Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was just saying before the interruption, in 2013 a briefing paper released by the National LGBTI Health Alliance revealed that same-sex-attracted Australians have a rate of suicide attempts up to 14 times as high as that of their heterosexual peers, and discrimination and exclusion are the key causal factors for their mental health and suicide attempts. Medical studies demonstrate overwhelmingly that being married is a good way to live longer. Research shows that having a spouse gives individuals something to live for, compared to their single counterparts.

Looking globally, there are now more than 20 countries that have legalised same-sex marriage, including countries as diverse as Argentina, Norway, South Africa, France, Colombia and Ireland. Support in these countries for same-sex marriage is in certain instances overwhelming. For example, Denmark reported 87 per cent support for same-sex marriage. There was also compelling evidence that support for legal same-sex marriage has increased across every age group, political ideology, religion, gender, race and region of various developed countries in the world.

Back home, in May this year football players from every AFL team signed a petition in support of marriage equality, and this petition is part of an overwhelming equality campaign which hopes to continue the push for same-sex marriage. Meanwhile, the AFL Players' Association has been a signatory to marriage equality for the past two years.

I believe anyone who is still unclear about the need for a change in legislation should ask the next generation how they feel about this important subject. Nowadays, when I do school visits around my electorate and get the Q&A questions as part of my session, I am faced with a new phenomenon. Primary school children used to ask me about my dog or the make of my car I drive. Now both primary and secondary students ask me, totally unprompted questions by adults: what is my position on same-sex marriage or marriage equality? When I ask the students, with permission of the teachers, what their view is, their response is that they are overwhelmingly in favour irrespective of their age or the kind of school they are attending, which really surprised me. It is clear to me that the majority of my electorate is well and truly ready to embrace change on this important topic, and it is my responsibility to represent their majority views in the forthcoming vote.

So today, in conclusion, I stand to say that, as my electorate has now voted 'yes' on two occasions, La Trobe overall supports a change with the times. Love is love and, therefore, I support this bill. Let there be same-sex marriages in the Dandenong Ranges, and it will be great for business. Thank you.

Susan Lamb (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I acknowledge that many Australians have lost faith in our political system in recent years. I understand that; I really do. This 45th Parliament has been plagued with inaction, indecision, infighting and instability. This catastrophic mess has turned many away from the major parties and many more from the establishment as a whole. So I say to these people: I hear you and I empathise with you. I understand you feel angry, silenced or maybe disillusioned—maybe all three—but I urge you to look at today and recognise the importance of our political system and the great changes that a parliament can make in an individual's life.

We live in a great country filled with great people, and it's exactly that which we can all too easily lose site of. Our country is only great because it is made up of great individuals, of course. Whether you are someone living on a very high income in an electorate like Wentworth or you are somebody just getting by like in my electorate of Longman, it is you as an individual that makes our country great. It's not your pay packet, it's not the colour of your skin and it's certainly not your sexuality. It is the role of your elected representatives to stand up on your behalf and to treat everyone as equals—and, of course, to create change to make it easier for you to get by, easier to live your life, easier to be happy.

These may be small changes, of course, that might help a single individual, just like how recently my office helped a man who was living on the streets to find some housing. He now lives on Bribie Island. He's getting by. In actual fact, he's more than getting by. We bumped into each other at Woolworths just last week. He has a home. He has a TV. He has a bed. He's actually got a physical address where he can say to people, 'Come and visit me.' All of these things mean that he has hope back in his life. He's happier than that sad and frustrated man that walked into my office a little bit earlier in the year. These small changes are important, and we can't deny this. Everyone should feel valued, and we must not overlook the importance of helping single individuals.

But it really is sweeping changes that make life better for many individuals, and we must truly recognise these as great. There are great changes such as the introduction of Medicare, of course, by the Hawke government in 1994, which allowed anyone and everyone, regardless of privilege or disadvantage, to have access to quality and affordable health care. In 2008 Kevin Rudd officially apologised to our nation's first people for the horrific mistreatment that they have endured. As recent inaction by this government has highlighted, we still have a long way to go and a lot to do in this space, but the gesture of the Rudd government was a huge deal to many marginalised individuals, and now today I can stand here to encourage the passing of another great change, another hugely significant gesture that will be a huge deal to many more marginalised individuals.

This is the responsibility of a government. It is our responsibility to change lives for the better and to forge the way, of course, for great things to happen, to take a stand and to lead the way. A government should not be dragged kicking and screaming to deliver something which could have been done a long time ago, delaying and obstructing the passage of what is right. A government should not waste over $100 million of taxpayers' money to cower from its responsibility, and a government should not open the doors for the hate and vitriol against members of our community, like members of the LGBTIQ community who have had to suffer insults and slander that was directed towards them, like those who had to hear a hateful comment when they were walking down the street and those who had to read abhorrent material in newspapers, online, public places or in a flyer in their letterbox. LGBTIQ people are strong people. They are strong people of great character and of great resolve. They are strong people that this really did take its toll on.

