Andrew Wilkie (Denison, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

During the previous parliament, the 44th Parliament, some members of the Liberal and National parties thought it was a very canny move to promise a plebiscite during this parliament. I suppose for some of them it was an attempt to push it into the future, far enough away that they did not have to worry about it—and, hopefully, if the plebiscite occurred they might be able to win the argument that there should not be marriage equality in this country. I do not doubt that during this parliament, now that the proposed plebiscite legislation has been voted down, there would be some members of the Liberal and National parties who would be thinking that is a very canny development as well—that now the whole matter has been pushed off even further into the future, something for a future government in a future parliament to address.

I suggest that the judgement by those members of the Liberal and National parties is flawed, because the result of that strategy by the Liberal and National parties has been, in effect, to squeeze every last bit of political heartache and political misery out of the issue. The fact is that a great many people in this country want the 2004 amendment to the Marriage Act overturned. They want Australia to join all other developed countries by allowing two men, if they love each other, to marry, or two women, if they love each other, to marry. But, no, what these members of the Liberal and National parties have hoped to do is push it into the future. I make the point again: they have squeezed every last bit of political misery and heartache out of the issue.

People just want this dealt with. They just want it over. The big majority of the community is, frankly, sick and tired of the ongoing discussion and debate about marriage equality in this country. Yes, there is a significant group of people who oppose marriage equality and there is a very significant group of people who are in favour of marriage, and there is an enormous number of people who are not all that fussed; they just want the matter dealt with. They just want people like ourselves and other members and senators to move onto other issues—to deal with this now, in the chamber.

We are a representative democracy. We are not a participatory democracy. It is our job. We were all elected to represent our community. We were all elected with our communities knowing what we stood for and what our positions were on a broad range of issues, including marriage equality. In Denison, in Melbourne and in Indi, everybody knew that we stood for equality. We all stood for an end to the legislative discrimination in the Marriage Act and that if we were elected we would come to this place and do what we could to ensure that marriage equality was finally achieved in this country and that finally we would become an equal with all other developed countries, because all of them have already embraced marriage equality.

Unfortunately there is this ongoing narrative that if the Liberal and National parties were to now support a vote in this parliament, it would somehow be the end of the Prime Minister. That is just not the case. Prime Minister Turnbull, to his credit, was true to his word by doing everything he humanly could to ensure a plebiscite occurred. Well, the plebiscite is now not going to occur despite the Prime Minister's best efforts, so the situation has changed and that demands a different policy response from the government and from the Prime Minister. In fact, by bringing this matter into the parliament, voting on it and dealing with it once and for all, it may well be the saviour of the Prime Minister because that will be the end of the matter and we will not spend the next two years debating it. We will not spend the next two years asking questions of the Prime Minister and of the members of the Liberal and National parties; we will actually spend two years addressing other issues, two years talking about how we re-engineer the budget, how we end disadvantage in this country and how we have an even better foreign security policy—that is what we would be focusing on. The decision in this place, perhaps as early as this week or next week, will have been lost in history. It may well be the saviour of the Prime Minister.

I call on the government and I call on the members of the Liberal and National parties to understand that the vast majority of people in this country just want this matter dealt with and dealt with in this parliament. It can be dealt with in this parliament decisively if we were to debate, to vote and to decide on the cross-party bill that is before the House at the moment, which would bring about marriage equality. (Time expired)

Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I support this Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 [No. 2]. It is interesting that we have Cathy McGowan, the federal member for Indi, representing rural Australia; an Independent, Andrew Wilkie, the member for Denison, representing regional Australia as in Tasmania and Hobart; and Adam Bandt, the member for Melbourne, representing inner urban Australia. We have come together with a plea to the government to please listen to what most of the people in Australia are saying: do something, act now and sort this out.

I am not going to go over the arguments that the member for Denison has so eloquently put forward. What I want today is to talk about why the people of Indi have asked me to come and have their voices heard. I was at a meeting yesterday when there was this rousing cheer when I said that we were going to reintroduce this bill. The people of Wangaratta said: 'Cathy, that's just fantastic. Know you've got our full support.' These are people in Wangaratta, not Melbourne, not Hobart, but your solid, really good people in rural and regional Australia, who are saying: 'Deal with it. Make marriage equal. Stop the discrimination. Give the people in rural and regional Australia, in Melbourne and the other parts a chance to do what they know they want to do, which is stand up in public, proclaim their love and be accepted like everybody else.' That is what they are asking of us. It is no big deal.

There are two particular voices I want to bring to the discussion today. One is the Bishop of Wangaratta, the very Reverend John Parkes. He wrote to me in September asking me to make representation on his behalf to the Prime Minister saying that this division is causing such tension and worry that could we please address it quickly and sort it out, and not go to the next election with this hanging over our head because, if we were worried about what the plebiscite might do, having it as an election issue in two or three years time is really going to cause damage to large numbers of people. The bishop, as leader of the Anglican synod for Wangaratta, which covers all northeast Victoria across to Albury, made a unanimous decision for us to please address this issue. Bishop, I have brought your comments here on behalf of your congregation. The Anglican synod of Wangaratta is normally not a radical, outrageous group of people. They are solid, good Christians, and they want this issue dealt with.

I would also like to talk about a young person in my electorate—Harry. Harry is 16 and a year 10 secondary student at Wangaratta. This month, as part of the debate in his English class, he offered his opinion that legalising marriage is a step in the right direction. I would like to bring some of Harry's words to parliament. Harry asks: 'It doesn't affect anyone directly except for same-sex couples or gay or trans or other LGBTI people, and who are we to say that their love isn't valid enough to be married? It's not like these people are in any way subhuman, so why are we treating them as if they are?'

