senator Di Natale, said in August 2015, just 14 months ago:

One thing we all agree on is that we need to deal with this issue and deal with it quickly.

I could not agree more. He also said:

… if there is to be a plebiscite it must be at this election and it must be the parliament that owns the plebiscite and drafts the question.

We are implementing exactly what Senator Di Natale was saying too, and it was an election commitment at the 2016 election. He said it should be the parliament that owns it and drafts the question. As far as I am aware, the Greens leader has not made any recommendations in relation to this plebiscite other than to record his opposition early on.

Same-sex marriage is not a recent topic or issue either. There has been a lot of history in relation to voting in this parliament on same-sex marriage. In fact, my colleague the member for Leichhardt's private member's motion last year was the 18th piece of legislation introduced to the parliament since 2004 to deal with the issue of recognising same-sex marriages, whether Australian or overseas. Only a couple of these motions progressed to a vote and these votes did not get very far.

Most recently, under the 43rd Parliament, led by Labor's Julia Gillard, three bills designed to amend the Marriage Act were presented in the House. These bills were the subject of two parliamentary committee inquiries but were not passed by the parliament. I would just like to remind the House that in 2012 Mr Stephen Jones MP introduced a private member's bill, the Marriage Amendment Bill. Many people voted against same-sex marriage, including many of those opposite: the member for Watson, Tony Burke; the member for McMahon, Mr Bowen; the member for Hunter; the member for Chifley; the member for Fowler; and three prime ministers, Mr Rudd, Mr Abbott and Ms Gillard. The member for Blair also voted against same-sex marriage. So did the member for Lilley, Mr Swan.

So we have had votes in parliament. On this bill in relation to same-sex marriage, the opposition say: 'Let the parliament decide. Get to work! That's what we're paid to do.' We have had many votes on this in the parliament, and every time it has been defeated. I note the member for Kingston voted for it at that time. I cannot see your name on there, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell. I am not sure if you abstained or what, but there have been many votes on this issue in the parliament.

When Labor came out with their 'Mediscare' campaign during the recent election, I did not think they could go much lower, but to play politics with this, with people's lives, is very serious. The previous speaker, the member for Barton, made some extreme and hysterical comments yesterday, I think, in her contribution to this debate. She said:

I can see this campaign clearly. I can see those opposed to equal marriage link this to the safe schools programs …

I am not sure what she is saying there. Is she saying that the safe schools program is wrong? She also talked about 'writing the fringe-dwelling bigots a cheque for millions of dollars'. She also said:

I am concerned that this plebiscite, with an aggressive campaign—

so straightaway she is assuming it will be an aggressive campaign—

will see people disengage from our democratic process, putting at risk our chance to change the Constitution to recognise First Peoples.

Linking those two together I do not think is right either. There are many Aboriginal people who do not support same-sex marriage, including Aboriginal elders who have signed the bark petition.

I think it goes further than this. We have also seen the member for Sydney bully her colleagues in relation to this by saying that what the Labor Party should do is make sure that everyone—that is, members of the Labor Party—must vote for same-sex marriage. We saw the Western Australian senator Mr Bullock bullied out of the party last year, and we have seen many of the people who voted no, whose names I just read out before, perhaps change their mind. But when you read the contribution from the member for Barton and when you read the contribution from the member for Sydney, they accuse those opposed to same-sex marriage—equal marriage—of all sorts of things. Well, what about the people that voted against it previously—including three prime ministers, the current Manager of Opposition Business, Tony Burke, and their former Treasurer, Mr Bowen? These people were capable in 2012 of having a debate in a civilised way and making people with a different view feel that they were okay.

You know what? I trust the Australian people that we can have a debate on this without the extreme hysterical comments that those people opposite vent in relation to this bill. I am sure that you will continue to see those comments as the opposition stand up and talk about the extreme Right, bigots and homophobia—all because some people do not share their view or do not believe in same-sex marriage. Australians can be trusted. Australians can have a debate on this issue. I repeat that the opposition leader said:

I would rather that the people of Australia could make their view clear on this than leaving this issue to 150 people.

Labor talks about same-sex marriage as if changing the definition of marriage will only affect same-sex couples. It will, in fact, affect everyone who has ever been married under Australian law. Only about four per cent of Australians identify as homosexual; 96 per cent are heterosexual. Those people can be trusted. If we were to force a parliamentary vote on this issue—even though we have had many, including the one I mentioned a moment ago—anybody who thinks the results of that vote would be accepted by everyone straightaway is kidding themselves. I think that if we can have a plebiscite, and even if 40 per cent of the population vote against same-sex marriage and 60 per cent vote in favour, then it will be passed through the parliament straightaway. And I think those 40 per cent, who will have expressed their view that they do not support it, would get on board and say, 'Hey, the majority of Australians have spoken and this is what they want.' I actually think it would be better for same-sex couples if it were to happen that way rather than be forced through the parliament because the opposition leader and the Leader of the Greens want to backflip on positions they have stated previously.

According to the polls, there is strong support for same-sex marriage. Newspoll said that 62 per cent are in favour of same-sex marriage and 32 per cent are against. The member for Leichhardt is right: there is too much interest and emotional investment in this issue now for a vote in parliament. But Bill Shorten would now rather drag this process out than trust the Australian people with a vote.

Quickly looking at the bill, the time line is for 11 February 2017, less than four months away. After so many years and so many years of debate, we could have a verdict and give same-sex couples certainty within four months. If we do not get this legislation through, if the vote is not held next year because Labor votes against this bill, then these people will have more uncertainty and wait longer.

The bill is very simple. It will authorise a compulsory, in-person vote in a national plebiscite that will ask Australians simply: 'Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?' It is a very simple question. It will be conducted very much like a standard election. It is no secret that the bill will have a cost. The financial impact to our federal budget will be about $170 million—not the $200 million that everyone opposite states. This includes $15 million to be divided equally between official 'yes' and 'no' campaigns, and it also includes the cost of holding the plebiscite and employing AEC officials, like at every election. That is what it costs. So it will cost $170 million for people to finally get their say on same-sex marriage, and Labor thinks it is not worth it. Labor says that this is too much money. I remind Labor that we are currently spending $300 million per week on the debt it racked up—$1 billion per month. We are currently spending $300 million a week on interest on debt, and when we bring bills to make savings into this House those opposite vote against a lot of them. Now Labor wants to say that $170 million—3½ days interest—is too much to give people certainty and to give the Australian public a say!

Those opposite argue against this bill on the grounds of mental health. We can have a grown-up discussion. I trust the people in the gallery, I trust the people in my electorate and I trust Australians to get this right. We can have a discussion where I am okay and you are okay. No-one is any better than anyone else in this country; it does not matter whether you are a federal MP or you are homeless in the street; people are equal. Australians can be trusted to make sure that this debate is done right, just like we will when we have referendums in the future in relation to Aboriginal recognition in the Constitution. The money argument is blown out of the water. It is equal to 3½ days interest for an important issue.

That MPs should decide this not Australians is another argument that the Labor Party opposite make. But we have had many votes on this, and three prime ministers and the current Manager of Opposition Business have all voted against gay marriage. We now need to give the Australian people their chance and get this settled. The other argument that those opposite make about this is that it is non-binding. There are many members from the Prime Minister down who have said that if the majority of Australians vote for same-sex marriage in the plebiscite then it will be decided and it will be put through in law within the next four to six months. We would give same sex-couples and many people in the LGBTI community that want certainty on this issue the chance to have that.

I ask the House to vote yes in relation to holding the plebiscite. It is good policy and it is good for democracy.

Anthony Albanese (Grayndler, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I oppose the plebiscite because it is costly. I oppose the plebiscite because it is divisive. Most importantly, I oppose the plebiscite because it is ineffective. A plebiscite will, just as the previous speaker indicated, lead to a parliamentary bill and parliamentary motion. The previous speaker also indicated what we all know: a majority of the Australian people support marriage equality. We know that is the case. It is acknowledged that that is the case. It is overwhelming. And it is now the case that a majority of House of Representatives members and senators, including the current Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, support marriage equality. We should get on with it and do our job.

The previous speaker also spoke about the conscience votes that we have had in parliament on this side of the House, even though no conscience vote was allowed by those opposite. A few years ago a majority of the parliament did not support marriage equality. When I was elected in 1996, the priority of same-sex couples was certainly not having the right to marry; there were a range of other reforms that had a practical impact on their lives that were much higher up the agenda. Those issues were dealt with by the former Labor government when we amended some 84 pieces of legislation—on superannuation, on health, on migration, on social security. All of those pieces of legislation passed this parliament without rancour, without opposition and without creating division in the community.

When they were first raised, they were controversial. When I first raised the Superannuation (Entitlements of Same Sex Couples) Bill in my first term of parliament, that was a controversial issue. There was not even unanimous support within my own party. When you spoke about sexuality in this place, people shifted uncomfortably in their seats. Now there is far greater total tolerance, and far greater respect for the fact that we are a diverse community. This campaign for marriage equality is about unfinished business. 'Equality' is a really important term here. That is why the plebiscite is so wrong. We decide in this House social security, taxation arrangements, infrastructure policy, health policy, education policy and defence policy. We determine that.

Why is this one issue being singled out? We know that it is all an attempt by the opponents of marriage equality, including former Prime Minister Tony Abbott, to stop marriage equality. That is why this was put up within the coalition party room. When it was put up, it was opposed within their party room by the current Prime Minister and many of those opposite. Are we on this side of the House supposed to be bound somehow by the fact that Malcolm Turnbull rolled over on his own principles in order to secure the prime ministership by guaranteeing that he would adopt the same policy as his predecessor, Tony Abbott? I actually thought Malcolm Turnbull was better than that. He has a proud record of marching in the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras in his electorate, and of standing up genuinely on these issues. I know that he is an opponent of discrimination on the basis of sexuality. It makes it even sadder that he is prepared to take the position that he has, knowing the consequences that it will have for division in the community, for same-sex couples and for their families. They know the consequences, which is why they are so strident in their opposition to this.