What this vote unleashed was not fair. It was not fair that these people had to vote on their own rights, to vote for something that so many Australians already have. It was not fair they were told by so many hate-filled individuals along the way that they were inferior. To the LGBTIQ individuals across Australia, I tell you that you are not inferior, and I stand here today and I tell you: you are great and you are incredible. You are incredible for so many reasons and your sexuality is just one of those many reasons, but it is not the defining reason, of course. It is just an intrinsic part of who you are as an individual. It is just another singular part of your collective whole, like your personality, your smile or the experiences which have shaped you. No matter what anyone tells you or whatever you've heard across the reprehensible campaign, you are incredible. You are incredible, and you deserve just as much as every other Australian, and you deserve equality.

Over the course of this parliament, I have spoken many times about four incredible men that I love more than anything else in this world, my four sons: Chris, Kyle, Jack and George. As any proud mum would, I have spoken of how wonderful it is to see these four boys grow into the four amazing men that they are today. Just last month, my youngest graduated from high school and so I am very proud of George, but it means I am no longer a school mum—there's a bit of relief in that. I am no longer responsible for the way these four men choose to live their life. I trust each one of them to live their live with love and compassion, to follow their dreams, to do what's right—and I know they will.

But now, as a member of parliament, I have taken a new responsibility. I may no longer be responsible for the way my children choose to live their lives, but I bear the responsibility for helping change the laws that give each one of my sons a choice, an equal choice. As I have said before in this chamber, one of my sons is a member of the LGBTIQ community, and because of this—and for no other reason—he's been discriminated against by the laws of this country. Each of his brothers have grown up with the right to marry the person they happened to fall in love with, the person they want to share their life with, but he has been denied this right. I stand here today for him. I stand here today for every other Australian like him, for every other Australian who has been denied something to which everyone else is entitled to, to right this wrong, to support the progress of this bill in the name of equality. With the passage of this bill, we finally end any form of official discrimination by the Commonwealth against gay and lesbian people. We will finally recognise that the gender of the participants in a marriage does not diminish, does not change or increase the importance of that relationship, and that the state should not preclude people from participating in one of the civic norms because of people they love.

For many people, their wedding day is the happiest day of their life. So how cruel is it for a government to deny someone this happiness solely based upon their sexuality? I, of course, 100 per cent support the passage of legislation that removes discrimination. However, I once again need to say that while this bill is to be celebrated, the manner of its conception leaves a lot to be desired. We didn't need an expensive survey to get here. What we needed was a government that had a bit of courage, courage equal to that displayed by generations and generations of gay and lesbian activists, activists who have changed our society for the better, who should watch with pride as this bill passes through this place. I think one of the reasons we saw such widespread community support for this change is because of the courage that was shown by gay and lesbian Australians.

The change in attitudes that has taken place just within my lifetime is immense. These changes started with the brave few who were prepared to come out at risk of prosecution and certain persecution up until the decriminalisation in the seventies, eighties and nineties. In my state of Queensland, you can actually pinpoint the start of changes and attitudes to the election of the Goss government in 1989. It is easy to think that a change was just of its time, an inevitability that came with modern society, but unfortunately that is not the case. You see, the National Party at the time campaigned strongly against decriminalisation. In 1989, Nationals election ads featured then Premier Russell Cooper warning Queenslanders: 'Labor even plans to make homosexuality legal.' They reassured us with: 'That's a floodgate that the Nationals will never open.' Of course Premier Cooper lost. Wayne Goss was elected, and the floodgates of progressive change really opened up. But, even after decriminalisation, the Nationals in Queensland attempted to ensure Queensland was seen as a bigoted, red-necked laughing stock. Former Nationals minister Yvonne Chapman, the mayor of Pine Rivers, removed all the toilet doors in the shire of Pine Rivers upon hearing there were a group of gays visiting Brisbane for a conference. Can you believe this?

Many things have changed since then. Look where we are today. This is in part hugely because of the bravery of those who apprehensively uttered the words to their mums, 'Mum, I'm gay.' Of course, changes legislated by this bill will come too late for many of those brave activists. But, as we should remember, in any great social change we merely stand on the shoulders of giants—giants who founded a parade in Sydney, who marched in demonstrations in the face of police brutality in Brisbane, who conducted a kiss-in in front of the offices of Mayor Yvonne Chapman at Strathpine, and who came to Labor Party conferences and moved motions that at the time weren't at all popular. These were the giants who built a consensus for change. The giants in this debate were not just activists but every gay and lesbian Australian who stood up to be counted, whose relationships we celebrate not just today but at marriage ceremonies for evermore.

I'd also like to acknowledge the people who object to this bill. I understand how you feel. I empathise with you; I really do. My office has received correspondence from a number of people who do not support enshrining same-sex marriage in legislation. Some of the correspondence has been filled with vile, hateful atrocities that do nothing but spread hate, anger and hostility. But most of it has been respectful opposition. I don't think less of any of these people; I don't think of them as bigots. I don't agree with the opinions that they shared with me, but I respect their right to have that view. I welcome any of my constituents passing their views on to me, whether in support or in opposition. It is an important part of the democratic process. Whether it is for religious reasons or a conservative line of thought, you are entitled to be resistant to change. But please let me tell you that the passing of this bill will not encroach on you or on any of your freedoms. This is sensible legislation that has protections in place.