Surely two adults who love each other should be able to get married regardless of gender, and by preventing them from doing this we are letting an archaic mentality and belief dictate others' lives.

He argues that Australia is being left behind by other countries, and says that other countries are leagues ahead of us with regard to equality. To see these countries pulling away from Australia in terms of acceptance, he says, as a 16-year-old living in Wangaratta, 'Is frankly embarrassing for our once progressive and open country,' and says:

If these countries who have a fundamentally devote Christian voter base have no problem with gay marriage then why are we still opposing it? More importantly, it is a necessary step our magnificent country must take in order to move forward and advance.

In closing his argument, Harry offers this:

Your religion, personal beliefs or preferred political party shouldn't be able to dictate another person's life, their happiness, future or legitimacy. And if you're selfishly allowing an antiquated book or a gut feeling to make your decision maybe you need to take a step back, re-evaluate your position, put yourself in other people's shoes and love your neighbour as yourself.

I bring to this parliament a call from the people of Indi to bring this legislation on to debate, to make a conscious decision so that people can freely stand up and do what they need to do, to sort it out and enable our country to get on with the business of government, which is what our people really want to do. (Time expired)

Madeleine King (Brand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I welcome the opportunity to speak today on this Marriage Legislation Amendment Bill 2016 [No. 2], which has been co-sponsored by the member for Melbourne and the Independent members for Denison and lndi. I am grateful to speak on the matter of marriage equality as I have not previously had the opportunity. I would agree wholeheartedly with the members for Denison and Indi and their sentiment, here, this morning. This matter should be dealt with right away so that we might save ourselves an odious debate that would not progress this nation any further.

We are fortunate to have a legal system that has as a core principle the right of every person to be treated equally before the law. But Australians in same-sex relationships are not equal before the law. The law does not allow them to marry. We do, however, have the opportunity to rectify this inequality, to ensure true equality for same-sex couples, by ensuring they are legally equal to heterosexual couples.

By amending the Marriage Act to define marriage as a union of two people we can make the right to marry—a right taken for granted by most Australians—available to all Australians. We can amend the act and put an end to marriage inequality. Marriage is a celebration of love and commitment, which is important to many couples, their families and their friends. It is a celebration that is denied to tens of thousands of Australians, thanks to a 'relic of legal prejudice' as the Leader of the Opposition so rightly put it.

Tens of thousands of families are discriminated against for the most personal aspect of themselves: who they love. We can change this, right here, in parliament by doing the job we were each elected to do. We can put this relic of the past where it belongs: in the history books. In this day and age, when countries around the world have moved ahead of us in marriage equality, it is disappointing that this government continues to refuse equality to same-sex couples in this country.

In my first speech I quoted the great Western Australian essayist Sir Walter Murdoch, who once said he felt 'like kneeling down daily and praying to be delivered from this shameful fear of change and praying that my country may be delivered from it'. Well, this country and its people have left its conservative leaders behind. The people of Australia have faith in themselves and in their communities and are willing to forge a progressive path toward marriage equality. This government is holding them back, and I pray that this country might be delivered from this regressive government.

A primary function of our parliament is to make and change laws, and it might be a surprise to some opposite that this is true even when it relates to marriage. This government has decided it cannot introduce a legislative change to parliament without first putting it to a non-binding plebiscite, the true function of which is to save the Prime Ministers' job. This non-binding plebiscite, a political tool, favoured by the government would not change the definition of marriage or even guarantee a debate in parliament on this important issue. What it would do, though, is open the floodgates for opinions to flow freely on other people's lives. This is principally what it is about: other people's lives.

Some of us, myself included, believe other people should be able to live their lives as they choose, as part of a peaceful community that is committed to basic order and rule of law and freedom to enjoy an equality of rights. Others, somehow, think they need to be involved in other people's lives, that they need to be the moral guardians of other people's lives and make decisions on what rights other people should have the privilege to enjoy. These people should stop it. They should stop prying into other people's lives and their loves and stop passing judgement on them.

To these prying moral guardians I say: it is none of your business, and it would help the accord within our community if you could stop encouraging others to broadcast opinions on other people's private lives. Some members opposite have presented the idea that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman for the reproduction of children, that somehow this is the 'right' view of marriage and all that it is. I disagree with this view. How small this view is, how terribly sadly small.

This government and many of its members, sadly, do not care for the collateral damage the public debate they have sought to encourage and fund will have. It will hurt many. It will hurt me, my husband, my sister and my friends. Basically, the proposed plebiscite debate will hurt anyone who has a life that is different from their traditional, idealised and, frankly, unreal view of marriage. Marriage has always been and will continue to be much more than an institution that requires conservative forces to protect it.

For the majority of people who decide to marry, they do so because of love and not to conform to some kind of restrictive definition. I support the right of same-sex couples to celebrate their love through marriage. I look forward to the day when Australia joins the long list of countries around the world where same-sex marriage is recognised. I look forward to the day when every Australian, regardless of their sexuality, can experience the same freedom to express their love and commitment that is afforded to the majority of people.

If this parliament is allowed to work as it should, that day, hopefully, is very close. I also believe—as the members do who spoke previously—in a representative democracy. We should be allowed, in this parliament, to do our jobs, not to put out for public opinion the rights of other people's lives.

Debate adjourned.