Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak in continuation in the debate on the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016. As I said in my previous contribution before we were interrupted, I do not understand why we are having this debate. We put this question to the Australian public at the last election. This was an issue that was debated thoroughly in the lead-up to the election. There were two crystal clear positions. One was that of the coalition—that, if the coalition were successful and formed government, we would have a plebiscite as soon as possible during this term of government. The other was that put by Labor and the Greens—that, if they formed government, they would introduce a bill to the House which would be binding upon Labor members.

I know that many Labor members do not get it, but they lost the election. The coalition formed government. We have a crystal clear mandate for the plebiscite to go ahead. Otherwise, what is the point of even having elections? Why go through all the processes of having debates and policy platforms if, after the election, whichever side comes to power and forms government is not allowed to introduce that legislation?

Firstly, it is very disappointing that we see members of Labor and the Greens, and also some of the Independents in the Senate, giving an indication that they will not support what the public voted for. And one of the red herring arguments that they put forward is that somehow the results of the plebiscite are not binding.

This emphasises a fundamental difference between those in the Liberal Party and the Nationals and those in the Labor Party. We know that, on the Labor side of politics, independent thought is not allowed. For every single bill, they are frogmarched in here and told by the caucus how they will vote. And if any of them on the backbench decides to show a skerrick of independent thought, we know what the punishment is: it is execution at dawn—their preselection will be taken away from them.

In contrast, on this side of the parliament, for the Liberal Party and the National Party, on the backbench we have the opportunity to look at every single piece of legislation that comes to the House and make a decision on our conscience if we will support it or if we will not. That is a fundamental difference.

It has been very clear, on our side, that, if the plebiscite goes ahead and if the plebiscite is successful, that bill will be introduced into the House. And I make a commitment that, should that plebiscite go ahead, I will support whatever way the vote goes.

The other issue to note is: there are often demands made from the media and from Labor members of parliament that members of the coalition should support the way the electorate votes, should the plebiscite go ahead. I would ask: how will members of the Labor Party vote? Will they support and respect the decision of the Australian public at the plebiscite? Should the plebiscite go ahead and should it be passed by the Senate, will members of the Labor Party respect the wishes of the Australian people? That is the question.

I see many Labor names on the list of those to speak in this debate, and I would like to hear every single one of them make a commitment that, if the plebiscite goes ahead, they will support the wishes of the Australian people. And perhaps that is why those in Labor oppose the plebiscite: because, at their heart, they do not think that the Australian people should have a say in this matter. At their heart, they want to shut the debate down. They want to say, 'We are right,' and to deny the Australian public the chance to have their say.

Mr Neumann interjecting—

I hear some interjections from over there, and I give them the opportunity—there are provisions in this House for members of the opposition to stand up and put their position. What will your position be if the plebiscite goes ahead? Will you respect the wishes of the Australian public? Dead silence. It is very simple. The answer is either yes or no.

On this side, we say that we will respect the wishes of the Australian public. If the vote is yes, to change the Marriage Act to include same-sex marriage, the bill will be introduced, and this side of the House will support it. The opportunity is there. I leave it for members of the opposition.

The other thing that has come about during this debate is the disdain that we have seen from the Labor Party for our democracy—complete disdain. We have seen them unable to make a commitment, unable to respect the vote of the Australian people at the last election, unable to even make a commitment that they would respect the vote of the plebiscite. It is very alarming that we see it over and over in this nation. We even see it in this debate: they are simply saying that there should not be a debate. They are saying we can no longer have debates in this nation because it may offend or upset people. This is against every principle of Western civilisation. There are many debates on many subjects that we have in parliament that will cause offence or insult for one group or another in society. But that is the fundamental basis that our democracy is built on. And yet, time and time again, we see the Labor Party, those on the left, against the opportunity of free speech.

We also see that in the recent debate with the Human Rights Commission: in this country today, they are coming after the cartoonists To think that they want to close the debate down! They want to shut the debate down. They simply do not want to allow free speech and allow democracy to flourish. We have seen it time and time again. We saw it during the 2010 election and the 2013 election. The Labor government went to the 2010 election with the simple promise that there would be no carbon tax should they win government. And what happened? They completely reversed their position after the election. This is why the public cannot trust the Labor Party.

We also saw it with the shameful 'Mediscare' campaign. It was not just a matter of Labor members saying one thing and that being rebutted by the coalition; what we saw with that 'Mediscare' campaign was Labor sending out millions of text messages that created a false impression that it was an official message from Medicare. This was a disgrace. You would think that members of the opposition, having been part of an attempt to hoodwink Australian voters, would come into this parliament and be embarrassed. Instead, they laugh and joke about it.

Supporting this bill is about supporting the democratic result of the last election.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a great privilege to follow the member for Hughes. He has just confirmed to the House that privilege rarely sees itself. If a plebiscite is 'the new black', then I want one on a national education funding model. I want one on live exports. I have got a lot of emails about live exports. Can we have a plebiscite on that? Can we have a plebiscite on the pension age? I think the public would like a plebiscite on the pension age!

As the members opposite can attest, it is a core liberal principle that we are all equal before the law. This is an uncompromising statement—there are no conditions, no ifs or buts: all are equal. Well, it is a sad day for liberalism in this country when those opposite, purporting to be Liberals, want to have a plebiscite to test whether people believe we are all equal under the law—or should be all equal under the law. It is surprising to see those opposite seek to reinforce an inequality that exists within our system of laws. Moreover, they are now asking us to spend $200 million to ask the Australian people something we already know the answer to: should we all be equal before the law? That is a pretty simple question. And those in this chamber are elected not only to answer it but to enact laws to ensure it.

This is a government that argues daily for savings and cuts that will hurt the most disadvantaged in our community. And yet they have found $200 million down the back of the couch—small change if you have a spare $2 million to put into your own election campaign—that they want to use to conduct an opinion poll to answer a question we already know the answer to. Not only are we asked to conduct an expensive and divisive opinion poll, but we are told that the result will not be binding in the parliament.

The member for Hughes can say as often as he likes that he would be bound by the plebiscite, but we know that there are others in his caucus who have clearly said they would not be. So this brings into question the purpose of the plebiscite. Is it an exercise in direct democracy or is it a political football that has been kicked around by the right wing of the Liberal and National parties at the expense of the LGBTI community, a community that we have all been elected to represent? It is a $200 million straw poll to argue the toss about whether all are equal before the law. It is a simple premise.

The Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, talks about a mandate, about representing the will of the Australian people, yet polls continually show that the majority of Australians do not support a plebiscite; they do not support this straw poll. A national survey, conducted by Galaxy, shows that, when informed that the plebiscite is non-binding and at a cost exceeding $175 million, 55 per cent of respondents support a vote by politicians in the parliament. It is unsurprising that practical natured Australians suggest: 'We just had a very expensive election. Why don't the people we elected take a vote on the floor of the House of Representatives, take a vote in the Senate and make a decision.' The Australian public know that this plebiscite is not about making a decision. This plebiscite is about a non-decision. This plebiscite is about putting off a decision.

I oppose the plebiscite for lots of reasons, some of which I have outlined. But mostly I oppose this plebiscite because it would get in the way of a referendum that this country has already said it will have. It would get in the way of a referendum to take us further down the road of reconciliation with Australia's first people.

Coming back to this plebiscite, in my own electorate I have received hundreds of emails from my constituents pleading with me not to support the plebiscite for fear of the harm it will do to the LGBTI community. Across all of those emails I have received one email from a constituent in Lalor asking me to vote for a plebiscite. We did the maths in the office—hundreds asking me not to vote for it and one asking me to vote for it.