While we stand on the opposite sides of the respective chambers, I also commend Senator Smith and thank him for crafting it. Despite the deceptive and misleading rhetoric of many 'no' campaigners, Senator Smith has proposed legislation that allows two people of the same gender to be married under Australian law. This legislation does no more than this. In no part does it say what clothes people have to wear. It has no impact on children. There will be no changes to educational programs. It won't affect any religious ceremonies. The only people who will be directly impacted by this legislation are the consenting adults who wish to share their love for one another.

This is not a slippery slope. It is a cumbersome mountain. We have lived in the shadow for far too long. It has been a long journey, a demanding climb, but we are close to the summit. We have lived in the shadow for so long now, but finally—finally—there is light. I am so proud to stand here today, to pledge my passionate support for the passage of this bill. This is a monumental change for our country. It is a monumental change for many individuals but, further than that, it is a monumental change for its couples, for the LGBTIQ couples who love each other and wish to share their love. To all of you, when this bill passes through this parliament, the 45th Parliament of Australia, should you decide that you wish to act upon your newfound right to get married, I wish you all the best. I wish you a life of love and happiness. You are all incredible individuals and, together, you will make for incredible married couples, I'm sure. I will end with this: there is nothing wrong with being gay; there is a lot right about what will pass into law with the passing of this bill. I commend this bill to the House.

Julian Leeser (Berowra, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This week we're assembled in the parliament to debate the results of the same-sex marriage postal survey, to enact legislation to give effect to the outcome of the survey and to seek specific protections for people of faith and religious institutions related to those legislative changes. Giving Australians a say on the issue of same-sex marriage became coalition policy before the last election, and I supported that policy. Once you promise people a say, you cannot take it away.

During last year's election campaign, same-sex marriage was widely canvassed by voters in my electorate. People wanted to know my view of same-sex marriage and what I thought of the plebiscite. Many advocates of same-sex marriage opposed giving Australians a say, but I think, on balance, they were wrong to do so. Same-sex marriage will ultimately have greater social acceptance in Australia than, say, in the United States, where it came about through a decision of the US Supreme Court, because all Australians have had the opportunity to have their say about the issue. Australia, in that case, is a rare country. It's one of a handful of national jurisdictions, including Ireland, Slovenia and Switzerland, where the public have had an opportunity to have a direct say on same-sex marriage. There are also a number of countries—including the United States, South Africa, Taiwan and several South American countries—where same-sex marriage has been brought about via court decisions, which is the most unsatisfactory way of achieving social change.

The statistics illustrate the strength of the 'yes' vote in the postal survey. Nationally, 61.6 per cent of people voted yes and 38.4 per cent voted no. The vote was carried in all states and 79.5 per cent of voters participated across Australia. The national result represents the seventh-highest 'yes' vote ever for a question successfully put to Australians. Across the country, women were more likely to participate than men, at 81.6 per cent compared to 77.3 per cent. Some people have suggested to me that 'no' voters were less likely to participate; but older Australians were more likely to vote no and their participation rate was higher than among younger Australians. Those aged 70 to 74 were the most likely to respond to the survey, with 89.6 per cent participating. The participation rate was lowest for those aged 25 to 29, at 71.9 per cent.

Berowra residents actively participated in the postal survey. In Berowra, 84.7 per cent responded to the survey. That's the second-highest participation rate in New South Wales and the sixth-highest in the country. Berowra voted 54.6 per cent yes and 45.4 per cent no. In comparison to national referendum results, the Berowra majority is the ninth-highest since Federation. As with the national result, in every category women were more likely to participate than men in Berowra: 86.2 per cent of women and 83.2 per cent of men participated. The participation rate in Berowra was highest for people aged between 65 and 84, where the rate was above 90 per cent for all categories; it was the lowest in the 30 to 34 age group, at 78.5 per cent. But everywhere in Berowra, the result was above the national average. The result of the postal survey put to bed my fears that the turnout would be low and that there would be widespread allegations of voter fraud, which there weren't. The success of the postal survey is a credit to the government and in particular to the responsible minister, Senator Cormann.

As I'd said prior to the postal survey, I'm not for changing the definition of marriage. This has never been because I wish to diminish the relationships of same-sex couples, but simply because of the view I have that marriage is between a man and a woman. I've been on the public record consistently on this issue since 2009. I spoke in this House on the plebiscite bill. I wrote a column in The Daily Telegraph. My view was widely reported in the local press in my electorate. As I said in the House last December, when debating the plebiscite bill:

In the plebiscite, I will vote against changing the definition of marriage. However … in the event that the plebiscite is carried nationwide, I will vote to implement the result of the plebiscite.

     …      …      …

My view of marriage is a personally held view. One advantage of the plebiscite is that it gives all Australians the chance to have their own say on what is a deeply moral and personal issue. Another advantage of the plebiscite is that, because it is a vote of the Australian people, the result will carry a political weight much greater than a vote in the parliament. Whatever the result, following a plebiscite I think activists on both sides should regard the issue as being settled.