I believe very strongly that we should have a vote and a determination in this parliament, and we should do it sooner rather than later. Some of the best debates I have been involved with in parliament have been conscience votes on controversial issues like voluntary euthanasia and stem cell research. They have been respectful debates. They have been the parliament at its finest, where people have thought about each and every word that they were going to contribute to the debate. I have been in a minority—it must be said—in those debates, but they have been respectful. I actually think those debates taking place have raised the standing of this parliament as a result.

That is the way forward. In the 20 years I have had the honour of sitting as a member of the House of Representatives, extraordinary advances have been made towards removing discrimination on the basis of sexuality. Marriage equality will be not the final step, but a significant step. The debate about removing discrimination is not just about laws; it is about the way that people conduct themselves in our community. If you engage with young people now—certainly, the ones that I speak to—then they wonder what the big deal is here. What is the issue? Marriage equality will not affect anyone's existing right; it simply extends an existing right to some people who have previously been denied that right.

It will not affect anyone's marriage; indeed, it will strengthen the institution of marriage by allowing more people to participate in it. It will not require churches to do anything against their will. It will simply provide equality for everyone before the law. And, when it is all over, just like as happened in most of the industrialised world now—in the United Kingdom under the conservatives, in New Zealand under the conservatives, in many of the states of United States, in Canada and in many of the countries of Europe—people will wonder what all the fuss was about and people will just get on with their lives. That is why the Prime Minister really should show leadership on this.

Marriage equality does come down to issues of tolerance and respect. I believe that tolerance and respect needs to be held by all people who participate in this debate, both the supporters and the opponents of marriage equality. I have been very much on the record for a very long time as a supporter of marriage equality but also as a supporter of the conscience vote. I understand that some people of faith who regard marriage not as a civil institution that is governed by laws and legislation but as something that is a sacred institution handed down from God have a different view, and I respect their right to hold their view. That is why any of the legislation that has been drawn up by people such as my colleague, the now member for Whitlam and then member for Throsby, Stephen Jones, included religious exemptions, and that is something that is supported by the gay and lesbian community. A conscience vote of this parliament would allow people who have religious convictions and do not want to choose between that position and the position of civil lawmaking to vote accordingly. It would ensure that the parliament is able to be respectful.

But it does go both ways. The truth is that the families that I have met with through organisations such as Rainbow Families are genuinely and legitimately concerned about the implications of a divisive debate. The member previously quoted the member for Barton in her contribution last night. Due to boundary changes by the Electoral Commission, I now live in the electorate of Barton. During the election campaign, in a marginal seat, I got material in my letterbox which can only be described as targeting Linda Burney because of her Aboriginality and her religion in a way that was offensive and divisive—and it backfired on those people who distributed that material. The concerns that those families have are absolutely legitimate concerns.

I am yet to have a same-sex family in my electorate—not one—ask me to vote for this legislation that is before the parliament. I have my own views that happen to accord with that view. My gut instinct was always to oppose the plebiscite, because we as parliamentarians have a job to do and we should do it. But we do have to be very cognisant of the fact that, as The Smiths said in that great song What Difference Does it Make?, 'Heavy words are so lightly thrown.' One of my concerns reflects the view of that great songwriter Morrissey when he said those words. Words are thrown around in a debate which we know, from some of the comments that have been made already in this debate, will be very hurtful and will create needless division. The fact that the government intends to publicly fund this debate is, I think, even more reason to oppose this legislation.

The fact is that we could knock this over this afternoon by having a vote of this parliament. It could go to the Senate tonight and they could deal with it. Then, next week, we could just get on with business. This is an enormous roadblock to the government getting on with other business. Its insistence on this divisive plebiscite is standing in the way of the promotion of harmony and unity, which this parliament has an obligation to pursue. We can see that there is a great deal of distrust of elected representatives playing out in areas such as the US presidential election. We need to lift standards of public discourse and lead the community in promoting respect and inclusion. Have marriage equality and have it through this parliament.

Ian Goodenough (Moore, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support this enabling legislation for a plebiscite. The Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 will establish the framework for conducting a national plebiscite on the proposal to change the existing marriage legislation and provide every Australian registered on the electoral role with the opportunity to vote on the proposed date of 11 February 2017. This is in accordance with the election policy commitment which the coalition government made to the Australian public leading up to the recent federal election.

Marriage is one of the most important cultural and social institutions within our society. It has existed for centuries in custom, tradition and common law, long before the notion of parliament or legislation to regulate or codify it evolved. In our society, marriage is the very foundation of the family unit. It influences many aspects of our lives, such as having children and the way in which children are raised into adulthood. It is the widespread custom and social norm that men and women across our nation get married, establish a home and start a family. What other fundamental tenets of marriage, as it currently stands in our society, are likely to be challenged by proponents of marriage equality in the future?

I acknowledge that traditional marriage is not perfect. There are many issues with family breakdown, divorce and dysfunction. However, it is arguably the most stable social institution that we currently have. A strong functional family unit in which members care for each another is the best form of social welfare we currently have.

On Monday I had the pleasure of meeting Millie Fontana, a young lady who was raised by a couple in a same-sex relationship. I heard of how she first met her biological father at the age of 11 after emotionally struggling with not knowing her origins. I understood from our conversation that she is strongly in favour of all children having access to both of their biological parents—a father and a mother. Millie said to me that to intentionally deny a child a mother or a father where there is a conscious choice made by adults is unethical. Millie told me that children will learn to cope with their situation in life, but it is emotionally difficult, and in instances where the decision affecting a child's life is an elective choice made by adults, the rights and welfare of the child are not adequately taken into account.

I make the case that when contemplating such a radical change to marriage as we know it, which is an established social and cultural norm, a comprehensive national debate and plebiscite is justified to properly raise public awareness of and to debate and consider a range of issues relating to the proposal to dramatically change a longstanding custom and institution in our society. The issue raises many complex questions which ought to be addressed.

Concentrating the voting power in the hands of the 226 Australians elected to the House of Representatives and the Senate is not the preferred course of action when determining an issue of such profound national importance as marriage. Regardless of which way we as individual parliamentarians vote, a large section of our constituent electors will be disenfranchised. Therefore, it makes sense to give the Australian people the right of self-determination through a public vote.

To those who say that the debate will be divisive or hurtful or will lead to vilification: the debate can be robust and respectful. I have great confidence in the ability of the Australian people to conduct a mature and civilised debate. To borrow a phrase from the Speaker: debate can be robust, but it need not be rude or loud. It is possible to promote high-level arguments of an intellectual and academic nature concerning the legal, social, health and other consequences of changing the legislation. It is essential that the decision be an informed one that takes into account all of the foreseeable consequences and costs of the proposed change. On such an important issue as marriage, the Australian people should be given the right to vote on a proposed change that is likely to have significant consequences in the future, requiring existing legislation to be modified and potentially a raft of new legislation to be introduced.

Consider: if same-sex marriage legislation were to pass, then parliament would create legally married couples who—it is obvious—are physically unable to have children. Married same-sex couples will have the same rights as all married couples under the law. As it is biologically impossible for a same-sex couple to reproduce, having children in a same sex-marriage involves, by necessity, a third-party gamete donor, or surrogate. The legal and social consequences of these three-way relationships must be carefully considered.

A number of very valid consequential issues also ought to be considered, including the potential ethical ramifications surrounding the use of human reproductive technology as new technologies evolve in the future, which will enable biomedical scientists to perform procedures not yet in existence. I cite the example of new genetic engineering procedures, such as creating a child from the DNA of three parents, as was recently reported on page 16 of the West Australian on 29 September last month. The article reported that Dr John Zhang and his team from New York's New Hope Fertility Center used a technique known as spindle nuclear transfer, in which the nucleus from one of the mother's eggs was removed and inserted into a donor egg that had had its own nucleus removed. The resulting egg, with nuclear DNA from the mother and mitochondrial DNA from a donor, was then fertilised with the father's sperm. This is an example of how advances in medical technology can lead to complex ethical considerations when dealing with human life. The future cost of these procedures to the health system needs to be quantified and the question asked: to what extent should the public health system subsidise certain elective procedures which are incurred by choice and not by medical necessity?

Surrogacy is another consequential issue which ought to be considered, including the ethics surrounding commercial surrogacy and international surrogacy arrangements. What are the ethical and legal consequences surrounding the involvement of third parties in the family unit and overseas births involving foreign biological surrogates? Will the proposed change to the marriage legislation trigger unforeseen consequential issues which need to be regulated? The impact of the proposed change in legislation in terms of consequential social and legal complexities, with which society will be required to contend, ought to be considered, including the potential impact on children of the complexities of same-sex marriages that involve third parties.

The rate at which children are separated from their biological parents is a major consideration. Will the proposed change to the legislation result in more children being separated from their biological parents? It is valid to consider issues, including the placement, adoption and custody of children. The emerging issue of commercial adoption is very disturbing, as it can lead to the exploitation of vulnerable people in poverty. Many questions are raised. Should our society permit parents to give up their children for financial compensation? What are the rights of children to know the identity of and have contact with their parents? Are there health issues in storing and accessing genetic and medical records? The rights of children must be paramount. In an ideal society, every child has the basic human right to be raised by a father and a mother, unless there are extenuating circumstances. Unfortunately, this is not always the case even in traditional marriages.

Consider the foreseeable impact of the legislative change on Australian culture in terms of political correctness and potential legal action. Our language may have to change as everyday, customary expressions such as 'ladies and gentlemen' or 'mum and dad' may become politically incorrect. In some overseas countries, the anti-discrimination laws make it prohibitive to question or debate issues relating to same-sex marriage. What will be the impact on society in terms of psychological and mental health issues arising from more complicated relationships in an already complex society?