We are in an interesting time in Australia. Mr Turnbull, the Prime Minister, says he wants to represent the will of the Australian people, but he continues to kick this can down the road. He needs to stop and listen to what the people are already saying and do his job and allow a free vote in the parliament.

I note in a recent report that 49 per cent of people support a Trump-style ban on Muslim immigration but that this view was only shared by 24 per cent of young people. What this tells us, other than that kids are right on this one, is that hate and racism are not innate; they are learnt. Discrimination is learnt. If we embark on this national campaign and if we fund a 'no' campaign for this plebiscite, we will be sending young people a strong message that they have the right to discriminate against others.

As someone who spent many, many years in classrooms I can tell you that when things happen in this place those conversations get echoed around kitchen tables in homes around this country and get repeated in classrooms and in schoolyards around this country. When those conversations are purporting that some people are more equal than others they get carried into school grounds and playgrounds, and young people get hurt by that. If we have this plebiscite and if we fund a 'no' campaign, we will be telling young people that under the law it is okay to discriminate.

In schools, when these things happen—when young people get hurt by name-calling, by bullying, by being ostracised because of difference—schools put down tools and get to work on solving a social issue, because without doing that classrooms cannot run properly. Learning time gets lost in this process. Kids get hurt in this process. Some kids get so hurt that they stop attending school.

When the schools are trying to sort these issues out, I can tell you, from long experience, that when you say to children, 'You know, there are laws in this country against you bullying someone else for being different', it works. It works. It undoes some of the harm done in some of our homes at kitchen tables where people think it is okay to be bigots. When young people hear that we have laws that say that we are all equal it makes a difference. They stop. They listen. They learn about respect—because one thing is for sure about young people, and that is that they like to fit in.

The biggest fear I have for this plebiscite is that it is going to tell a group of our young people that they do not fit in, that they are not equal before the law, that their parents, if they are in a same-sex relationship, are not equal—are not the same—as the neighbours down the road in terms of the law.

That is why I oppose this plebiscite. We would be undoing all of the work we have done over many years in schools and communities to get people to understand that in this country—in our great egalitarian Australia—we believe that all people should be equal under the law.

This plebiscite would get in the way of, and push further down the road, us having a free vote here in the people's house to say to all Australians that we are all equal under the law and that we will act whenever we find a place in our laws that says different. That is what we should be doing at this time. We should be having a free vote on the floor of this chamber and then taking it to the Senate.

Now there are some opposite who want to talk about tradition. Some time ago we had laws that clearly said that some of us were not equal before the law. I have worked with female teachers who went against tradition and continued to teach after they got married. It is hard to imagine, in this day and age, that communities frowned upon women working after marriage, isn't it? Tradition has changed. The law has changed.

The danger of this plebiscite is that we will be sending a message to LGBTI people that they are not equal before the law. We will be sending a message to the whole community that some people think they are not equal before the law—and the worst thing is that we will not be changing the law to ensure that all are equal before it.

When the Labor caucus took its decision unanimously to oppose the plebiscite I received a text message from a same-sex couple in my electorate. It was a simple message. It came quickly, as soon as our decision hit the wires. It said:

thanks Joanne for your and Labor's stand today and not falling for the harmful plebiscite and state funded hate. If this means waiting, then we know how to wait.

That is what I am hearing from the LGBTI community in my electorate. That is what I am hearing in my community. I think that is really important. To decide that we are going to approach this change in the law in a different way is to do a disservice to our communities and to the LGBTI communities.

This chamber and the will of the Australian people have been hijacked by a minority who seek to stall progress to satisfy their own views and to appease the right-wing of their party. We cannot afford that as a country. We need to move on, and we need to fix this. The argument around tradition holds no weight, because we have acted to change laws in the past. In fact, we have changed the Marriage Act so many times that people are having difficulty counting them.

A lot has been made of the Irish experience and the Irish plebiscite. Recent studies suggest that it was not such a positive experience for the people at the centre of that debate around the plebiscite. Those opposite often want to look to New Zealand and what they are doing there. In fact, Minister Porter talks all the time about New Zealand and the successful strategies over there. Recently, I had the privilege of spending some time with a few of our New Zealand colleagues. In New Zealand, they passed marriage equality legislation; it was put to a free vote in 2013. They passed the legislation without spending $200 million of taxpayers' dollars and without subjecting a large portion of the country to a campaign of division, with no guarantee that the vote would be binding. They did that three years ago.

While they have moved on, we are still debating whether to pass this legislation. We could be voting on this issue right now on the floor of the chamber. We could make marriage equality a reality today. We could say to every young person that we are all equal before the law in this country. I would think that the Liberals opposite would want to hold to that principle. I would think that they would reject this plebiscite because they would recognise it is not the way forward on this issue.

I note that, in New Zealand, they have also moved a lot more quickly and a lot further down the road in recognition of their first peoples. Perhaps in this case, in getting rid of this notion of a plebiscite, having a free vote in the House and delivering equality before the law for same-sex couples, we could then move into the space where there has been bipartisan support for a referendum on the recognition of our first peoples in our Constitution.

Last week, the Prime Minister said that it was everyone's business. It feels like we are going backwards and that we are going to police people's bedrooms. I would like us to finish this. I would like us to move forward and have a free vote in the parliament as soon as we can.

Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

To kick off from where the last speaker finished: there will be no policing of bedrooms under my watch. I rise as a proud, long-term and committed supporter of marriage for same-sex couples—not like the Johnny-come-latelies on the other side of the chamber. I support the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 to enable it. As the member for Brisbane said recently in this place: 'We will both enjoy an unblemished history in voting for pathways for change.' If only the Senate opposition leader or the member for Sydney could say the same thing.

To be frank, listening to those in opposition, who parade around with false piety on this issue, is becoming tiresome. I am not going to try and pretend this debate about a plebiscite has been easy, because it hasn't been. It is rare in this place that you debate something so intimate and personal as your own relationship, let alone consider putting it up for a public vote. Many people have written to me and said: 'In light of my personal circumstances, why I would vote for the plebiscite?' The answer is simple: I am the federal Liberal member for Goldstein. I have a responsibility to discharge my duties to the people of my electorate and my party, not just myself. Many Goldstein residents came up to me during the election and asked my view on the matter. My answer has been consistent: the coalition would hold a plebiscite, and I would vote for change so long as there was a sensible respect for religious liberty. When the issue arises at the appropriate time, I will act consistent with my commitment, because, to quote former Prime Minister Abbott:

… the last thing you should do is dud the people who voted for you.

It is true that I have always said that a plebiscite is not my first preference to change this law. Plebiscites may not be preferable, but it is not that they are an illegitimate tool. Many have been used around the world on this issue to resolve it. Of course, Ireland did require it by constitution. It is true that the debate was, at times, offensive. There were people who supported the change who disrespected other people's world view and faith on the purpose of marriage. Similarly, there were people who opposed change who dismissed the value of same-sex couples and their families. No-one would voluntarily go through the experience again. But if people were asked whether they would go through it again for the outcome then the answer would almost most assuredly be 'yes', because this outcome is worth fighting for. The overwhelming 'yes' vote in Ireland was a moment of national unity. It disappoints me that our country is being robbed of that moment of national unity by the opposition. Those who opposed change had to accept the outcome, unless they wanted to renounce support for democracy. It became a watershed moment. Debate about equality before the law was over—permanently.

The plebiscite will call on Australians to show mutual respect. That can be achieved. I have great faith in the Australian people to argue this issue respectfully and to stand up against those who do not. Offensive conduct is the exception; it is not the rule. I am proud to say that, despite the deeply personal nature of the debate, at all times I have sought to be as respectful as possible in this discussion, and particularly toward those I disagree with. More importantly, I am proud to be a member of a party and a government where so many people have engaged in this debate with incredible respect. The Prime Minister has set an important example, as, might I add, has the member for Canning. I commend both of them for their contributions, and I have no doubt that others will follow in their footsteps.