It was people on my side of the debate who called for the public to have a direct say on this matter. Having elevated this issue and asked people for their view, we have to implement that view and respect the wishes of the Australian people. To do otherwise would be to offer a Brechtian response, as if to say, 'The people are wrong. Let us elect a new people.' Therefore, I will vote yes to the bill. The passage of this bill will create a legally recognisable right for gay and lesbian Australians to marry. We all have gay and lesbian friends and family, and this will be rightly a time of celebration for them.

While this has been an important debate, it has perhaps removed attention from other issues which are important to gay and lesbian Australians, such as the need for additional support services, especially given the higher rate of suicide among gay and lesbian Australians. I call on the government to put more funding into counselling services for suicide prevention, particularly among young gay and lesbian Australians.

In passing this legislation for same-sex marriage, it's important to provide protections for religious institutions and people of faith. Many of those who, like me, voted no did so in accordance with their faith tradition. As parliamentarians, we need to balance competing rights as between minorities and majorities and as between competing minorities, and that is our task in this bill. So, while I'll vote yes to this bill, I'll also vote yes to additional religious protections. I believe we can have same-sex marriage and religious protections too. Many people of faith in Berowra have written to me to express their concerns about the need to protect religious freedoms. I will vote to give voice to those protections within the bill.

Unfortunately, the public reaction to the idea of religious protections has revealed that religious literacy is not what it once was—not our level of religious observance but our level of knowledge, particularly about Christianity, the religion which has shaped the free society in which we live today. If understanding of Christianity in our culture were stronger, perhaps there'd be more sympathy for religious protections. Despite the census result, people of faith often feel that they're in a cultural minority, if not a numerical one. In some quarters, there's been an attempt to usher faith out of the public square and to diminish or mock people of faith as being superstitious, backward looking or not relevant to modern Australia. We see this especially when church leaders appear on Q&A. But faith and religious communities are important to the moral ecology of our country. Religion provides answers to some of the fundamental questions of life like: Who am I? Why am I here? How then should I live? At the heart of the Judaeo-Christian tradition is the radical notion that, whoever we are—young or old, black or white, gay or straight—we are created in the divine image and derive our human dignity from that fact. This fact motivates people of faith to great acts of heroic service. Religious communities provide much of the education, health and social welfare infrastructure in this country, and they bring an extra element to their service because of their teaching about human dignity.

Sometimes this debate has been presented as same-sex Australians versus people of faith. It shouldn't have been put that way. On that point, I note the statement of the Catholic bishop of Broken Bay, Peter Comensoli, whose diocese covers my electorate. Bishop Comensoli wrote:

While I had hoped for a different outcome, I readily acknowledge the result of this survey and respect the firm decision made by the Australian people.

…   …   …

I want to stress, once more, that I never considered this a 'referendum' on the worth or dignity of gay and lesbian people, which is beyond question. My concern has always been with the question of what constitutes marriage as a distinctive kind of relationship, and the unique roles of husband and wife in a family.

Before I came to this place, I had the privilege of working as a senior executive in the largest mission of the Catholic Church in Australia, at Australian Catholic University. I also served on the board of a Catholic aged-care and health organisation. As a person of the Jewish faith, it was a particular privilege to work for these large Catholic institutions. I regard working for these missions of the church as one of the greatest privileges of my life.

Christians, as I learnt, have a holistic perspective on the nature of marriage, life and family. It's not a minor article of faith but is central to their tradition and, indeed, to their whole outlook on life. It's a perspective which is shared by people of my faith, and yet it is a perspective which is not well understood and often not sympathetically treated in broader parts of society, particularly the media. My concern about religious freedom is motivated by the way in which this issue has played out in our country and also in foreign jurisdictions. Activists have resorted to lawfare to make a point. Some of those activists are not interested in the position of same-sex couples. Rather, they're interested in attacking the churches and further diminishing their role and status in society. It's for this reason, in the context of litigation, that people of faith seek particular protections and defences, which I support.

The religious protections in the bill currently before us focus on protections relating to the marriage ceremony and subsequent celebrations. However, the need for religious protections goes beyond the marriage ceremony itself. It goes to the right to teach and preach about marriage. In changing the definition of marriage, we need to ensure that religious leaders and people of faith can continue to preach without harassment, even though the law has changed, that, according to their tradition, marriage means between a man and a woman. The right of people of faith to choose to teach their children about the faith of their parents is vital to the continuity of any faith community. We also need to ensure that these rights are granted to religious schools so that they can continue to teach unimpeded what marriage means according to their tradition. Therefore, I will be supporting protections for people of faith and religious institutions, which are proposed by some of my colleagues.

I want to say something about the inquiry on religious freedom which has been set up under the chairmanship of my distinguished predecessor Philip Ruddock. To the extent that such an inquiry makes recommendations about specific protections in legislation, addressing individual problems and issues identified by faith groups, then I will support them. But, to the extent that it becomes a stalking horse for the introduction of a bill of rights, to that I am implacably opposed.