For those who argue that the plebiscite should not be conducted due to the cost, the question should be asked: what price do we place on democracy? The cost of conducting the plebiscite is likely to pale into insignificance when compared with the potential future costs to the health, education and legal systems if the proposed legislation were to be implemented. Public funding will be administered by the committees established for both the 'yes' and the 'no' cases, comprising parliamentary and community representation with appropriate standards of governance. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that the public funding will most likely be used to promote high-level arguments of an intellectual and academic nature concerning the legal, social and other consequences of changing the legislation, with a high degree of accountability. Under this process, materials and content approved for publication using public funding will be required to be authorised by the respective committees. Given the parliamentary and community representation, it is unlikely that offensive material will be endorsed by the committees.

The Australian public needs to be made fully aware of the broad spectrum of consequential issues which are likely to arise from changing the existing definition of marriage. The public ought to understand the cost to the health system and the likely social and ethical consequences of their decision. Having the benefit of this knowledge, every Australian should then be granted the opportunity to cast his or her vote on this important issue. The proponents of same-sex marriage are yet to provide a compelling argument as to why civil unions are inadequate to protect their legal rights. Marriage is not a romantic notion; it is an important social institution that deals with progeny.

In summary, on a social issue of such importance to the family as marriage, I support conducting a plebiscite for the reasons I have just outlined. This legislation will provide every Australian registered on the electoral roll with the opportunity to vote on the proposed change to the existing marriage legislation. This is in accordance with the election policy commitment which the coalition government made to the Australian public. I commend the bill to the House.

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

It is a pleasure to rise to follow the member for Moore. I say to my friend the member for Moore that I think we may have found an explanation for his bachelor status, given his description of marriage as being not romantic but a social construct important for progeny. If I were to counsel the member for Moore in his quest for love, I would say, 'Maybe don't roll that one out on the first date'—that is, if I were to counsel him, which, of course, I would not presume to do.

We are here to debate the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016—a bill to establish a plebiscite, a national opinion poll, in which people, if the bill were to be passed, would be compelled to vote. It would be an expensive national opinion poll. It would cost the taxpayer $170 million as an appropriation and a further $32½ million as a regulatory impact cost. So it would be an incredibly expensive exercise to conduct this national opinion poll that the government proposes to have.

Deputy Speaker Goodenough, I now welcome you to the chair. Before I speak on the terms of the bill, I want to acknowledge some people who have done a lot of work in relation to this bill and the response to it. I would like to acknowledge the Leader of the Opposition; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition; the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate; the shadow minister for mental health; the shadow Attorney-General; Senator Louise Pratt, a senator for Western Australia; and the member for Bruce, all of whom have been engaged in responding to this bill. In particular, I would like to thank and acknowledge the members of the LGBTI community, with whom I have spoken or consulted through either formal consultation arrangements or other means: Australians for Marriage Equality; A4E; just.equal; AFAO; the Victorian AIDS Council; the Queensland AIDS Council; Western Australian AIDS Council; JOY FM—and thanks to them for having me on a few times to discuss this issue; the New South Wales Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby and their Victorian counterpart lobby; the Brisbane Pride fair and the Queensland LGBTI community; The Gender Centre; Transgender Victoria; La Trobe University; the Bernard Institute; the Drummond Street centre; Rainbow Labor; PFLAG; Rainbow Families; ACT LGBTI Council; Human Rights Law Centre; Geelong for Marriage Equality; AEP; RRWA; Sally Rugg from GetUp!; EMRA; Gilmore for Marriage Equality; ACON; Out for Australia; QUT Law Society; the LGBTI Legal Service in Queensland; Michael Kirby, who spoke at a recent anniversary function at the Queensland Supreme Court in the beautiful Banco Court—I had the very great pleasure of speaking briefly with him; the author Joe Hurst; and a range of other people who have taken the time to speak with me. I also want to thank the many, many people who have written to me, emailed me or telephoned me from the LGBTI community to encourage me and to encourage Labor not to support this proposed national opinion poll.

I also want to acknowledge the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, for making his ministers available to discuss the plebiscite; the Attorney-General for his invitations to meet to discuss the plebiscite; the Special Minister of State—also for meeting to discuss the plebiscite; other members of the coalition in this parliament who have taken the time to discuss the plebiscite; and crossbench members and senators. From the last parliament, I would like to particularly thank the member for Leichhardt, the then member for Brisbane, the member for Denison, the then member for Werriwa, the member for Melbourne and the member for Indi for allowing me to be included in the cross-party work to bring a marriage equality bill before this parliament. It was a great privilege to be able to second a marriage equality cross-party bill in the 44th Parliament. We actually introduced it twice because the 44th Parliament was prorogued—we introduced the cross-party bill again after that had occurred. We did that in a way that was respectful and collaborative, and we were very, very hopeful that, by working together and reaching out across the aisle, we would be able to find a way to make marriage equality a reality. That is a project that still continues.

Though I certainly do not support this proposal for a national opinion poll, for reasons that I will mention shortly, I very much remain a very strong supporter of marriage equality. I spoke of marriage equality in my first speech in this place, and it is something that I will continue to work towards, because I believe that this country, in its heart, knows that removing this form discrimination is the right thing to do. I also believe that if we will talk and work together we can find a way to do it. I also say to my friends from the Liberal Party and the National Party: 'Even if you don't support marriage equality there is a question you have to consider, and that is: do you want marriage equality to be passed at a later date when you have no input into the form that it takes, or do you want to have some input and some opportunity to discuss it and to try to find a consensus by which we can actually move forward and have marriage equality?' It might mean we have marriage equality sooner, and, certainly, that would be my preference, but it might also be the only way in which people who have concerns about it can actually express those concerns and seek to negotiate them. This does not have to be an adversarial argument; it can be an argument in which we take down the temperature, meet and discuss the possibilities for change.

I also want to thank and acknowledge each person who has ever moved, in this place or in the Senate, a bill for marriage equality, and I want to thank those who are considering how they might be instrumental in bringing about marriage equality in the future. This bill is not a bill for marriage equality. There are no provisions in this bill that seek to amend the Marriage Act to make marriage equality a reality. At 11 pm on Monday night this week the government published a proposed bill for marriage equality, but that bill has not been tabled in this parliament. That bill remains an exposure draft not a bill before this parliament. This bill—the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016—as I said, is merely a bill for a national opinion poll.

Labor has made why we oppose this bill very clear. Firstly, we are concerned about the waste. As I said, $170 million and $32½ million extra for regulatory cost is a cost to our budget and then to our economy that we do not need to bear. Offhand, if you asked me, I could think of 10 better things—100 better things!—to spend that money on than this plebiscite process. The next issue, in terms of why we oppose it, is that the plebiscite process is really completely unnecessary. The High Court says that parliament has the power to amend the Marriage Act. This plebiscite is so ridiculous. Any Australian could be fined for not voting in this plebiscite, but no member of this House would be obliged to abide by its result—that is how ridiculous this plebiscite is. So our second reason for not supporting it is that it is completely unnecessary.

Probably our most important reason for not supporting it is the potential for harm—the potential for exclusion and marginalisation. Some of the Liberals and Nationals—not all of them, of course—have sought to characterise this as an accusation that Labor does not believe that Australians can be trusted to have a civil debate. That is certainly not the case. We do not claim that Australians cannot be trusted to have a civil debate. That is a ridiculous proposition, and we are being verballed whenever that is said of us. LGBTI people have a higher propensity for anxiety and depression than others. That is particularly exacerbated amongst young people. The source of this is not that people were born with that heightened propensity; it is because of exclusion and marginalisation during the course of their lives. The idea that you have a national vote on whether lesbians, on whether gays, on whether bisexual people, on whether transgendered people and on whether intersex people can, as a minority, have the same human rights as the majority of Australians is inherently exclusive. It is inherently marginalising. It does not matter how polite that debate is, it does not matter if I am polite when I say, 'You should not have the same rights as me; you are not as capable of parenting as I am.' It does not matter how politely you say those things—they are inherently exclusive and they inherently marginalise people. It is the very nature of the debate that causes difficulty. It is the very nature of the idea that people should have to submit themselves to a straw poll of their fellow Australians in order to have the same human rights as they do that is problematic.

People ask why can't we just get over it and just cop it—if it is the quickest path, as is the claim from the Liberals, why don't we just cop it? Firstly, it is certainly not the quickest path—the quickest path is a free vote in this parliament on a marriage equality bill. Secondly, why should people be asked to pay this price? Why should the price of equality for them be the subject of this national straw poll of their fellow Australians? Who among us would divorce our husband or wife and agree not to remarry them until there had been a straw poll of our fellow Australians where a majority had voted to agree to our doing so? I certainly would not agree to that and I doubt that anyone here would agree to it.

There are other issues. There is the concern about what else might we have a plebiscite on if we have a plebiscite on this. What other minority will be expected to submit to a vote of their fellow Australians to have the same human rights? What human rights might be taken away using a mechanism like this? We are a parliament. We should act. We should legislate. We should do our duty and not outsource the hard questions. We are all paid a lot of money to be sent to Canberra to make decisions, to vote. That is our job. That is what we are here for. We should be doing it.