I do not believe the case for change can win in Australia. I believe it will win. Convincing Australians for a change in the law is the fulfilment of our values as a nation. Arguing for that is a winning strategy. That is why the opposition leader's divisive approach is so appalling. Parliamentarians should always be mindful that their words have a special influence in setting the tone of public debates. The opposition leader's demeanour is truly extraordinary. Australians are apparently capable of deliberations to elect him to the highest political office in this country but not to discuss one of his policies.

There are legitimate critiques of the plebiscite, not least of which is that Western liberal democratic tradition is that parliament is charged with the primary role of protecting people's rights, but it is blindingly obvious that Labor's approach is not driven by some sort of philosophical principle but purely politics. People are being put second. While Aboriginal Australians are desperately fighting to get on the ballot paper, they are trying to con LGBTI Australians to get off it. The opposition leader has used the debate around the plebiscite to call anyone who he disagrees with as promoting homophobia, bigotry and hate speech. It does nothing to bring the Australian community together for a respectful debate. It is also deeply irresponsible and inaccurate. Around a third of Australians have a different view from the position that I take, based on things such as tradition or faith. That is nearly the same number who, strangely, give Labor their primary vote, and yet we somehow manage to let them govern the country from time to time.

Disrespecting them does nothing to advance the case for change. Perhaps the opposition leader's worst contribution is to say that we cannot win a plebiscite. In doing so, he shows a lack of faith in the cause and also in himself. You cannot have it both ways. Arguing that a plebiscite is unnecessary because public opinion polls show Australians support a change and concurrently suggesting the plebiscite will lose is an embarrassing logical fallacy. For years advocates have argued marriage equality should be supported because the majority of Australians support it. Over six years of the last Labor government, politicians could not pass this change. In this parliament there is a pathway forward. No party has enough MPs or senators to get a bill passed through either house. The plebiscite represents a workable solution to an issue that does not deserve to be delayed any longer.

Sitting back and waiting is not cost-free. People do say hurtful things—we acknowledge that. They have before, they will now and they will again in the future. And none of that will change based on whether we have a plebiscite, even after there is a change in the law. The absurdity of the opposition leader's approach is that he argues that publicly debating the issue through will be tough. Yes, in part he is right. But, if that is reason enough, then we should never have advocated change in the first place, because the price will always be too high. I guess that is the cowardice when your sole interest in the debate is political and not principle.

Implicit in the opposition leader's comments are that LGBTI Australians are weak. I am going to make this crystal clear: we are not victims, and I take exception to him implying we are. Worse, the opposition leader and his shadow Attorney-General have validated the idea that those who seek change should just sit back and wait. It is not the right of others who have never had to wait to decide for those who have. My good friend Paul Ritchie got me to reflect on this point deeper when he recently sent me a section of Martin Luther King Jr's Letter from a Birmingham Jail dated 16 April 1963. While some of the language is stronger than I would apply in this situation, the sentiment is appropriate. King Jr said:

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly ...

That is why now is our time. We must seize it. This is worth fighting for.

Choosing the false comfort to wait for change rather than fight for it is deeply irresponsible. That is not what those who have fought for change before us have done to make a more just world, a more just community and, importantly, a more just Australia. In that time, couples will have partners who die and will never be able to experience the full legal recognition of their relationship. Such an attitude comes from the hubris of thinking change is inevitable. Change is never inevitable and attitudes change.

Sadly, Labor have succeeded in conning people into thinking that they can just sit back and wait. Labor are not saying it because they think it will deliver a better outcome; they are saying it for deeply selfish reasons. For six years they failed to change the law as people like me, who advocated for it, had to sit through it. We watched Kevin Rudd oppose change because it offended his culture and religion, and then Julia Gillard opposed it on cultural grounds, and then we had Kevin Rudd who came back, changed his mind and did nothing. Then, as soon as they were in opposition, Labor said, 'We've all waited too long.' As my grandmother would say, quite rightly, 'What cheek!' If Labor only finds their social conscience in opposition, I say: keep you there. We have waited long enough.

The only reason Labor do not want a plebiscite is that they want to change the law one day in the far-off future when they are in government, and I hope it is a long time in the future. It is not about people who want to get married; it is about them and their selfishness. Deep down Labor do not want a change under a Liberal government and a coalition government because they know it is a thoroughly liberal reform. It embodies the cultural and institutional conservatism of forward-looking liberalism by recognising the primacy and importance of marriage and seeking to ensure its enduring relevance for the 21st century, and it appeals to our belief that government should not dictate the terms of people's lives if they do no harm to others. It also appeals to one of the most basest liberal principles: all people are equal before the law and should enjoy the equal protection of the law. Australians who advocate for change are arguing for inclusiveness and a society built on responsibility and mutual respect. When the law changes it will be great day for our country. We will be a more perfect Commonwealth where everyone has an equal investment in Australian society.

Many people have raised the concern about the anxiety that a plebiscite might cause—I note that it has come up periodically in the speeches by those on the opposition benches—especially amongst young people. Somebody who contacted me went so far as to ask me what my younger self would feel watching his life being debated across the airwaves. Well, I can tell you a couple of things. Firstly, a younger me probably would not imagine that he would he standing here. Secondly, he would not imagine that he would have a number of colleagues who would be in similar circumstances standing up for a change in the law; or that he would have turned recently to the member for North Sydney, a few weeks ago, and asked genuinely, 'Did you ever imagine that on the floor of the House of Representatives you would watch the Prime Minister and opposition leader fight over who is more in favour of marriage for same-sex couples?'

I remember the time that I was coming to terms with my own sexuality in my teenage years. I spoke about it proudly in my first speech. I wrote recently in a column for The Sydney Morning Herald that the announcement of the plebiscite was emotional for me. It was true—it was. It took me back to that place when I was coming to terms with my sexuality and the silence and isolation made me doubt my legitimate place in this world. I know that many people in Australia have relived that pain. But in doing so, we lose sight of where it comes from. Yes, there were negative comments in those years, and bullying came from others. But, to be frank, I do not really remember those things or what others said, because in practice they are just background noise. That is part of the resilience, tragic though may be, of people growing up and learning how to deal with the world around them. Often it actually makes them stronger. In my case, I knew those comments were wrong.

This is where I think perhaps members of the opposition do not have a full appreciation of what that experience is like. The worst bullying never came from others—it came from within. The opposition leader clearly does not understand that experience. Young LGBTI Australians have no one to turn to for support. The people they most fear talking to are those they traditionally turn to for support—parents, siblings and friends—because those are the people you fear rejection from. It is this silence that feeds anxiety and doubt—left alone, isolated and often trapped and locked in a dungeon of negative thoughts that swirl within your own mind; alone and with no-one to talk to or relate to.

That is what the opposition has got wrong. A plebiscite is not a call to silence. It is an opportunity. It is a call for all of us to stand up for the type of county we want to be. I am always ready for that fight. The opposition sees defeat. That is why they have chosen silence.

Ross Vasta (Bonner, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the honourable member for Eden-Monaro and I welcome him back to the parliament.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Deputy Speaker Vasta. It is good to see you in the chair, as well. In speaking on the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill I do want to acknowledge the previous speaker for his courage on this issue over the years, but I have to say that, acknowledging his voice as a stakeholder, it is not representative of the majority of stakeholder voices that I hear in my own electorate. I am here to represent those voices. We have to be frank about this. This is not an exercise on behalf of the government to deliver the rational, reasonable outcome here. This is an exercise in neutralising internal political dynamics within the parliamentary coalition. In that sense, it is irresponsible. I will come to the details of why I feel that way.