I know the idea of legislating for the broad principle of religious freedoms as opposed to individual exemptions is increasingly attractive to people involved in the governance of faith based organisations. But the global experience, not least in Victoria, should gave faith leaders serious pause before enacting global human rights conventions and broader principles into our law, especially in the form of a bill of rights, which will do little to protect people of faith and instead transfer decisions on issues such as these from the parliament to the courts, which are no friendlier to people of faith and indeed may be more hostile than elected representatives.

At the end of his long life, Sir Isaiah Berlin, the great British philosopher, received an honorary doctorate at the University of Toronto. Reflecting on the 20th century, he spoke up for compromise from absolutist positions. That compromise is what is needed now. In addressing the question of how to reconcile competing values, Berlin had this to say:

I am afraid I have no dramatic answer to offer: only that if these ultimate human values by which we live are to be pursued, then compromises, trade-offs, arrangements have to be made if the worst is not to happen. So much liberty for so much equality, so much individual self-expression for so much security, so much justice for so much compassion. My point is that some values clash: the ends pursued by human beings are … generated by our common nature, but their pursuit has to be to some degree controlled—liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I repeat, may not be fully compatible with each other, nor are liberty, equality, and fraternity.

So we must weigh and measure, bargain, compromise, and prevent the crushing of one form of life by its rivals. I know only too well that this is not a flag under which idealistic and enthusiastic young men and women may wish to march—it seems too tame, too reasonable, too bourgeois, it does not engage the generous emotions. But you must believe me, one cannot have everything one wants—not only in practice, but even in theory. The denial of this, the search for a single, overarching ideal because it is the one and only true one for humanity, invariably leads to coercion. And then to destruction, blood—eggs are broken, but the omelette is not in sight, there is only an infinite number of eggs, human lives, ready for the breaking. And in the end the passionate idealists forget the omelette, and just go on breaking eggs.

Like Berlin, we need to make the omelette that is this law through compromise by saying yes to same-sex marriage and yes to protections for religious institutions and people of faith beyond the marriage ceremony as well. That is why I'll vote yes to religious protections, but, even if those protections amendments do not succeed, in accordance with my promise, I will vote for the bill in the second and third reading stages.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to follow the other Julian—always thoughtful and reasoned, even when I don't agree with him, but I often do. I will also record some words, although, in my view, this debate has dragged on for far too long. Like so many people in my electorate, I'm frustrated because there are so many other enormously important issues facing the nation that we could and should be spending time on. Indeed, we could have come here last week and turned up to work and cleared some out of the Notice Paper. But here we are still, and finally now we can finish this.

I know that this means so much to many Australians, straight and gay. I know that many of my colleagues also feel strongly about this, as do my friends. This issue should have been addressed, debated and resolved by this parliament years ago, without an unnecessary, divisive, wasteful, expensive, time-consuming and legally ineffectual optional postal survey—or quiz, as it would be more accurately styled. When the government failed to get their legislation through for the plebiscite, we should have simply had a free vote—radical, I know! Do the job we are elected to do.

I know from private conversations that many of those opposite agree with that. But the Prime Minister is too weak, too bruised, too hostage to the Taliban faction in his own party room for something that sensible to have happened, or for him to have done what he actually believed was right. So, in their inimitable way, they came up with the worst possible outcome or solution to the Prime Minister's spinelessness: an optional, Dolly-Doctor style, 'answer and tell us only if you want to' quiz—

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

Order. The member will resume his seat. A point of order?

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd ask the member to withdraw his reference to 'the Taliban faction'. It is inappropriate to refer to anyone in this House or to make any such comparisons to anyone that sits in this chamber.

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

I ask the member to withdraw.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I withdraw in the interests of proceeding with the debate, although I notice that's a term your own members use all the time in relation to the conservatives and it has been in the newspaper a lot. But, anyway, let's move on. As I was saying, in your brilliant way, you came up with the worst possible solution to the Prime Minister's spinelessness: an optional, Dolly-Doctor style, 'answer and tell us only if you want to' kind of quiz, to obstruct, delay and stymie.

The only silver lining to this mess is that the Australian people have stepped up wonderfully with a turnout rate around 80 per cent, which has given this whole sorry, shameful exercise sufficient validity to finish it now. This was not because Australians wanted to have their say, as the Prime Minister keeps waffling. The real scientific polls would suggest quite the contrary. People stepped up and sent back their surveys when we, the parliamentarians and the legislators, failed to do our jobs. I'm greatly relieved the national turnout was strong and that the people took charge when we failed them.

Senator Smith was absolutely correct when he described his own government's policy to hold a plebiscite on this issue as 'abhorrent'. A waste of $100 million, this weak, pathetic excuse for a Prime Minister called it 'an investment'. Yet, here we are, finally doing the work we were elected to do at a cost of $100 million just to get to the starting line and open the debate. This is only the financial cost. We heard at the outset that this would be a harmful and divisive debate. And so it came to pass. Sadly, the warnings of mental health impacts have been more than borne out with a reported surge and enormous spike in demand for mental health support for too many LGBTQI Australians and their families. For that we should all say sorry. Most especially, Senator Canavan, should say sorry for his callousness and lack of empathy—pretty much every time he opens his mouth. A touch of compassion, understanding and generosity would not have gone astray. Indeed, it would have been the decent, Christian thing to do, and people might dislike him a little less.