So, there are many reasons why we oppose the plebiscite but there is another that I particularly want to mention. Despite the fact that the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General are trying to convince people that the plebiscite is a direct route to marriage equality, that is just not the case. The bill that was published, but not tabled—the proposed marriage equality bill that the Attorney-General produced on Monday night—has provisions in it that will very likely cause the bill to have difficulty passing. Those provisions include exemptions for celebrants in a situation where celebrants are businesses and exemptions for other commercial businesses where they happen to be owned or run by religious organisations. The concern I have with that is this: if you are blind and you take an assistance animal into a shop and they throw you out, if they refuse you service, that is against the law in this country—and it should be. If you are Aboriginal and you are refused service on that basis, that is against the law. I am a woman—I can go into a public bar and buy a pot of beer, and they cannot chuck me out because I am a woman, because that is against the law. We have had these laws that prohibit businesses from discriminating on the grounds of personal attributes for decades in this country. We have laws that prohibit that sort of discrimination on the basis of sexuality and gender identity. The proposed bill that the Attorney-General proposed erodes those protections. So not only are LGBTI people being asked to pay the price of enduring this process—a process that no-one else has to go through in order to have equality and to have discrimination lifted, that no-one else has to go through in order to have the right to marry—but also they will then be asked to sell part of their existing rights in order to get these rights. They will also be asked to pay a further price, and that is to give up the legal protection that they have had for decades, to accept some of the erosion of those protections, in return for the right to marry.

These prices are too high. People should not be asked to pay these prices in order to have the right to marry—it is wrong. I know it is wrong, the Prime Minister knows it is wrong, the Attorney-General knows it is wrong and Australians know it is wrong and I hope, therefore, that we will be able to continue to talk about what might be other ways to achieve marriage equality, what might be a marriage equality bill that will pass this parliament. If we do not work that out together, it is just going to be the case that when we are in government we will be passing a marriage equality bill that people will not necessarily have had the opportunity to discuss in this parliament. It will be left to us, and we will do it. It will be left to us to pass marriage equality during the course of the first Shorten Labor government. But my preference is not for it to be the Shorten Labor government that passes marriage equality; my preference is for it to be the 45th Parliament that does it together. We can do that—we can work together. I know that some of my friends in this place, not on this side but on the other side, have been making comments that they will not support a marriage equality free vote. I hope that the Prime Minister will not acquiesce, because of course that would serve only to undermine his own authority further. I look forward to working with friends and colleagues to progress marriage equality.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill. Very pleasingly, the introduction of this bill is the culmination of our fulfilment of the clear mandate that we have from the last election. It was very clear to Australians when they went to a polling booth on 2 July that should the Turnbull government be re-elected a vote in parliament on same-sex marriage would only occur following a public vote, a plebiscite, put to the Australian people to garner their views on the proposed change to this very important institution.

The fact that the Labor Party and the Greens have chosen to oppose this legislation is very disappointing—not surprising but disappointing. I accept that particularly the Shorten opposition is basically obsessed with any political advantage they can get, and I do not whinge about that. I can understand that oppositions engage, as a general rule, in political advantage as opposed to fulfilling what I think should be the values that this parliament should uphold. Putting that aside, what did surprise me is the Labor Party's position, seemingly, that the Australian people cannot be trusted and, indeed, are not entitled to have a view on a proposed change to this very, very important institution. That is what surprised me and many of my colleagues and, I suspect, secretly surprised some people within the Labor Party itself. We know the Labor Party have basically adopted an approach that anybody who supports a traditional view of marriage effectively puts their preselection in jeopardy. We know that from 2019 they will bind all their party members to a position supporting same-sex marriage. But it is very surprising to me that they would use the argument that they do, particularly in the context of a parliament where we will, presumably, soon be trying to further the recognition of Indigenous Australians in our Constitution. I wonder if those opposite will use an argument that we should not proceed with a referendum recognising Indigenous Australians in our Constitution for fear that such a referendum would unleash hate in our society and bring out the racist fringe groups in our society, thereby causing Indigenous Australians much hurt. Might I say, that is a flimsy argument, but it is an argument that I would expect correlates with the argument that they have put forward here—that, because of the fear that a debate on a plebiscite could contain elements that make unsavoury, unfair, cruel or harsh comments, we should not have a plebiscite. Clearly, that same theory would apply to the recognition of Indigenous Australians in the Constitution.

We have been having this debate for many, many years, and it was the advocates of same-sex marriage who have insisted on ensuring that this is debated in our society, notwithstanding the fact that we have had 16 individual pieces of legislation introduced, debated and voted for in this parliament. On the basis of that argument—that we should not unleash such hatred and hateful comments in our society—why has there been, in a sense, a perpetual campaign from the advocates of same-sex marriage? Clearly, those issues were not a concern at that time.

I am very proud that, as a government, we are fulfilling our election mandate but, more importantly—crucially—saying to the Australian people: 'We think you deserve to have a direct say on a change to an important institution like marriage. You deserve that.' I know that, because most of them end up crawling their way onto these benches through the union movement, patronage and other things, those opposite in the Labor Party, who scarcely would live or socialise or spend much time outside a five-kilometre radius of our CBDs, do not really have a great ability to converse with what I would describe as mainstream Australians. They are displaying the same arrogance that we saw very recently in the Brexit campaign in the UK. It is the same arrogance that says: 'You do not deserve, you are not entitled and you cannot be trusted to have a say on an important issue such as this. Leave it to us. We know best.' What we do know is that most Australians are decent, have views, can agree to disagree and will differ but can have a respectful debate.

When we talk about being concerned about the consequences of a plebiscite and concerned about the campaign, I would make two points. Firstly, I do not think a plebiscite campaign would be markedly different to the campaign we have seen for the last five years. These issues have been aired in detail. It feels like we have spoken about this issue ad nauseam for at least five years. In a plebiscite, albeit with the intensity of a campaign, particularly given that our plebiscite is scheduled to be held on 11 February, a relatively short time from now—there would be some intensity—I do not think the substance of the arguments that would be aired in that debate would be markedly different from what we have seen over the last five or so years.

The second point I would make, when we are talking about the concern about fringe groups and hurtful, hateful, negative comments, is that, yes, I am somebody, to be honest, who is concerned with that issue. I am very concerned for those people who hold a traditional view of marriage, because they are the ones who are subject to the most hateful, vitriolic comments that I have seen. I invite any member in this House to express on Twitter or Facebook a view supporting traditional marriage and see what sorts of comments they get. I challenge them to do that. So, yes, I do share those concerns. Most relevantly, I share those concerns for those who have a traditional view of marriage, but of course that would equally apply to same-sex marriage advocates. But for the Labor Party to argue that it is just same-sex marriage advocates who would potentially be subject to that vitriol is incorrect. I would say that those who are on the traditional view of marriage case have been suffering that for many, many years. I am one of those people who does not support a change to the Marriage Act. That is, in a sense, why I believe that a plebiscite is fair and a responsible course of action by this government.

Plebiscites as a concept are not novel. Yes, they do not happen all the time, but they are not novel in Australian political history. They have been employed to deal with a number of difficult issues over the years. So for the Labor Party to say that it is unprecedented for the Australian parliament to seek the Australian people's views on highly contentious and highly significant issues is wrong. In the area of conscription and many others, the Australian parliament has asked the Australian people for their view on serious questions. The Australian parliament did it with conscription, and I do not think anyone seriously argued that the Australian people should not have had a say on conscription, albeit in our history.

Marriage is an institution. It is one that, formally and informally, has developed over millennia. It has been adopted into our civil law and, in my view, it is an institution that belongs to the people. It is not an institution of government. It is an institution that belongs to the people, and they should be the arbiters. They should be the direct and final arbiters of whether we make a significant change to the definition of marriage. This is not a minor tweak; this is significant and fundamental change to the definition of marriage. So I am very pleased that on 11 February, should this House and the Senate pass this bill, we will have a public vote on this question.

I am also very pleased to note that in this legislation funding will be provided to both campaigns, constituted in a similar fashion to the way funding was provided in the republic referendum in the late nineties. Both campaigns will have access to that funding. I think it is important that, in putting forward this question to the Australian people, they are entitled to hear the respective arguments of both of those cases. We have seen to date it has been, basically, one-way traffic as far as that case being made. I do not begrudge the same-sex marriage advocates—all power to them. They have run a very strong campaign. They have been very strong advocates for their case. They are obviously very well organised and extraordinarily well funded. I do not begrudge them that. I think it is fantastic. In a democracy, that is wonderful. When they commenced that campaign, I did not hear those in the Labor Party saying, 'Just be careful, guys, because I don't want you to unleash any hatred in our society by starting this campaign.' So it is surprising that they have adopted that now. With this funding it is important that we will have both cases aired in a way that will ensure that the Australian people, when they go to the ballot box on 11 February, are able to make an informed decision.

Importantly, this legislation also provides that we will replicate, to the greatest extent possible, the ordinary voting experience for people at a polling booth on 11 February. We did not want this to be novel. We wanted it to, in a sense, replicate the voting experience that most people would have, as they did when they went to the polling booths on 2 July and gave us a mandate for this legislation. So the ordinary rules around pre-poll, attendance voting and postal voting will apply, so it is easily understood. I think it was important for the purposes of this plebiscite that there was not anything novel or anything that the government or, indeed, the parliament could be accused of, in a sense, changing for the benefit of one side or the other of the argument. I think we have successfully done that. I do not think anybody has criticised that the legislation—the bill before us—provides a voting experience that would be easily understood and familiar to all Australians.

I will conclude by saying that it is a proud moment for the government. It is a proud moment for me as a member of this government that, in the face of vitriolic hostility, the base accusations of the Labor Party impugning our motives behind this legislation and the inherent disregard or the inherent belittling of the Australian people that is basically contained within their argument that the Australian people cannot be trusted and do not have the right to make this decision, we, in the face of all of that, have brought this legislation before the House, fulfilling a key commitment that we took to the election and, most importantly—and this is the most important thing—ensuring that, if there is to be a change to same-sex marriage, all Australians could say, 'This was a decision by the people.' Alternatively, if there is no change, the advocates of same-sex marriage would, whilst they would not be happy with the outcome, appreciate that in a democracy the decision of the people was not to change the Marriage Act.