I am entirely on a unity ticket with just about the rest of the nation at the moment in being disappointed with this Prime Minister. There is pretty much no principle or cause that we felt this Prime Minister believed in that he has not betrayed up until this point. His transition into a carbon copy of the previous Prime Minister has been completed and we have been watching it unfold this week. It is a great shame, because we all felt that he would come to that office seeking to advance causes that he had previously advocated and that he would come to this parliament with an agenda. He simply has not and he has betrayed the faith of so many in our community.

This is not about the best way to get consensus on this issue, as the government claims. This is about a vehicle for the opponents of marriage equality trying to delay the inevitable defeat of this reform by the use of emotive, disingenuous and misleading campaigns. When we hear about claims by the Prime Minister that the plebiscite will be a reasonable exercise in democracy and it will be a civil discourse—we have already seen material that has been out there even before any process of a plebiscite has begun. Who can forget the meme with the rainbow-coloured nooses around a woman's neck? This is only a foretaste of what we could expect in the context of such a campaign. That meme was retweeted by the Marriage Alliance, as well, though they later withdrew it.

So there are a number of key reasons why this is a bad way to go. In particular, if the Prime Minister was serious about this, if the coalition was serious about it, then why not make this a binding commitment? Why not nail to this plebiscite the legislative outcome? In effect, that is not happening and it demonstrates the lack of seriousness. The PM could have ensured that outcome in this process and chose not do so, thus belling the cat on the fact that this is not a plebiscite as such, but an expensive opinion poll, as we have been describing it—and a very expensive one at that. So no matter what will happen in this plebiscite, if it ever took place, which now looks unlikely, the outcome would be that many members of the coalition would consider themselves not bound by that plebiscite and would continue to vote in accordance with their consciences. So we will get back to the situation that we could have in this House tomorrow—have a vote, allowing people to vote their consciences, having a free vote—we could get that result tomorrow without spending $200 billion.

That waste of money particularly grates with me. We hear a lot of talk about budget responsibility and budget repair. We have seen the government proposing $50 billion tax giveaways to multinational corporations and big banks, but $200 million is not an insignificant amount either when we are talking about budget repair. I think in terms of the Southeast Regional Hospital that Labor was able to achieve in Bega in my electorate, based on the Health and Hospitals Fund, which was torn up and destroyed by the government. That hospital was about the same amount as what this plebiscite would cost. So we are talking about a regional hospital's worth of pointless exercise. In addition to that, the experience we are now having with that regional hospital is that the services that we had hoped to establish there are not being fleshed out because the coalition's cuts to health have forced the state to triage its services. So much is being done in cities to try to keep services going there, at the expense of rural and regional hospitals. Now we are seeing the New South Wales government exploring the possibilities of privatising some of our rural hospitals to try to tackle this problem. When I see that sort of thing going on, it really upsets me when we talk about wasting $200 million on this exercise. What we are talking about here is a powerplay within the coalition playing out through an unnecessary imposition and impact on people.

This is an issue that brings many strands together and this country of ours and our society have evolved over many years on this issue. People did ask me, after I voted in favour of marriage equality in 2012, coming from a rural-regional seat like mine, why I did it. There were a number of reasons, but one particularly simple and poignant reason was that I served with many gay and lesbian men and women in the Australian Defence Force, and my view was: if they were willing to die for you, then this was the least thing we could agree to do for them. I think that is a fairly powerful point to get across.

But I also came to appreciate that denying marriage equality is the last hook that those who seek to demonise, to diminish and to discriminate against gay and lesbian men and women have in their armoury. That is why they are hanging onto it so hard—because it enables them to turn to gay and lesbian men and women and say, 'Look, you are different.' This is the last point of difference. When we were in government, we removed, I think, 87 different legislative impediments to equalising that situation, and this really is the last thing left to do. Therefore, we need to remove it to prevent people being able to rely on it as their last hook to discriminate against and to demonise gay and lesbian men and women.

Also, I bring to this discussion the perspective of an MP from regional Australia. I have concerns about the stress that this proposed plebiscite would cause to people in our regions. We know that it can be difficult being a gay or lesbian person in small rural communities. We had the example of young Eddie Blewett, from Tathra in my electorate, being mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in question time. She put the question to the Prime Minister on behalf of Eddie: 'Why should people who barely know us make an assumption on our families and vote on how we can live?' That is Eddie and his family from my electorate in a rural and regional area. What was interesting about that, of course, was that the Prime Minister did not directly answer that question. Afterwards, the media approached Eddie and his family, and Eddie said: 'It upset me that the PM did not answer me in parliament. I thought that was pretty hurtful, not just to me but to those families that were waiting for an answer.' This is a constituent of mine, a rural and regional person, who is not satisfied with the approach that the government is taking and is concerned about the judgements that are being made about his family.

I also had young women and transgender people visit me from the local Queanbeyan headspace facility. They were people using that facility from all around our region and, to a person, they requested that I take up the position of opposing this plebiscite option. They feel very vulnerable and very sensitive to the sorts of issues and debates that would be raised in the context of a plebiscite. We have seen too many suicides in rural and regional communities when adolescent gay and lesbian citizens of this country feel the pressure of being isolated, alone, victimised, marginalised and treated differently. I do not want to see that situation amplified in this context. We obviously have issues around how that situation needs to be continuously managed, and we know that this is not going to aid that cause.

From a personal perspective, I have to say that I had a strict Christian upbringing—stricter than probably anybody else in this chamber, I would imagine. I pretty much know, back to front, what is in the book. I know pretty much every line of the teachings, and I will say they have formed a big part of the values that have guided me in my professional life and involvement in politics, but I am aware, from having been brought up in that tradition, of the various evolutions of relationships and marriage that exist, even as spelt out in the Bible. To me, it defies belief that people can get up and say that marriage has always been the way it is now and between a man and a woman. If we look back at the Good Book and the children of Adam and Eve, the brother and sister unions that must have existed are one evolution of the relationships that are spelt out in that book. Also, as it unfolds, the book goes into detail about many polygamous relationships. King David had many wives and also had many concubines. There were no moral judgements passed on King David for those relationships and those arrangements. We have seen, in more recent times, the 19th century common-law types of marriage that were not subject to ceremonies but acquired status in the law. We have seen traditions of arranged marriages—some in our own society, of course, but in other ethnic communities as well. And we have seen, of course, throughout the centuries, until very recently, the fact that women had very little choice in these arrangements and almost no rights. It was only in the seventies in this country that we saw reform to the marriage relationship that created the rights that women needed and had been seeking for so many centuries, in fact. So we have seen quite a degree of diversity and evolution in the history of relationships, and certainly same-sex relationships have been around right from the very beginning. So let's not get tied up in ridiculous claims about confining ourselves to one particular type of relationship as being legitimate.

The other thing that disturbs me about this discussion has been the focusing on children. The truth of the matter is—as I mentioned, legislative changes were made by our Labor government and other previous governments—same-sex couples having children is not illegal now. It is not beyond the ability of the system to accommodate at this point in time. For those who are opposed to the same-sex marriage ceremonies, and believe that that will prevent same-sex couples from having children, then it is too late. This debate is not about that. Forget that issue; it is dead. So we are talking now simply about a ceremony, not about the issues of children or the issues of the legitimacy of those relationships.