We heard that the debate would be disrespectful. I think most Australians conducted the debate about the definition of marriage quite respectfully. Most people put their views on the issue at hand sensibly, at least in my community from what I heard. I had many thoughtful conversations with many of my constituents and heard a wide range of views. The problem was the licence that this weak Prime Minister's quiz gave for all sorts of other vile rubbish. It is a pity most of the national 'no' campaign seemed to be about everything and anything but the actual question at hand. It is probably good the standing orders preclude us from reading into Hansard many of the horrible emails we all received. Probably the worst stuff was said about the children of our LGBTQI families.

But, truth be told, the primary reason for my strident and abiding opposition to this quiz is quite simply because this is not how we make laws in Australia and it is of no legal effect. The fact that we now have to have this parliamentary debate proves that. Under our Australian Constitution, this federal parliament has the power to legislate on this issue and the responsibility to do so. Mob rule is not how laws are made in a diverse, liberal, representative democracy like ours. The last time we tried plebiscites was in 1916 and 1917 on the issue of conscription. This tactic also divided the country, community and families.

I understand and share the euphoria and the relief of the 'yes' campaigners and my fellow LGBTQI Australians when the result was announced. I congratulate and applaud everyone who campaigned so hard, for having the strength of their convictions and for giving voice to their values. While I do believe that equality will ultimately win in Australia, the land of a fair go, change is not inevitable and is never easy. Change and equal rights are only secured through the efforts of social warriors like those who fought for this. I record my thanks and acknowledgement of the wonderful Tim Gartrell, who led the national 'yes' campaign and should be applauded for his work and commitment.

These people continue, and honour, the proud decades-long legacy of those who came before us fighting for decriminalisation and equal rights—as the member for Grayndler so elegantly articulated earlier today—drawing on the heritage of the '78ers, those who marched in the first Mardi Gras. That was not a celebration on TV; they were being pelted with rocks and eggs. I am not that old, but, not that long ago, homosexual acts were still criminalised in every part of Australia. It sounds ridiculous to modern ears, but, even worse, there are many Australians alive today who were born when, in some states, being gay was an offence still punishable by death.

There is not enough time today to explore the sad similarities between many of the conservative arguments run by the 'no' case—indeed, we heard some with the previous speakers—and the arguments that were put every single time the issue of equal rights came up in the past such as 'but that's just how things are' and 'it's against nature'. 'I have nothing against them but it's a slippery slope.' The same arguments were used years ago to oppose decriminalisation of homosexuality, interracial marriage, the abolition of slavery and women's right to vote. I am pleased the matter has been resolved decisively by the Australian people, and my vote will reflect that outcome. But I remain troubled by the dangerous precedent of 'the quiz', which I hope our nation never repeats. Who will be the next minority group you put to a vote? It is a very serious question that warrants careful, quiet reflection by so-called people of conscience. I hope we learn from this and Australia never does this again.

A few words are in order to acknowledge that the result of the quiz in my electorate was against the overwhelming national response. I love my electorate and I love my community. I have said numerous times that the human diversity in Bruce, especially the multiculturalism and the high percentage of first-generation migrants, is something I take daily delight in. I'm so proud to serve and represent my wonderfully diverse and caring community in this place. Of course, I know my community well and I'm not entirely surprised that the result of the quiz was a bit lower than the national vote. In significant part, there is a nationwide and decades-long established pattern that many first-generation migrants have fairly conservative views on some social issues. Bruce also is a little older age-wise than surrounding seats and the youth turnout was well below the average. These factors combined to produce a result lower than the national response—although, of course, many older people and many migrants voted and campaigned 'yes' in support of equality and we can't generalise too much. But the most common view I heard from people—from both those supportive and those opposed—was bemusement that the parliament couldn't just have a vote. And there was utter frustration that we were not dealing with what most people in my community perceive to be more important issues—jobs and the economy, the rising cost of living, the increasing taxation burden on PAYG taxpayers, fixing Medicare and the mess of the NBN.

I remember a conversation I had with a lovely woman at a community event. She had migrated from South Asia some years ago. She told me she would tick the 'no' box, consistent with her cultural tradition, although she wasn't overly fussed. She told me that, being from a developing country where there is enormous need and poverty, Australians, to her mind, seem downright crazy to be spending $100 million on this. I could not disagree with her. A common view regarding marriage I heard from many people who had nothing against gay people but feel strongly about the traditional definition of marriage was to ask why marriage must be legislated at all—why not have a common national civil union under the law, so that people are equal, and leave marriage to whatever institutions people want to deal with it according to their traditions and preferences? Personally, that is a view I have much sympathy for. But the reality is that the Constitution specifically empowers us to make laws with respect to marriage, and that is what we must do. Ultimately, this is a national issue and these are national laws. Like everyone here, I too feel bound to respect the overwhelming national support for marriage equality.