I think both sides of the argument—whoever the losing side was—would be, in a sense, happier knowing that their ambitions were frustrated not by a political stitch up by this parliament or lobby groups and well-funded advocacy groups running long-term campaigns but, actually, by the majority. In a democracy, the majority rules. The greatest thing about this plebiscite is: ultimately, whichever side is frustrated in their attempts—whether the advocates of same-sex marriage or the advocates of traditional marriage—they will live with the outcome because it will be the determination of the Australian people. I commend this bill.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor rejects the false choice presented by the government that it is either a plebiscite or nothing when it comes to marriage equality in Australia. There are bills in the parliament right now that would make marriage equality a reality if Mr Turnbull would behave like a leader and allow a free vote.

This plebiscite and the Marriage Act amendments released by the Attorney-General at five minutes to midnight before this bill, the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016, was debated are the clearest indications yet that the Turnbull government, dominated by Senators Bernardi and Abetz, and the member for Dawson and others in the right, will never accept marriage equality. This massively wasteful and divisive plebiscite was devised by the member for Warringah and others in the right wing of the Liberal Party who are opposed to marriage equality. These opponents of marriage equality demanded a plebiscite not because they wanted to progress marriage equality but because they wanted to delay it and, if it all possible, to derail it.

Prime Minister Turnbull had the chance to ditch the plebiscite and make a fresh start on marriage equality when he took over the leadership from the member for Warringah. He chose not to. That was incredibly disappointing to all Australians who had hoped that the member for Wentworth was a man of his convictions and who had pictured the member for Wentworth as a leader who might take our nation in a different direction. The new Prime Minister's abject failure to do more than follow the destructive tactics concocted by his predecessor, has, of course, been particularly disappointing for Australians from the LGBTI community. The Prime Minister's utter lack of backbone in this matter is plain for all to see. He has had no problem reversing election policies on all manner of economic matters, including his 'ironclad' policy guarantees on superannuation. He claims these changes were necessary to improve policies that he has since discovered were flawed. Backflips on election policies are no problem at all for this Prime Minister when his right-wing colleagues demand them. 'What mandate?' our Prime Minister says. But when virtually all LGBTI Australians tell him that the plebiscite is a fundamentally flawed policy that will cause great harm—a position the Prime Minister himself held when the plebiscite was first proposed—the Prime Minister claims that he is incapable of changing course. The debate we are having now is not about whether we should have marriage equality or not, in truth; it is about the best mechanism for achieving it. It is now up to the Prime Minister to show that, if one mechanism is blocked, he has the wit and courage to find an alternative mechanism.

Labor has made it easy for him to do that. There are bills sitting in the House just waiting for the Prime Minister to act. This plebiscite is no more than a delaying tactic that became coalition party policy after a six-hour partyroom meeting when a desperate Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, was trying to shore up his leadership. Many of those on the front bench who are now trying to sell the plebiscite as a good idea, including the current Prime Minister and the Attorney-General, were vehemently opposed to the plebiscite when it was first raised.

The Prime Minister does not honestly believe that the plebiscite is a better way to decide this issue than a free vote in parliament; he just has to pretend as much in order to stay in power and to keep sweet with a handful of his right-wing colleagues. Let me be clear: this is not an argument of principle. A plebiscite is a complete fabrication, at odds with the principles of representative government and counter to over a century of our parliamentary democratic process. It is a totally dishonest claim to pretend that it is 'good for democracy'.

Like so many other features of Malcolm Turnbull's Prime Ministership so far, his dithering on this issue speaks of an utter weakness and an unwillingness to stand up to the right wing of his own party. Not all Liberals share the Prime Minister's weakness. Liberal Senator from Western Australia Dean Smith, who is proposing to cross the floor to vote against the plebiscite bill when comes to the Senate, wrote in The Sydney Morning Herald last month:

As a lifelong parliamentary and constitutional conservative, I cannot countenance a proposition that threatens to undermine the democratic compact that has seen Australia emerge as one of the most stable parliamentary democracies in the world.

I do not share Senator Smith's views on many matters, but I entirely agree with the principles he expressed and the reasoning he set out in his piece.

The Hon. Michael Kirby, a former High Court judge, made a related point:

It is exceptional and wrong in principle to commit decisions on the basic human rights of minorities to a majority popular vote, especially in a country such as Australia which, exceptionally, has no entrenched constitutional guarantees for equality or fundamental human rights to protect minorities. For protection, minorities look to parliament to protect them. It should not shirk from that duty.

Holding plebiscites is just not the way we govern ourselves in Australia. It sets a terrible precedent for making difficult decisions. We, as elected representatives, do not farm out tough questions. We debate them, we talk to stakeholders, we think hard on them, we consult, and we vote. It works. We should not change it now just because it is politically convenient for a weak Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is well aware of what he is doing. But he continues to maintain that he is doing it out of some higher moral duty to give people their say. He knows, and we know, that that is just not true.

The only exception to that principle of representative democracy, the only involvement of a direct public vote on a specific legal change, is when we are compelled by the Australian Constitution to do so because it is the Constitution itself that is to be changed. In those circumstances, Section 128 of the Constitution requires that there be a popular vote and for a majority of people in a majority of the states to be reached. And that is it. There is absolutely no legal reason for this plebiscite. This plebiscite was invented only by those opposed to marriage equality to solve a political problem in the Liberal party room.

Then there is the question of cost. That this government wants to spend $200 million on a needless plebiscite when there are organisations and people around Australia who have borne the brunt of severe cuts under this government and are crying out for relief is just shocking. This Prime Minister is willing to spend $200 million of hard-earned taxpayer money just to save his own neck. The Prime Minister and his frontbench colleagues were bullied by the member for Dawson and his mates into providing a total of $15 million in public funding to the yes and no sides, compounding this waste. Let me be clear: only the no case asked for this money. There was only one side of the case they were seeking to satisfy in this situation, and that is the one that is driving conservative, reactionary ideology. This entire process has been captive to that cause, and it is plain for all to see.

Since the idea of this plebiscite was first introduced by the member for Warringah, as a former Prime Minister fighting for his life, the government has ignored the very real and very cruel impact the plebiscite would have on the vulnerable LGBTI community. This is a population which is already vastly overrepresented when it comes to mental health issues and suicide rates. And this government wants to inflict further harm.

This week we saw research from Ireland on the impact on the LGBTI community there of their referendum on marriage equality. This was a public vote which, I note, Ireland had to have as the existing definition of 'marriage' was enshrined in their constitution. That survey found that 75.5 per cent of participants often or always felt angry when they were exposed to campaign messages from the no campaign before the referendum, 80 per cent felt upset by the no campaign materials, and two-thirds felt anxious or distressed. Younger LGBTI people scored lower on psychological wellbeing compared with older people, including feeling anxious and afraid.

This is a message that I have heard over and over again from the LGBTI community throughout Australia. At one round table of LGBTI mental health experts, which I attended with the Leader of the Opposition and a number of my other colleagues, at an organisation called drummond street services in Carlton, I was told that calls to their LGBTI mental health hotline had doubled since the debate about the plebiscite started. Labor has taken the time to consult extensively with the LGBTI community all around Australia—unlike the Prime Minister, who I believe has not had one public meeting, and unlike Senator Brandis, who only took the time briefly last week to call those he was meeting with 'fools'. The LGBTI community are the ones most affected by the issue we are now debating. LGBTI Australians deserve to be listened to, and LGBTI Australians have been telling us loud and clear that they do not want this plebiscite.

I have received a stream of correspondence from the LGBTI community over the last few weeks, including a letter from John Challis, in Sydney, who is 88. I know the member for Sydney is also familiar with John and has mentioned him already in this place. John's partner, Arthur, is 84. They have been together 49 years. They wrote to urge me not to support the plebiscite. They said they would be happy to wait a bit longer to marry in order to avoid the plebiscite. I find that incredible. It shows a patience and kindness that says a lot about the LGBTI community in Australia and the attitude they have taken on this plebiscite.

Labor does not regret opposing this plebiscite. We do not regret rejecting something that will inflict hurt, that will waste $200 million of taxpayer money and that will not even be binding on coalition MPs once it is done. We do not regret opposing this political trick the Prime Minister wants to pull off. The Prime Minister and Attorney-General will try and convince the Australian people that the cause of marriage equality is now dead. Do not listen to them. The cause of marriage equality is more alive than ever. This plebiscite proposal, no matter how pointless it was, mobilised the movement for marriage equality more than anything else has in some years. And if anybody thinks that the movement for marriage equality in Australia is going to go away now, to use the language of the Attorney-General, you are a fool. Labor will keep up the fight. We will keep pushing for a free vote on marriage equality in this parliament. We will not let this slip and we will not give this up. I call on Australians who support marriage equality not to lose hope and to keep up the fight. Join with us.

To the Prime Minister I would say: you tried to force Australians to accept a plebiscite and you have failed. The LGBTI community do not want it and the people across Australia who support the LGBTI community in their quest for equality also do not support it. It is absolutely clear that this has been a mounting majority of Australians who oppose this plebiscite. That has happened over the course of this year, as the Australian community has realised what waste, what harm, what division would be caused by this plebiscite and, I would suggest, as the Australian people have come to realise how unnecessary this plebiscite is.

Australians want their parliament to do the job that their parliament was elected to do—that is, to consider the hard issues that arise in Australia and to debate those hard issues and to vote on those hard issues. There are legion of hard issues that this parliament has looked at in more than a century of Federation, and on all of the occasions when the rights of Australians have been altered, the rights of Australians in Australian law, they have been altered by a vote in this parliament. We did not need a plebiscite to decide that we should ban racial discrimination in this country. We did not need a plebiscite when we changed the laws to permit Aboriginal Australians to marry non-Aboriginal Australians, to allow what was once decried as 'mixed raced marriages'—just to put this in context. We did not have a plebiscite when we decided to remove discrimination against LGBTI people in 88 pieces of Commonwealth legislation in the 43rd Parliament. I could go on, but the point is that we do not invite the whole of the Australian population to vote and we have never invited the whole of the Australian population to vote on the rights of other Australians, except where there was some constitutional change involved.