The other thing that I would like to mention, too, is the issue of local representation that I am required to make in this House. I think it was put very succinctly and eloquently by Mr Iain Dawson, the director of the Bega Valley Regional Gallery, who wrote a great piece in the paper. He is a local boy—locally born and raised. In his letter, he said:

The support for marriage equality is not disputed by either the Prime Minister or the Opposition Leader, yet we find ourselves with a $200 million plebiscite to decide the issue.

We live in a democracy that elects its representatives to lead and make hard decisions on behalf of their constituents.

Why is it that this particular moral/social issue needs any more than that?

Add to that the suggestion that this wasteful and potentially harmful popularity contest will not be binding and still be subject to a vote in parliament, is just insulting to LGBTIQ people and the wider Australian population.

My concern is not for me or the man I love, but for the kids who grow up feeling ashamed of who they are while we still debate this issue.

Living regionally, those differences can be more pronounced, more isolating and potentially more harmful.

I'd like the teenager me, who grew up here on the South Coast of NSW, to feel as accepted and valued as I do, as a member of this amazing community now.

Marriage equality – let's get it done in parliament now!

I would also like to finish by pointing out that the previous plebiscites we have done have been about things like conscription in war and the discussion around what adult males will do, and them being part of that discussion. What we are asking in this debate is to throw our children on the wire, along with vulnerable adolescents to this discussion, heedless of the impact on them of how they are viewed and the impact of the judgements that are made by the community about the relationships in which they grow up. Let's not go there while there is an easy alternative.

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in this debate on the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016. I think it is vitally important. I would also like to reflect on the way it is being conducted. I believe that the way that it is being conducted now with the sense of decorum and respect is something that, obviously, can be transferred across the nation.

I think that, from the very start, people should know my position and the reason I hold that position. I believe in the current definition of marriage—the traditional definition of marriage. I see marriage as a fundamental institution that existed long before this parliament. I am a realist. There will come a day when this parliament and this form of government does not exist. I believe that the institution of marriage will still exist then. It has been tested by time, through multiple cultures and multiple faiths who have no connection with one another and live in different corners of the world, as being overwhelmingly the union between a man and a woman.

More importantly, as part of that—and I recognise that this issue is now passed on—I believe that every child has a right to know their biological mother and biological father. I think that is absolutely imperative for the formation of a person. We have all taken to this debate with the people we have met and the people it affects. I have certainly met children from same-sex couples. The concern that they expressed to me was precisely that. They do not actually have a view on support of gay rights. They are in support of everything that their mothers and partners who brought them up. They respect that but they say, 'I have a right to know and I have been denied that right. Other people have made a statement that precluded my right.' Now, I think that it is only fair that, if you want to stand up for rights, then stand up for their rights to know what it is that is the fundamental essence of who they are and how that person was made.

I suppose that affects my carriage in this debate because I see changing the definition of marriage as extenuating those problems and not actually dealing with those problems. I believe that over time these problems will become more manifest in other people as they come forward and say, 'Not only do I have the right to express my view that I should be able to know my biological mother and my father, and noting that they didn't act in that position as I grew up', and as they also demand the respect that their story be heard without them being pilloried or held up as some form of recalcitrant.

These are my views. Whether they are Australia's views is an entirely different subject. It is for determination what Australia's views are. I also recognise that I come to this place not as a priest nor a pastor; I am far from that. I have all my flaws like everybody else around this place. I come here as a politician. Therefore, I must respect the view of the Australian people. If it is the view of the Australian people that they have a different view to me, then it is my job to respect that view. That is precisely what I will do. Not to be a spiv, but I want to reflect on how we deal with the challenge of presenting ourselves for a debate which I believe will be conducted in the same way that political debates are conducted in Australia at every election on every issue. We are so lucky to live in a nation where people are not assassinated for their political views. In fact, I think we are very pallid in how we accept the outcome of the adjudicator—the Australian people. Even so, with the concerns people have brought up, I reflect on Herodotus. In his discussions, 400 years before Christ, he said:

It is better by a noble boldness to run the risk of being subject to half of the evils we anticipate, than to remain in cowardly listlessness for fear of what may happen.

I think that is an instruction that offers an avenue.

I am also a realist. My realistic view is that a plebiscite would pass, and therefore, early next year, you would have a change in the Marriage Act. From my discussions with my colleagues, you would have two choices. I do not even know how the House would divide on this, because I do not know who would say they wanted a division. You would have to get the call—no, I do not know who would say that. Nonetheless, I think it is obligatory, after the will of the Australian people is known, that you have two choices: you can abstain or you can vote for it. They are your two choices.

This is an issue on which people say, 'I am constant in my view, and it has never changed,' or that other people do not change their views, or that somehow the view of the parliament is a constant and an appropriate reflection of the Australian people. That is not right. It is not even an appropriate reflection of the view of the Labor Party. I know Shorten had a different view in 2013, when he clearly said, and it is on the record, that it should not be the decision of 150 people. It was not the view of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Whether it is now, I do not know. Who could determine that? I think in an earlier manifestation it was not the view of Kevin Rudd. So we know it is a view that changes. Therefore, why should the Australian people be bound to the views of people who by their own actions have shown they change their views?

If we believe that this is purely a vote of the parliament and only a vote of the parliament, then of course it has to be the case that at a future stage we can change it back by a vote of the parliament. I do not think anyone wants that. I do not think that is something that we would be encouraging—that we would move it back.

I am really skeptical, to be honest—because it is turning into a political tactic—when people say, 'We do not want to cause an incendiary atmosphere by talking about the pros and cons of the plebiscite.' In so doing, they are talking about the pros and cons of the plebiscite. That is precisely what is happening now. I do not believe that we are seeing wild riots on the street. People are dealing with it in a very respectful manner. By its very nature, the debate is happening right now. It is happening in this parliament right now. It is happening in the streets and in the papers right now.

If you truly believe that the debate is so incendiary that it 'cannot mention its name', then stop talking about it. Just stop, from this night forward. Never mention it again. Of course, that is not going to happen either. Why? Because we trust the Australian people, we trust the decency of the Australian people and we trust that they will be able to conduct themselves in a manner that does not cost those who may have a different position.

Do we honestly believe that the conditions and the qualities of the people in this room are beyond compare. beyond those out there in the public? They are not. We have the same mechanism, with good and bad politicians, with all their faults and all their failings. And we can find them on both sides; I am not denying that. But I do not think people are going to be saying that Sam Dastyari is more deserving of a vote than someone out in the street. And you can pick out for yourself a person on our side that you wish to mention—same deal. I think that the person on the street has their own common sense and they will approach this in a commonsense way.

An issue that the member for Eden-Monaro brought up was that it should be binding. I think that, as we speak, George Brandis, the Attorney-General, has basically brought forward what the changes to the Marriage Act would be. I do not think anybody is equivocating about what the changes would be, and I am sure the Attorney-General would be only too happy to have that discussion at the table in the other place about exactly what the intended changes to the Marriage Act would be. I do not think anybody is seriously saying that a vote determined by the Australian people would somehow not be carried through both houses of this parliament.

It is no secret that in the Nationals the majority view, but not the exclusive view, is that we believe in the current definition of marriage. But I have always, always strongly believed that those who have a different view—and the member for Gippsland has a different view—are to be totally respected and given the space to express their views, which we do. There is no-one held out as an example, and everyone is allowed that space. And there are other people as well, and that is completely and utterly their right. Within the National Party, more than any other party, we say, 'If you really wish to cross the floor, you can; if you really wish to express a different view, you can; you just have to put some cogency into your reasons as to why.'