There is one other important point I want to make. I want to make it very clear, as I have done since the moment I was preselected to run for the seat of Bruce, that equality is a core and overriding principle that I am, and will be, guided by. In representing such a diverse community, I will always keep to my word and vote to back equality under the laws of Australia for everyone, every time, every day of the week. I do so now in this parliament on this matter, and I assure my constituents and this House that I will do so in the future should one part of our community ever suffer, or be at risk of, discrimination under Australian law. We are one of the most diverse nations on earth, and I don't believe that politicians should pick and choose on equality, including in relation to love and marriage. People love who they love.

Personally, I've never been married or desired marriage. My daughter was born when I was 22, and it was never a question then between her mum and I. I do quite like weddings, especially those that are palpably, tangibly filled with love, and I was at one, with my friends Daniel and Paula, trying not to drown in the rain in their backyard on Saturday night, surrounded by their kids. But this isn't about my personal choices. I believe my role as a legislator, as I said, is to ensure equality before the law of Australia so that people are equal, and free to make their own choices.

Finally, in relation to this bill, I've said consistently that I'd never support legislation that forces a religion to marry people against their tradition and that proper protections for religion are also important. Religious freedom is a serious topic which deserves proper consideration. The issues raised are much broader than marriage, which this bill deals with, and the bill before the parliament does not stop religious traditions or people of faith from expressing their view of marriage. We need to give careful thought, in a separate process, to what may be necessary, and I will carefully consider the outcomes of Philip Ruddock's panel next year. But we must not use this issue as a licence or pretext to expand discrimination.

Some in this debate are misusing the notion of religious freedom, confusing it with religious privilege, and also forgetting that freedom from religion is, for many people, just as important in the public sphere. I'm glad that the Prime Minister—I'll say this—found at least one vertebra and killed off Senator Paterson's self-promoting bill. It's astounding, though, that Senator Paterson even actually came up with it, and he'd do well to remember that this is the national parliament, where we make laws that impact on real people in the real world; it's not like a brainstorming session at the IPA right-wing lobby group where he, no doubt, excelled. We shouldn't really be surprised, I suppose, that that was his second notable contribution to public debate, following on from his stunning debut, where he proposed that we sell the national art collection and bank the proceeds! But anyway, that's enough.

This whole episode has diminished this parliament, and the Liberals should get no credit for it. As with the history of every other social reform where they happen to have been in government, they've been dragged kicking and screaming to it. 'Leading' to them means 'being the last one to act' when public opinion is overwhelming and the activists—mainly from our side—for decades have done all the hard work. But here they are. Liberal Party HQ should be sent a giant invoice for the cost of this quiz, kind of like the reverse of the old big cheques—remember the old big cheques that were so popular in yesteryear at launches and grant announcements?—and they should cough up $100 million and a big apology note.

But, as I said, I'm thankful—and I'll record that again in closing—that the Australian people have stepped in and stepped up when this parliament failed to do our job and that the people have expressed a clear, overwhelming view, which I respect and am now guided by. So I hope we get this done quickly so that those whom this change will affect—not many, in the scheme of the population—can live their lives the way they want to, and so that we in this parliament can then get on and actually deal with the many critical issues that demand our attention.

Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to contribute to this debate. I want to start by thanking the 83,194 people within the electorate of Dickson who took part in the electoral process. It was an important democratic process, and I pay tribute to those people who voted, yes or no. In the end, my electorate recorded a high 'yes' vote of 65.2 per cent, which compared with 61.6 per cent overall and the 60.7 per cent vote in Queensland. I want to pay tribute also to the 7.8 million people who, across the country, voted yes and the 4.8 million people who voted no. There is no moral high ground in this debate, and we shouldn't be chastising the 4.8 million people who, we recognise, have firmly-held beliefs and have voted no in this plebiscite; we recognise the value of their vote and their opinion, and they are not diminished through this process at all.

I want to make just a couple of points on what obviously has been an emotive debate over a long period of time. I can remember, going back to the Howard government days, debates within the party room and within the ministry around the issue of the prospect, at least, of changing the definition of marriage, and, in my judgement, from the moment when the Abbott government took the decision to ask the Australian people about whether or not a change should take place, it was obvious to me that the public would support a change in the definition of marriage, and so it followed. I pay tribute to my colleagues, both within cabinet and across the party, for the grace with which they've conducted themselves in this debate. It is an emotive debate. People have held strong views for a long period of time, but I think the fact that people have been able to respect those differences and contribute to the debate is a great credit to each of them.