I call on the Prime Minister to stand up for something, to admit that you, the Prime Minister, never wanted this plebiscite to happen either. The Prime Minister and the frontbench of the government have it within their power to bring about a free vote in this parliament, and I call on the government to do just that: to drop this ridiculous idea of a plebiscite and to allow a free vote on marriage equality today.

Trevor Evans (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today I rise, as Queensland's first openly gay MP, in support of achieving marriage equality and to fulfil the election commitments made by myself and every member of this government. Marriage equality is a very important and deeply personal issue for me. I have naturally been interested in this public debate for a long time. It is with much personal pride in mainstream Australians that I observe how quickly the debate on this topic has transformed in recent years. Basically, this parliament is now arguing over the method by which to bring about the reform, rather than the substantive topic itself.

There are many in our community, including many constituents in Brisbane, and indeed myself, who want to achieve this reform as quickly as possible. I hear and I sense the impatience and frustration of many of my constituents in calling for this reform. And it is worth reflecting for a moment on why there is this frustration and impatience in some parts of the community.

Australia has just had a coalition government, a Labor government and, in between those, a Labor government operating in a formal coalition with the Greens. None of those governments achieved this reform, not even the Labor-Greens coalition, which was, incidentally, the only one of those governments with a majority in its Senate. Those of us who have observed this debate over many years will remember how our three former Prime Ministers over those years—Prime Ministers Rudd, Gillard, Rudd again and then Abbott—all opposed marriage equality, although only one appeared to oppose it through consistent principle, while another changed their mind when it was all too late.

That brings us now to the Turnbull government. Our Prime Minister is the first Prime Minister our country has ever had who has been consistently in favour of marriage equality. This is the first ever government Australia has ever elected with a platform that includes a way forward on marriage equality. In being elected, this government, incidentally, achieved something momentous for the cause of diversity, with the election of Australia's first ever openly gay members of this House: Trent Zimmerman, the member for North Sydney; Tim Wilson, the member for Goldstein; and myself in Brisbane. Now, for the first time ever in Australian history, a federal government is putting forward a government-endorsed bill that paves a way forwards for achieving marriage equality.

A plebiscite might not be described, even by its closest friends, as the simplest or most perfect way to achieve a reform. I am only a new member, but I suspect that very little that passes through this House in a perfect way, given the compromises needed today to scrape together majority support for almost any reform. Indeed, the most perfect way to achieve marriage equality was presumably lost to us years ago before my time here, when the opportunity first arose for a former government to recognise that community sentiment had begun to shift and finally a majority of Australians started to support this reform.

If this issue was such a simple one for our country, then it would likely have been achieved by one of those former governments. That we find ourselves here is a reflection of how difficult this topic has actually proven to be for both sides of politics. While I strongly support achieving marriage equality, I recognise and respect the many Australians, including many Brisbane voters, who have alternative views. A plebiscite may not be the preferred way forward on this topic for me, for our Prime Minister or for many of our colleagues, yet nobody should be surprised to see this government trying to implement its election commitments, nor should they be surprised to see government members supporting this promise we made to our own constituents. No-one should feign outrage over a policy that has already been taken to an election and been endorsed by the Australian people.

This is the first time in history any Australian government has put its numbers behind a bill paving a way forward on marriage equality. In supporting this bill, I will incidentally be one of the few people in this House to have a consistent voting history in favour of marriage equality. Most of those opposite, who vote no to this bill today, will be condemned by historians not only for voting against the first ever government-endorsed bill presented here with a way forward on marriage and not only for today delaying marriage equality for who knows how long but for taking no action when they had the power to and for failing to try anything to achieve this when they had their chance. Indeed, for many of them, they will be condemned for having voted against marriage equality in past parliaments and in their own party rooms. From the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten down—including the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Penny Wong—they have voted no to achieving marriage equality when they were in government. They were supportive of this plebiscite just a few years ago, as were the Greens, and so their record is, tragically, inconsistent and impotent. It is one I certainly will not ever replicate.

I am voting here today in support of achieving marriage equality, consistent with a strong history of Liberal Party achievement when it comes to diversity and LGBTI rights. The rights of gay people were first mentioned in this House many, many decades ago by an Attorney-General from our side of politics. In Queensland, the Liberal Party was the first party to support ending the laws that previously prohibited homosexuality.

The first victories in this House giving same-sex couples legal equality in federal laws were won by a coalition government, addressing the potential for discrimination in the approach our Defence forces. That government also produced the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission report entitled Same sex: same entitlements, which was ultimately acted on by the Rudd government and supported in a bipartisan fashion to achieve legal equality for same-sex couples in areas such as superannuation and welfare.

In the election a few months ago, as I said, the Liberal Party achieved a victory for diversity with the election of Australia's first openly gay MPs. That follows naturally from the achievements of the Liberal Party in other areas of diversity: having the nation's first female MPs and ministers, having the first Indigenous MP and producing the oldest and the youngest ever representatives in this House.

Now, let me be as even-handed as I can in addressing what are regarded as the strongest arguments against a plebiscite. Firstly, to the question of division: a plebiscite will not create a single new line of attack or offence, nor will it create a single new platform for communicating such messages. If we take a moment to think of whatever examples we possibly can where somebody in a plebiscite may say something on any communication platform which could be hurtful, offensive or inappropriate, we find that it can already be said now by that person on that communication platform—today.

It is true that a plebiscite will likely increase the sheer quantity of the arguments being made in the debate around marriage equality for a period of time, yet that is also true for every single other approach. A parliamentary vote, for example, would similarly—as seen now—increase the quantity of debate on every platform. Increased public debate is unavoidable in achieving most reforms. There is no way that this reform can be made in secret. Nor is it desirable to achieve social change secretly. For example, we will not ever defeat racism, xenophobia or populism by being quiet about it and stifling community debate. We will not defeat domestic violence by being quiet about it and stifling community debate. And we will not defeat homophobia or any inequality by being quiet about it and stifling community debate, either.

Quite frankly, it appears from the way this matter is heading now that if this bill is defeated it will prolong the public debate, leaving this topic a very live one for far longer than a plebiscite would take. Indeed, one of the clear benefits of a plebiscite, compared to the alternatives, is that the debate would be done and dusted by 11 February. For the romantics hoping to get married under these reforms, I note that the date is three days before Valentine's Day.

On the topic of division, I want to recognise that, in reality, there is right now a base level of ongoing divisiveness in our country targeted towards some in the LGBTI community. It existed before this debate and it will continue afterwards, especially in the absence of us creating any big watershed moments, as a successful plebiscite would. We all have a very serious responsibility here to shelter from harm those who are vulnerable in our community. Naturally, I feel this responsibility very strongly about my own constituents. That is why I attended the Queensland pride march last month, the IDAHOT rally in June and the Brisbane candlelight vigil for the victims of the Orlando massacre. It is why I have already had so many meetings with individuals and groups representing the LGBTI community around Brisbane, including specifically around the challenges faced by vulnerable trans and intersex constituents. I look forward to working very closely with them all for many more years to come.

In a plebiscite, I could foreseeably be one target for some hurtful and offensive comments. Equally, however, I would also very willingly and energetically be a strong leader and a loud defender of the vulnerable if I ever saw anything inappropriate targeting them. And I know I would be joined by countless more constituents in Brisbane and around Australia who are ready to stand up and argue for a fair debate.

Indeed, my genuine and heartfelt confidence in the people of Australia, in the power of liberal democracy and in the disinfecting virtues of free speech means I have never been overly worried about the conduct or the result of a plebiscite. Every national poll that has been conducted on this topic for many years shows that if we gave Australians an equal say on this topic, they would vote overwhelmingly for marriage equality.

Probably the most crucial thing that can be said about a plebiscite is that it offers a profoundly comprehensive way to resolve the issue. I say 'comprehensive' very deliberately, thinking about so many other policy areas where political games have been played in recent times, where contentious issues have not been resolved by a parliamentary vote—rather, those debates were amplified, then continued to be used in political games for many years afterwards. A plebiscite would have the Australian people make a decision and own the decision in a way that would force most politicians to toe the line. I am concerned about the possibility that a parliamentary vote may not resolve the issue and instead may lead to the LGBTI community continuing to be used as a political game for many more years to come.

To the issue of cost: $170 million is a lot of money. To put it in its proper context, it is about one per cent of the budget repair work that this government has achieved in the last month. It amounts to about 0.05 per cent of Labor's failed pink batts program or 0.01 per cent of their rorted school halls program. It is about the same amount as the cost to the economy being imposed by Labor's lockouts in Queensland, although, of course, the costs of those lockouts will continue to be paid by Queenslanders every year, not just once. And those lockouts, incidentally, have the effect of shutting down the safe spaces of so many in the LGBTI community.

One hundred and seventy million dollars is about the same amount as holding a royal commission, if you look at the average cost of the last three. The fact is that nation-wide activities and national reforms often do cost money. My considered view is that if the $170 million resolves this issue once and for all and puts an end to the political games that have been played with the lives of LGBTI people, then it would be worth it.

In closing, it appears that this bill is headed for defeat in the Senate, despite it being an election commitment endorsed by the Australian people. It begs the question, what next? I do not know the full answer to that question. Those voting against this bill do not have a plan for what happens next, nor do they have the numbers to achieve any plan because they are not in government. There is a real risk that voting no to this bill will stall reform in this area for a long time, possibly many years. That saddens and frustrates me.