That is why I have some skepticism when I hear that there is a unanimous view in the Labor caucus. Really? Not one person? Not one person with a different view? Not one person who has a view that they want to remain with the current definition of marriage? Were they given that space? Were they given that respect? Were they given that place to clearly express their views? Is it really the case that we cannot find one person? I will not call them out now, but I think I could quickly suggest quite a few who might have a different view. But their view has been corralled. That builds on the cynicism that we on this side of the House have about how we are actually going to conduct the debate. If you believe that the debate would be incendiary, then let your own people clearly state their own case, where they have a different view. We know they are there. We know they exist, and you know they exist, as well.

I think it is an incredible indictment of this nation if we say that it cannot have a civil debate. Then, where do we go on other issues? I brought up before that I support Indigenous recognition, and I want to see that happen. What are we saying—we are not capable of that either? That one will have to go to a referendum, and I suggest that there will be people with different views from mine. I will not support those views, but there will be different views. I do not think they will win the debate and I do not think that will cause any form of riot on the street, either. If we make it a precedent that there are certain times when the Australian people are of a different ilk to what they have proven themselves to be over such a long period of time—all the way back to the 1967 referendum, to note but one major change in policy—then I think that is an insult to the Australian people.

What I can say is there is the opportunity. Believe you me: people who believe in the current definition of marriage, of which I am one, have moved to this position. We have given ground. We have put forward a case and we have moved. The previous coalition speaker gave a very good and powerful speech on this bill, and I respect his views. I believe that they are completely and utterly genuine and different to mine. But both have moved to find themselves in this position where there can be a resolution to this issue. If we are really honest, we know what the path will be. If we go back to a realistic approach, the plebiscite would pass through both houses of parliament, a vote would be conducted in early February and a change of the Marriage Act would happen almost immediately after that. That is the path, but it needs people out there to say, like Herodotus, if you only have to live with half the ills that you suspect then it is worth the fight. It is worth the fight to then move forward and say, 'We will do that.'

Believe you me: this is absolutely a level 1, class 1 major decision. We are talking about changing the definition of an institution that is vastly, vastly older than this parliament and—as it is vastly, vastly older than this parliament—it does live in a different realm to other decisions that are made. If that is what you wish to do, then there must be some respect for those who have a different view. That is achieved by making an equivalence between the vote of every person in this chamber and every other person outside this chamber—every other person in regional Australia and every other person in the metropolitan capitals.

I doubt very much whether there is a person in this place who does not have people affected by this, whether it is gay people in their office, which I have, or close relations or people in their family who are gay, which I have. Everybody says that and let us just get the palaver over and done with. But to think that they are all precious petals, as was stated in an article I saw in the paper, and that they cannot be part of a debate is also an insult to them. Also, to think that they all have exactly the same view is ridiculous; they do not. There are many and varied views in the lesbian and gay community as there are in any other community. So I think it would be best for our nation to vote for this plebiscite, to have this issue dealt with and to move on.

Jenny Macklin (Jagajaga, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a very important opportunity to be able to contribute to the debate on the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016, and I come to the dispatch box with a very different view to the Deputy Prime Minister. I am a very long-time supporter of marriage equality in Australia. I voted in favour of marriage equality when the matter was debated in the parliament in 2012 and I certainly hope at some point in the future I will be able to vote on such a bill in the parliament, so that we will see marriage equality.

I remember during earlier debates on this issue receiving a very moving email from a local constituent of mine, Tiffany Tullberg. She wrote:

I may or may not want to marry a partner in the future but that doesn't mean I should be denied the option of marrying the one I love.

To me, these words really sum up the desire of LGBTI Australians for marriage equality. Just recently I received a letter from a young girl, her name is Samantha and she is a student at Ivanhoe East Primary School. She wrote:

It is unfair that gay people can't get married at all in Australia yet man and woman couples can get married at any time of the day.

Samantha says:

Imagine if someone in your family were gay or lesbian and they couldn't get married.

I think that is a statement that we all need to reflect on as we debate this bill. It is long past time for us to legalise gay marriage in Australia. That is why Labor went to the last election promising to legislate for marriage equality within 100 days.

Since the election—as the debate has continued about whether there will be a parliamentary vote or a plebiscite and which is the best mechanism for achieving marriage equality in this country—like everyone, I am sure, in this parliament I have been contacted by many, many people, some in my electorate but also by many people right round the country. It is the case, certainly, in my electorate that a lot of people do want to see marriage equality. Equally, I have had a number of families, particularly mothers and fathers, come to me to say that they are deeply worried about a plebiscite. They do not take the view that the Deputy Prime Minister has just shared with us. These mothers and fathers are worried that a plebiscite would unleash hatred against gay and lesbian Australians and their families. It has been particularly emphasised to me that the impact on young people and on children would be very serious. It is especially the case that people are worried about the mental health of many young people in the LGBTI community, who are still realising their identity. People are worried about the mental health of young people who are yet to come out to their family or yet to come out to their friends.

I recall one constituent, in particular, coming to see me in my office. She is in a loving relationship with her partner, also a woman, and a mother of two beautiful children. She loves her partner deeply and they love their children very much. One day they do want the right to express their love and commitment to one another in the same way that other Australians can choose to do it, and that is through marriage, but she made very clear to me that she is prepared to wait. She would rather wait for marriage equality delivered through a vote in the parliament than have a plebiscite, which she believes, as many others do, would be dangerous and divisive.

Another very influential person who has put the argument very plainly is, of course, Justice Michael Kirby. He made the case that the plebiscite is in itself a discriminatory step driven by hostility. This has been a very important argument for me. We know that other human rights are not dealt with in this way. Michael Kirby has set that out in great detail, and I want to particularly acknowledge the way in which he has, I think, assisted all of us in thinking about the importance of this very significant issue that is before us.

We know that for some in the coalition the whole idea of a plebiscite on same-sex marriage is a way of stalling and trying to defeat progress on marriage equality. I think many of those people hope that this will end in marriage equality being at least held up, if not opposed. I want say to those opposite that one of the great concerns I have is that the plebiscite would set a dangerous precedent. I do not think we want to have a precedent that says the best way to make sure people's basic rights, especially those of minority groups in our society, are pursued is to have a popular vote. We have never, in the history of our country, had a plebiscite to determine whether we should legislate the basic rights of a particular group of Australians. We are members of parliament in a representative democracy and we have been elected to this place to make decisions about the future of this country. That is why we are here. I do not think we can call ourselves leaders if we shirk responsibility for making these very significant decisions and spend such a large amount of money, anything upwards of $160 million, on what effectively is an opinion poll.

Of course, after the plebiscite there will still need to be a vote in the parliament. We will still need to come in and make our voices heard on this issue. We have heard members of both the Liberal and National parties indicate that they may not vote in favour of marriage equality even if it is supported by a majority of voters. So it is not surprising that people are saying: 'What's the point? What is this really all about?' I think that is why many, many Australians have now come to the view that it really is time for us to address this issue in the parliament and get it done.

The Deputy Prime Minister talked about other countries in the world. I want to remind him that in fact the people of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, Ireland, South Africa, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark, Brazil, Argentina—all of these countries—have worked together to achieve marriage equality. We are by no means at the front of this change. I accept that there are people of faith, good and genuine people, who do not want to change the Marriage Act and I do respect their views. But one thing we do not want to see is the respectful views of those people being drowned out by the voices of hate. We have to face up to the fact that that is already happening in our community, and I for one do not want to see that continue. I am concerned that LGBTI Australians will be subjected to a campaign of prejudice that demeans their relationships and attacks their families. Their families are as loved as any family in this place.

I think that marriage equality will certainly come sooner than the Deputy Prime Minister expects and I hope it will be very soon. When it does, it will be a great day for Australia. It is up to us as members of parliament to do the right thing: to show leadership, to take seriously our responsibility to help improve the lives of LGBTI Australians, and to afford LGBTI Australians the same right to love and marriage as anybody else. A plebiscite will not do that; a vote in this parliament to amend the Marriage Act will.

David Littleproud (Maranoa, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am proud to stand today to speak in support of this government's Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016, prepared by the Attorney-General, Senator the Hon. George Brandis. The introduction of this bill is a historic moment for our nation and our parliament, because never before in its history has a federal government introduced legislation of this nature. No bill on same-sex marriage has ever progressed past the second reading stage and, consequently, no bill has been debated by the second chamber. All 22 bills have been private members' bills, introduced by members of parliament from across the political spectrum.

More importantly, the bill fulfils the government's commitment, as part of its re-election platform, to offer the Australian people a plebiscite to determine this important question. As politicians, we are often criticised for ignoring the solemn commitments we make during the process of getting ourselves elected, and it is for this reason that I am proud to support this bill and fulfil this commitment to the Australian people.

This parliament, as with all those that have come before it, is made up of people who have a diverse range of backgrounds, professions and values.

It is for that reason I appeal to those of all political persuasions both here and in the Senate to look deep inside themselves and to deliver what is just and fair to those we represent on this important issue. Above all, we as elected representatives of this country must lead. We must lead our nation and ensure that, no matter the difference in our opinions, we demonstrate that this debate can be conducted in a respectful and dignified manner. We should look within our own conscience and vote on what would be the best for this nation, not our parties.

I believe the determination of this bill should not be predicated on whether you support the concept of same-sex marriage or not but rather what is the best mechanism that will ultimately deliver and reflect the values of the Australian people. The institution of marriage is one that has been in existence for hundreds of years and has been the bedrock of Australia's fabric since Australia's existence. It has therefore been an integral and important part of the way our nation society has been shaped and grown for over 200 years. It is one that has lasted the test of time and it is one that no doubt will continue for generations to come.

Therefore, the decision we will make on this bill is one that should be undertaken with care and respect. For this reason, it is my strong belief that to make such a significant change to our society's social structure is one that should be determined by the Australian people and by not the individual consciences of our nation's 226 politicians. If we as a nation revere the institution of marriage, no matter our sexuality, then surely any change to the fundamentals of this institution should be left to the ultimate democratic body in this country to determine its course, the Australian people.

The bill will establish the legislative framework for a vote in a national plebiscite that would ask Australians: should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry? It is a simple question that is unequivocal in its meaning, and it is one that provides clarity to every Australian about what they are determining.

I acknowledge the cost of this plebiscite and acknowledge the financial constraints we as a nation find ourselves in currently. But our democracy, like the institution of marriage, is something we should fiercely protect and rightfully refer to, to provide the Australian people with the power to make the ultimate determination on something that would be a significant change to the social make-up of this nation.

I also want to acknowledge the inherent concerns recently identified by Professor Patrick McGorry in regard to a plebiscite and the mental health of the LGBTI community. He fears they may endure mental health concerns during this process. Professor McGorry is truly a great Australian, whose work with this country's young is something this nation continues to, and will forever be grateful for. His concern about the detrimental effects a plebiscite could cause to the LGBTI community from his own professional perspective is acknowledged. But what Professor McGorry has failed to take into account in determining his professional assessment on this matter is the maturity of the Australian people. He assumes, in determining his opinion, that, effectively, he does not believe the Australian people can have a respectful and informed debate in a dignified manner on such an important issue, which I believe is an assumption no academic could accurately determine.

I believe we live in a country that is tolerant and mature and one that can be entrusted with determining its own future. To say that the extremes from both sides of this debate will not try to bring vitriol into it, I understand would be naive, but it is incumbent on each one of us, as this country's representatives, to lead our nation through this important discussion and to bring our nation with us, with dignity and respect, and to destroy any social licence of extremities of this debate as they appear.

We have been entrusted to lead our nation, and now is our time to repay that trust in our actions and our words, to galvanise the nation and reinforce that it is okay to disagree. I believe in the Australian people and I believe in each and every one of us as our nation's representatives to lead our nation in being able to make this determination without harm.

In my electorate of Maranoa I get to witness this every day. The acceptance and inclusion of those across the electorate from the LGBTI community is one that exemplifies a truly tolerant society and, I think, reflects the Australian people's maturity and ability to undertake a decision through a plebiscite in a fair and respectful manner.

LGBTI people in my electorate often live in small communities of only a couple hundred people and are, therefore, prominent in their minority in those communities. However, the acceptance of LGBTI members in Maranoa as respected and valued contributors to their communities—has achieved acceptance and tolerance that our nation should be proud of.

And, while my electorate has recently been marginalised because of a 2013 'Vote Compass' survey, as being the only electorate in the country to have a clear majority to vote against same-sex marriage, I have never witnessed nor been advised of any vitriol or disrespect towards the LGBTI community in Maranoa. This is because they are accepted for who they are, and for the contribution to their communities, and not by their sexuality.

While this survey indicates that the people of Maranoa's view may not be in line with current polling on this issue, I still believe the voices of Maranoa are just as precious as those of any other parts of this country, and each one of them should be heard. The people of Maranoa are not loud or pretentious in expressing their views, but instead prefer to express their views and their consciences through the privacy of the ballot box. It is for this reason that I believe the best mechanism for the voices of Australia to be heard in a respectful and dignified way is through a plebiscite. In Maranoa we have proved you can have a contrary view and still treat those around you with dignity and respect and I believe our country can deliver that too.

There is also a valuable precedent to the effective use of a plebiscite, in taking the community along together on this important issue. Ireland proved to themselves and the world that a respectful and dignified debate could be achieved and a nation could move forward on what the nation determined. Australia and Ireland share similarities. Both countries have deep religious and traditional perspectives on the institution of marriage. There was no reported breakdown in its society or any widespread individual harm caused to members of the LGBTI community by this process and for academics to determine that the Australian people could not conduct themselves with the same dignity is condescending and flawed.

I am not standing here today challenging the validity of any same-sex couples' love for one another, but I am standing here saying that their desire to have that recognised through the institution of marriage is one that the nation should make collectively. Allowing the Australian people to make this determination above all will provide the validity any result deserves. Allowing 226 politicians to determine this matter based on their own conscience will only open up to conjecture the way members and senators voted, rather than provide the entire nation with clarity so that they can live their lives with the knowledge that the Australian people support this decision.

I fear that, no matter what impassioned plea any of us make in this chamber or the other, partisan politics will prevail, and the leadership this country so richly deserves and yearns for will not materialise. For this reason, I fear that, instead of each of us leading our nation and bringing our nation with us on this journey, we will only serve to marginalise and divide our nation, and a great opportunity for each and every one of us to prove that we can lead this country will be lost.

Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a debate about equality much more than it is a debate about marriage. And this is fundamentally why I am so vehemently opposed to this legislation. It demonstrates also—contrary to the view just expressed by the previous speaker, the member for Maranoa—a profound failure of leadership on the part of Australia's Prime Minister. It is a failure of politics. The member for Wentworth's, our Prime Minister's, weakness cannot and should not be allowed to bind this parliament. The question of marriage is a matter for this parliament. We should not shirk our responsibility to deal with it. So I rise in opposition to the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016.

In the chamber the other day, I stood here and listened to the remarks of my friend the member for Grayndler when he said that this debate is not just a debate about laws; it is about how people conduct themselves. And one thing we, law-makers, should not be doing in this place is to open the judgement of peers to millions of Australians as to how they live their lives. We should not force our fellow citizens to justify their personal circumstances—their love. Rather, we should support its equality through the ordinary law-making process.