I would like to take a moment to thank the people of Brisbane, the community members, the members of the LGBTI community and their interest groups who have spoken with me about this issue, keeping the dialogue open and constructive. I caution some against the idea that a change of government will achieve marriage equality. You would be banking on what a future Senate looks like and counting on an opposition that did not fix this when they had the chance in government. Plus, history will tell you that oppositions do not usually win federal elections.

This government, with the nation's first ever Prime Minister to consistently support marriage equality, is the biggest opportunity the LGBTI community has ever had to achieve reform. If this parliament does not ultimately find a way forward to achieving marriage equality, I extend my arms to all of those to not just in that community but also their supporters in the wider community: keep the conversation alive, keep your passion for reform and keep the dialogue open with this government. I strongly believe this reform will be made by a Liberal government.

Matt Thistlethwaite (Kingsford Smith, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I oppose the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 for three basic reasons. Firstly, parliament should not treat gay and lesbian Australians differently when it comes to legislating to determine their rights under Australian law. Secondly, the proposed plebiscite is simply a waste of taxpayers' money. The result can be achieved through a free vote of this parliament, and done very quickly, saving the taxpayers a lot of money in the process. Thirdly, representative democracy is Australia's form of government, and we, as representatives of our communities and as legislators, should perform that role through a free vote of this parliament. If we did so, we could do that this week. The result would be the same, it would save money for the Australian people and we would avoid dividing our nation through a vitriolic and unnecessary debate.

Marriage equality is a reform whose time has come. Australians overwhelmingly support amending our laws to allow same-sex couples to express their love for one another through marriage. The current definition of marriage in the Marriage Act is discriminatory. It discriminates against gay and lesbian Australians and it does not provide them with the ultimate expression of love that other Australians are entitled to through marriage. For many years same-sex couples in Australia have had many of those discriminatory barriers broken down. It was the previous Labor government—the Rudd government—that removed almost 80 pieces of discriminatory legislation that were harming the lives of gay and lesbian people in Australia. As a result of those reforms, gay and lesbian people in Australia can now share property and income, they can bequeath property and income and they can have and adopt children. They are equal before the law in every respect except for what is probably the most important expression of love that a couple can go through: the right to wed.

In this day and age this parliament should not any longer stand in the way of that reform being achieved in Australia. Through this bill, this is exactly what this government is doing. It is standing in the way of this parliament making a decision to amend our Marriage Act to remove the discrimination that exists under Australian law. The Australian parliament should not discriminate against gay and lesbian Australians in the manner in which we determine their rights and the manner in which we make laws that affect their welfare, but this is exactly what a plebiscite and this bill does. It discriminates, by its very nature, against gay and lesbian people in Australia, because their rights have to be determined through a vote of the Australian people. That has never ever happened before in the history of our federation. So, gay and lesbian people are justified when they ask this government, 'Why should gay and lesbian Australians be treated differently in the manner in which the parliament determines their right to marriage compared with everyone else?'

When we initially established the Marriage Act in Australia we did not have a vote of the Australian people. When we establish other rights that affect Australians we do not have a vote of the Australian people. But when it comes to this particular issue and the rights of gay and lesbian people to express their love and their sexuality, we are going to have a vote? We are going to call the whole of the Australian public together and change the method by which we make laws in this country through a plebiscite vote? That does not make sense. It is abrogating the responsibility that a government has, through representative democracy, to pass laws for the welfare of the people of Australia. This has never occurred before in the history of our nation. The first plebiscite that took place in Australia was 100 years ago and it related to conscription. There were two plebiscites that related to conscription. Then of course we had a plebiscite about expressing favour for a particular version of a national anthem in 1977.

This plebiscite, if it were to continue, if it were to succeed, would result in a vitriolic and divisive debate in Australia, and a particular group of Australians' sexuality and their rights would be the focus of the nation's attention. In the two months that lead up to the plebiscite, that will be the focus of national attention and that will get all the media's attention and that will get all the social media attention and it will be the backyard barbecue debate in homes throughout Australia. This group of Australians' sexuality will be the attention of the nation—whether or not someone is going to vote yes or no to determine their right to express their love through marriage.

We have all manner of divisive debates occurring in Australia. We have people coming up and saying that gay relationships are unnatural and saying that gay couples and lesbian couples who have kids are living in unnatural relationships and that they are not a real family. These sorts of debates harm people's psychology and their mental wellbeing and they particularly affect kids who are the products of those relationships. This will be fuelled by the current government, because an important part of this bill is that the government will provide $7½ million to the yes and no campaigns to run their campaign and run their propaganda in the wider community. They will be stoking the fire of division in terms of the no campaign by the Commonwealth.

That is unheard of and is something that this government should not be involved in. No Australian government should be involved in providing Commonwealth funding to undermine the rights of another group of Australians when it comes to marriage equality. That is not the role of an Australian government. That is not representative democracy. Indeed, it is un-Australian, because it has never occurred before in the history of nation. In the 1960s when we have the referendum on the rights of Aboriginal Australians to be recognised in the Constitution and recognised under Australian law there was no funding for a no campaign, because it would have set a very dangerous precedent. Yet, as part of this bill, there is funding for the no campaign. That is something that is un-Australian, in my view.

The other point to make—and I have consulted with gay and lesbian members in our community and their advocacy groups—is that they do not want a plebiscite. That is quite clear. The gay and lesbian community in Australia do not want a plebiscite. I think it is interesting that almost everyone who is calling for a plebiscite is not gay or lesbian. That is the real reason the government is out of touch when it comes to this particular issue, because those are calling for this are not the ones who are going to be affected by the vitriolic and divisive debate and having others, including their friends and others in their communities, question their sexuality and their right to equality under the law through marriage in Australia—another reason that this plebiscite should not go ahead.

The second reason is the cost. So far it is going to cost $180 million, and rising, to hold this plebiscite. So much for the fiscal emergency. So much for reining in the budget deficit. So much for the budget emergency and the government saying they need to save every penny when it comes to government expenditure. Here they are going to waste upwards of $180 million for a plebiscite that many on that side of the conservative ilk will not abide by anyway when it comes to the vote in this parliament. That does not make any sense whatsoever to the average Australian. Why are you going to have a plebiscite to determine what we say about marriage equality when some of you are going to ignore that and vote against it? Come on. You want to spend $180 million on this in the environment of, as you say, 'a budget emergency'. It does not make sense. We all know that the result would be the same if the parliament had a free vote anyway. I have no doubt that if we had a plebiscite it would pass, but the result would be the same if we had a free vote in the parliament. We would save the money, we would save the vitriolic and divisive debate and we would not be setting new precedents in terms of determining Australians' rights under the Australian Constitution through a public vote.

The final point I would like to make is that we live in a representative democracy and it is a representative democracy that has served our nation very well. In the finest tradition of the Westminster system, people have been chosen at regular elections to represent their communities and put their views in this parliament and matters, particularly legal reforms, have been determined through a vote of the parliament. It has served our nation well. Yet on this issue of determining the rights of individuals who happen to be gay and lesbian we are going to divert from that tried, trusted and true course of action for determining laws and hold a very divisive and vitriolic debate. Almost every other nation except for Ireland has gone through a representative democracy model of determining the issue. We are elected to do a job—to represent our communities and to determine laws through votes in this place after we have had a fulsome debate and, where it is required, committee investigation into details. We should do that with respect to this issue. We should get on with it, do what we are elected to do, hold a free and open debate and vote in this parliament. If we did that, we could determine that matter next week. We could have marriage equality here in Australia next week.

The question needs to be asked: why is the government doing this? My wife asked me: 'Why is Malcolm Turnbull doing this?' We all know that he believes in marriage equality. We all know that he has said in the past that he does not support a plebiscite. In fact, in the wake of Tony Abbott's political deal to get his plebiscite up in the coalition party room, Malcolm Turnbull said in a media conference the next day that the Liberal Party had been 'branch stacked', in the words of the minister for innovation, with the National Party being involved:

One of the attractions of a free vote is that it would have meant the matter would be resolved in this parliament one way or another in a couple of weeks.

That is the view of the Prime Minister. I could not agree with him more. I actually agree with the Prime Minister on this issue. It could have been determined and voted on in a couple of weeks time. It would not have lingered and we would have had a vote under a representative democracy model.

That is the view the Prime Minister held prior to doing a deal with the National Party and the conservative wing of the Liberal Party to become the Prime Minister. That is the great shame about this whole thing. That is the answer to the question: why? It is a backroom political deal. This bill we are voting on here today is nothing more than a backroom political deal by the Liberal Party and by the Prime Minister to become the Prime Minister of our nation. That is how he sold his soul. That is how he abandoned his conviction. That is how he abandoned his previous views that many in the Australian public were attracted to and the reason why they did like him in the past.

He abandoned those convictions when he became the Prime Minister and it has resulted in this vitriolic and divisive debate. It has resulted in the delay of this important reform. It has got us to this position we are in at the moment where we are arguing across this chamber about the rights of an important group of Australians when we should just be getting on with it and holding a vote and determining this issue right here in this parliament. We are elected to represent the people to determine these issues and that is the manner in which this should be determined. That is why I and my colleagues are voting against this bill.

Andrew Hastie (Canning, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to commend the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 to the House. I am already publicly on the record supporting the national plebiscite on the question of same-sex marriage. There has been a lot said about the plebiscite, but one thing that is clear is that the government has been very open with the Australian people about this pathway to same-sex marriage since August 2015. Indeed, it has been vigorously debated over the past year both in this house and in the wider Australian community.