In this debate, the Prime Minister has generally been unconvincing, because I think all of us in this place and most of us across the Australian community well understand that he is not doing what he would want to do but rather continuing to do the bidding of his predecessor, the member for Warringah. So he is often unconvincing as Prime Minister, particularly when it comes to this question of marriage, because we should recognise in this place that he has been, generally, a strong and consistent supporter of rights for the LGBTIQ community. He is particularly unconvincing when he attempts to spruik the alleged democratic credentials of his plebiscite. And that is perhaps unsurprising because those credentials are very, very thin.

Today, as we stand here, there are 226 people in Australia who have the capacity to change the law on marriage. Should this legislation, and then the subsequent legislation, the substantive bill, pass, we would still be in a position where 226 Australians would have the capacity to change the law. This is a fudge, and it is walking away from our responsibility to stand up for representative democracy.

I say to the House that I was impressed by the contribution in Fairfax newspapers of Senator Dean Smith from Western Australia—not someone with whom I generally agree—when he set out the reasons for which he would be opposed to this legislation. They were persuasive—notwithstanding the fact that he set them out from his perspective as a constitutional conservative. I am far from a constitutional conservative, but I am a strong supporter of a representative system of government. I think it is something we should be standing up for, particularly at this time when our democracy is in need of severe refurbishment.

What we should be doing to effect that refurbishment is to stand up for these institutions, to make them work and to make them be seen to work, rather than fudging. We should not be passing on difficult decisions to the public at large. Certainly I have gone to the last two elections making it very clear to my constituents that I will support marriage equality, and I will do so in this parliament in the ordinary course.

I think one matter that needs to be drawn to the close attention of the House is the process through which the Australian Labor Party, the opposition in this place, have arrived at this position of opposing the plebiscite, which has been a matter of much public debate. Personally, I have spoken to many LGBTIQ Australians; none have asked me to support this bill or the proposition it supports—none. I know that that has been a very common experience of colleagues on this side of the House. So it is very telling that it is only the opponents of marriage equality who are advocates of this proposal, not those directly affected. While government members have been listening to the concerns of those who are determined to delay marriage equality in Australia, we have been listening, and seeking, through this process, to give voice to the concerns of those most affected—LGBTIQ Australians and their families.

This bill, very clearly, speaks to the concerns of those who are opposed to equality. One of the clues is in its name. It talks of 'same-sex marriage', which is not a term that I would use. What we are talking about here, if I can return to the start of my contribution, is not so much about marriage as about ending discrimination—about ensuring that all societal institutions governed by law are open to all.

Through this process, we have seen real leadership from the Labor team: from the Leader of the Opposition; from the deputy leader, the member for Sydney; from the shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus; from the member for Griffith; from Senator Wong; from Senator Pratt and from the member for Bruce—real leadership. It has been a study in contrast to the vacillation and weakness of the Prime Minister. Their work has brought to the fore of this debate the personal experience, the harm and the prospect of joy. I have been privileged to hear from so many rainbow families: to hear people—often children—share with me very personal stories. I have often reflected on how hard it must have been for these people to tell their stories to a stranger—a strange man in a suit—and ask me and all of us to be respectful of their stories, of their experience, of their lives and not subject their lives to the cruel and uncertain scrutiny of this plebiscite process.

Deputy Speaker, like me and my great friend the member for Shortland, you have had the great privilege of hearing many speeches at Australian Labor Party conferences—and the minister at the table cannot share that. The speech I heard at a Labor Party conference that affected me the most was one made many years ago by a very brave young woman, Sarah Cole. She stood up to argue the case for the Australian Labor Party in Victoria to support marriage equality. She began her speech by saying how hard and strange it felt to be talking about love at a Labor Party conference! Often Labor Party conferences are places of great love, but I was struck by what she said. Really, for most of us, there is nothing more important to our lives than our family relationships, the decision that those of us who are married, as I am, make to share our life with someone else.

That there has so long been a legislative impediment to that status, something that I value very dearly, struck me then as being particularly cruel and particularly wrong. It struck me also that it was particularly unfair that this brave young woman had to share such a personal story in such an impersonal arena, when really we should have just gotten on with the job. In particular, we should not have changed the Marriage Act in 2004. That decision, like the other 21 occasions on which the marriage act has been amended, was made in this place, as any amendment to a law within the constitutional competence of the Commonwealth should be made, not through a process at large in the community designed not to advance the stated object.

I have been in the chamber for many contributions by government members in this debate, and I will reflect briefly upon them. The member for Maranoa, at the end of his contribution, touched briefly on the experience in Ireland and asserted that there was no evidence of harm there. Of course, the expert evidence is to the contrary and the view of the affected community is to the contrary—that lives were harmed, that people suffered because of having their lives, their love, their sense of being equal participants in civil society placed under the microscope. He also talked about leadership. Well, real leadership is about doing your job. It is also about doing what you believe in and being prepared to lead. And that is not what we have seen from the Prime Minister of Australia through this debate. We have seen deflection, disingenuousness and hiding behind the reactionary rump of the coalition.

When it comes to harm, that is one thing that the Labor Party have taken very seriously. The Leader of the Opposition has convened a series of roundtables to explore these issues with directly affected families and leading mental health experts. We have been guided by the views of people like Patrick McGorry in taking the decision not to subject Australians, including some vulnerable young Australians, to this cruel, unnecessary, unequal and hurtful process. There has been a lot of talk about a respectful process. Well, even in this chamber we have seen some pointers to a lack of respect. We have not seen respect given to the concerns that have been consistently expressed by the LGBTIQ community on this issue—again, those most affected. And in my meetings with them I made it very clear that I would stand up for two things that I hold very dear: firstly, the guiding principle that we are all equal and we should strive to put in place a legal framework that gives effect to that without singling out vulnerable members of the community or indeed any members of the community; and, secondly, that we should stand up for the great institutions of our representative democracy. Where would Edmund Burke be watching today's Liberal Party! He would be profoundly disappointed. And I wonder whether a couple of government members may be looking back on their first speeches regretting looking to that conservative icon as a touchstone in this place.

It is important to touch briefly on the provisions of the bill itself. The bill, as I mentioned earlier, refers to same-sex marriage; it should of course be a bill to introduce equality when it comes to the laws of marriage. It is also important that mention is made of the timing of the circulation of the substantive bill that would accompany this. Really, at one minute to midnight before this bill came through, it appears that there are many provisions within that substantive piece of legislation that would be problematic. I refer in particular to a range of provisions that seem to have the very clear effect of seeking to entrench discrimination rather than eliminate it—which one would imagine is the purpose of achieving this end. Again, it is certainly the purpose that I am intending to achieve through my advocacy for marriage equality.

There are some novel provisions in the bill before us that require some careful consideration. I refer to matters going to authorisation of certain campaigning materials, which in my view deserve proper consideration such as the process the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters is about to undertake on those very significant issues. And, of course, the bill makes it clear that this is not a cost-free exercise. More than $200 million will be spent to change nothing at best. As I said earlier, I do not think anyone can look to the 'at best' scenario. We have clear evidence of harm to vulnerable Australians and I think a more generalised harm of diminishing our sense of being an equal community which is respectful of the interests of all.

In this parliament we have made great process towards equality for LGBTIQ Australians. In this House we have made great progress through the ordinary process. We have removed discrimination across the statute books. We can do that when it comes to marriage; we will do that when it comes to marriage. The fight for marriage equality will not end when this bill is defeated in the other place as it should be. We will go on to give respect to all Australians by making the institution of marriage available to all Australians through this parliament. I am proud to put on the record my opposition to this unnecessary, hurtful and divisive bill.