The Turnbull government took this policy of a plebiscite to the July federal election to resolve the issue of same-sex marriage. It was distinct from the Labor policy to legislate same-sex marriage within 100 days via a parliamentary vote if they won government, which they clearly did not. So the Australian people were presented with a very clear choice: a popular vote on this issue where they have the freedom to exercise their own conscience or leave this significant decision to the political class. The Australian people re-elected the coalition government. They chose our policy of a plebiscite rather than the policy offered by those opposite. We, therefore, have a mandate for this plebiscite. The Australian people chose the plebiscite to resolve the question of same-sex marriage. This is the proper way forward after the introduction and failure of 20 separate same-sex marriage bills into parliament since 2004.

As it was made clear earlier in the week, Labor has declared that they will frustrate the will of the people and vote down the plebiscite. This is thinly veiled contempt for the Australian people. This neither respects the government's mandate, nor the choice of the Australian people to exercise their personal vote, their conscience, on this important question—a choice that, at the last election, they made very clear they want. Labor's intransigence on this question points to a deeper truth: in this parliament, we are at an impasse. To go forward decisively as a nation on this question, we should and must consult the people.

Whatever side prevails in the plebiscite, they will, importantly, have both a cultural and legal mandate—which is something you can say about the Irish experience, with their referendum. Contrast that with the US experience, where the Supreme Court of the United States unilaterally ruled by judicial fiat that same-sex marriage would become law of the land, riding roughshod over individual states and their own democratic processes. It is my belief that culture is upstream of politics. If same-sex marriage enjoys the support of the Australian people—as those opposite have just claimed, and recent polling has suggested—the 'yes' campaign has nothing to fear from a plebiscite. It is the quickest and surest way to their end state of legalising same-sex marriage in this country.

The coalition has delivered on a plan for the plebiscite after wide consultation with advocates from both the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns. The details are clear: a national vote on 11 Feb 2017; a fair question, 'Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?'; a result that will be determined nationally, with the 'yes' vote being carried with 50 per cent plus one of the national vote; and funding for both the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns of $7.5 million each. If the 'yes' vote carries, it will sail through the parliament—as the Prime Minister has said on many occasions—and no serious advocate of the plebiscite should dare oppose it. The pathway is very clear. It is fair. The plebiscite bill is a good package. It is, therefore, very disappointing that the Leader of the Opposition and Labor have already chosen to oppose this bill. They have given their reasons, and I need not cover them here. However, it is worth noting that at the heart of their opposition is politics—a desire to cause as much damage to the government as possible, even if it means frustrating the desire of same-sex couples to marry. The Australian people deserve better.

I wish to make a few points about the nature of marriage and the civility of public discussion in Australia. I believe this debate is about the objective nature of marriage itself. We are proposing to change one of civilization's oldest institutions. This is not about people's sexuality and this is not about appeals to religious authority; this debate is about the objective character of marriage and how we define it. I hold to the common view of marriage as a comprehensive union between a man and a woman—comprehensive, because it involves both mutual consent and sexual union that is inextricably linked to procreation and the continuation of the human race. Marriage, in this form, is inherently ordered towards family life. That is why I argue that common marriage in its ideal form is both permanent and exclusive. That is why people say 'til death do us part' and promise to 'forsake all others'. It is about the preservation of a family unit that occurs when two members of the opposite sex come together in a comprehensive union—a union that is both diverse in gender and affords equality to both sexes.

These objective characteristics of marriage have not depended upon individual or cultural preferences across history. There is continuity in how we understand the meaning of marriage throughout human history. These characteristics have been common across all cultures and religions—ancient Greek and Roman, Judeo-Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Confucian. Even under the atheistic communist regimes of the 20th century, where religion was excised from public life, marriage looked the same in its basic character: a man, a woman, procreative potential, children, permanence and exclusivity. All of this is self-evident and requires only observation and reason to comprehend. I have made no appeal to religious authority in making the case for comprehensive marriage and so, in making this case, I appeal to people's reason and common sense. It is on that level that I expect people to find my arguments compelling—or, indeed, to oppose them, and I am more than happy to engage in that debate. I appeal to everyday Australians who can follow an argument without resorting to name-calling, emotional blackmail or accusations of bigotry.

There are many decent people in my seat of Canning. In fact, I am quite confident that, in Canning, we can conduct this debate with temperance, sympathy for those we disagree with and a mutual respect for people's right to be heard and understood without casting aspersions on the motives for their arguments or, indeed, on their character for making them. I am confident we can do this, but it is clear that Labor takes a much lower view of the Australian people, with accusations of bigotry and an assumption that they are incapable of respectful debate. I pose this question: where is our national culture, when we cannot even have a debate about the fundamental nature of marriage?

There is a need to have a public discussion about the consequences of changing the definition of marriage. It is true that Australia is the last English-speaking country in the world to redefine marriage. We can learn from international experience, and I dare say that we need to appreciate the consequences. We are, ultimately, redefining the contours of secular and religious liberty in this country. What does that mean? I think it means that we preference sexual liberty over and above religious liberty, which you could argue has been a long time coming. Where same-sex marriage has become law in other countries, we have seen more state and judicial intrusion into individuals' lives. It is my belief, as a Liberal, that the state should be a supporting actor in our lives and not the protagonist.

Witness the recent example of Trinity Western University in Ontario, Canada. It was denied accreditation for its legal graduates by the Law Society of Upper Canada—a body that accredits universities with delegated state authority. That decision has been upheld by the Ontario Court of Appeals and is now headed for the Canadian Supreme Court. Why? Because the school holds to the view that marriage should be between a man and a woman. It does not have a discriminatory enrolment policy yet was targeted for its adherence to orthodox Christian teaching on this question. Think of Brendan Eich, the CEO of Mozilla, who was forced to resign from his position in 2014 after it was revealed that he gave a mere $1,000 to a campaign to uphold Californian state law on marriage in 2008. Think of Catholic adoption and foster care agencies across the US and Europe who were not granted religious exemptions under their state jurisdictional laws. Rather than yield to Massachusetts, Illinois and District of Columbia laws, they chose to close down, and they no longer operate in those districts. The alternative was go against conscience.

So the question I put is: will Australian individuals and organisations—secular and religious alike—be protected from similar coercion? These are discussions that the Australian people need to have among themselves at schools, at work, in their homes. This is no small change we are suggesting. Hence I think the plebiscite model is the best way to go forward. This must be debated by the Australian people, not just the political and media class. So, whatever the outcome of the plebiscite, if the yes vote prevails, one thing can be sure: the Australian people will grant a cultural and legal mandate, and this issue should be resolved, going forward, for many years to come. I commend this bill to the House.

Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Right now in my electorate there are young kids who are looking for jobs. There are schools scraping around for funds to buy books and basic teaching equipment. There are parents who are wondering whether they can afford to send their kids to university and students who are wondering whether they can afford to pay for the fees that are going to accrue to them if they undertake a university degree. There are jobseekers who are wondering whether they can afford to enrol in a TAFE course because, with the introduction of TAFE fees, they are wondering whether they can afford the bills for redoing their skills.

In Shellharbour, we have a hospital in severe need of an upgrade, yet the New South Wales government's answer to this is to privatise the hospital instead of investing in a new hospital which is fit for a growing community. We have a freight line which hangs in the air half-built, with that vital last 10 kilometres which would connect one of the great inland railway systems to the port of Port Kembla unbuilt for want of investment. We have a home of football planned and approved; there were funds set aside in the 2013 budget to build it. A meagre $6 million would get the project underway. But, for want of money, the fastest-growing sport in the Illawarra and Southern Highlands does not have a home where kids can play their favourite sport. These are the issues that we should be supporting. These are the issues that we should be talking about. These are the issues on which we should be spending the $200 million that is the price tag of this plebiscite. These are the things we should be spending the money on.

One of the many reasons I oppose this plebiscite bill is that I fear that, if it passes, for the next nine months we are going to be engaged in a conversation about that instead of these important issues and the other important issues that I am confident every single one of our electors sent us here to parliament to consider. That is our job as parliamentarians—not to engage in this destructive fantasy which was put in place to resolve a disagreement in the coalition party room. If this plebiscite bill gets up, if the vote goes ahead, we will spend the next nine months talking about nothing more than the sexuality of people who choose a different partner to me, and that is not what the Australian people are after. That is not why we were sent here to Canberra.

I have listened carefully to the impassioned speeches of those opposite. I listened to the impassioned speech just now from the member for Canning. He puts forward a classic and well-articulated conservative view on the role of marriage in society. He talks about marriage as one of the oldest institutions in the world. He is right: it is one of the oldest institutions in the world, but it is not as if marriage itself has remained unchanged over the millennia. Let us not forget, in the memories of many who are still alive today, it was prohibited for a black man to marry a white woman. My grandparents, when they were married, had to be married behind the altar, because there was a Protestant marrying a Catholic—something that was frowned upon by society, by their families and by the churches. It is not so long ago that, when a man wanted to marry a woman, he had to go and ask for the permission of that woman's father. It is not that long ago that, when reciting marriage vows, the woman would take a vow to be obedient to her husband. I can tell you that if I demanded a vow of obedience from my wife when I got married I would have walked out of there without a ring on my finger and with two black eyes—it simply would not have happened. So, to stand there and say that this great institution of marriage—one that I enjoy—has remained unchanged for aeons is simply not true. And we did not hold a plebiscite to make all of those changes. We have a job to do as parliamentarians. It is what we are elected to do.

I find the subject of marriage equality fascinating. I support it. But I have to say that I think I have the ear of the majority of people in my electorate when I say that there are dozens and dozens of things that they want us to spend the next nine months talking about—and spend $200 million of public money on—than a marriage equality plebiscite. So, for these reasons, I will be opposing the plebiscite bill—not because I oppose marriage equality. I reject that proposition. I reject the well-meaning and passionate arguments put by the conservatives on the other side. But I call on the true liberals on the other side to stand up for their principles, stand up for the principles that you joined the Liberal Party for, and exercise a free vote.

Mark Coulton (Parkes, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.