I acknowledge what has been an important process through the postal plebiscite, which was contentious to start with but necessary, in my judgement. I thank those people who were in favour and those who were against such a process. We had a number of conversations with people, but, in the end, it resulted in 11 million or 12 million people plus voting and having their voices heard in this debate. Had we had a parliamentary vote where several of our colleagues had crossed the floor in a five-minute-to-midnight move, it would have been a bad outcome for the government and a false start to this change in social policy. Given that an overwhelming number of Australians have voted in favour of the change, it gives a legitimacy that would not otherwise have existed had a parliamentary vote taken place. For any important social change, whether you're in favour of or against that change, it is important for the Australian public to know that the process has been a proper one, that the majority have been heard and that those people that have conducted themselves during the course of the debate have ultimately had the ability to cast their vote. I made it very clear during the course of this debate that I would vote no during the plebiscite but I would vote for the bill in parliament if a majority of Australians voted yes, and that's what I will do. I believe that if we proposed a democratic process—and I pushed very hard for the postal plebiscite—we should adhere to the outcome of that vote. That is what the government has undertaken and that is what we are in the process of delivering.

It is important that further protections be provided within this bill. I will support sensible protections that are being proposed. I pay tribute to a number of my colleagues, including Senator Seselja, Michael Sukkar, Andrew Hastie and others from the Senate and this place for the courage they have demonstrated in relation to this debate. There have been a lot of critics around whether we have been active enough in the 'no' campaign or in the subsequent process. I'll leave that for others to comment on, but I pay tribute to those colleagues and thank them for having the courage of their convictions and for working through that process. It is very hard to see how those protections can survive the vote in this House, as was the case in the Senate. The fact is that on a good day, as we know, we have a one-vote majority in the lower House and, given the circumstances of this debate, where Labor—shamefully, in my judgement—has bound its members to a position of not supporting amendments, it makes it near impossible for that vote to get up. Nonetheless, the debate will continue over the course of the next 48 or 72 hours or so. Perhaps there is some prospect, but in this business we face the reality of arithmetic, and that is the reality in this parliament, which, given our one-seat majority, is what led to the plebiscite.

I pay tribute to colleagues, including Trevor Evans, the member for Brisbane; Warren Entsch; Tim Wilson; and others on the other side of this debate, who had a very passionate view and prosecuted their argument. I thought that during our discussions with them around the plebiscite they conducted themselves in an honourable way, and I acknowledge that. It is the case that, as I said in my opening remarks, the definition of marriage was always destined for change when the Abbott government took a decision to go to a plebiscite. The Labor Party and Mr Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, had been opposed to change for a long period of time. Julia Gillard, the former Prime Minister and Leader of the Labor Party, had been opposed to any change to the definition of marriage, and Labor had done nothing to change the law or introduce same-sex marriage during the six years of their time in government. Mr Shorten, of course, has now flipped his position and has, remarkably, claimed credit for the outcome, even though he was quite a passive participant in it.

The decision having been made to go to a plebiscite process, it's hard in this country to carry a debate or, in this case, to see a successful 'no' case prosecuted when, essentially, this argument distilled down to one of religious belief. Much of the argument around children of same-sex couples has been dealt with and legislated for by state governments over the last decade or so. When this distils down to a question of religious belief or practice, the case remains that it is difficult to prosecute that particular argument when even the churches were absent from the argument or, in many cases, were advocating a case for change of the definition, including Jesuit priests in Sydney. That's the reality of the debate.

I believe very strongly that the postal plebiscite was the right judgement. It was the right decision for this government, and the number of people who turned out—the number of people who have had their say in a peaceful democratic process—was very important. We embrace social change when it happens and that's the job of this parliament. There have been social changes and changes to legislation that people have agreed with or not, and election outcomes that people have agreed with or not, but, in the end, we abide by the outcome that the people provide. I congratulate those people who have been involved in the 'yes' case, some of whom I mentioned in my earlier remarks, and acknowledge the work that they've done to achieve an outcome that they saw fitting.

I don't think there will be success around the level of protection that is required to enhance this bill. It's not a frustrating process, in the sense of delaying the passage of this bill through the parliament, but I do think it would be improved if we had additional safeguards in place—sensible safeguards and safeguards that I believe that people would, in the majority across the country, support. If they gave proper contemplation to what is being proposed over the course of the next couple of days, I do believe that Australians would support those safeguards. It's why it is important for us to have another process, which—and I can understand the arguments for and against this—the Prime Minister has announced will be led by Phillip Ruddock and will report back next year, because I think there is a proper debate to be had in this country around religious protections, around parental protections and around parents being able to have a say about how their children are taught, particularly if they make a decision to send them to an independent school. I think it's important for us to respect, even if we don't share the same Christian values or beliefs, people's right to practise their religious belief unhindered. Out of the shadow of the marriage debate, once this law has passed and once this question has been settled, we'll have a greater chance of success next year because people, including the churches, will be able to advocate for this position, not in the context of the debate surrounding same-sex marriage but in a fresh light, and I think that is important because those protections are necessary. This debate—this trend; this vilification—is heading in one direction. We need to, as many other democracies have where same-sex marriage has been legislated for a long period of time, have religious protections in place. We need protections because the fundamental belief structures are what underpin our society. Our success as a human race and our civilisation depend upon those pillars going forward. It is incumbent upon us, in the new year, to have a more sophisticated debate than we've been able to have in relation to the protections aspect in recent months, and I think that is important. It's a process that I will support.

I hope that some of the protections that are being proposed by honourable members are successful in this place, but, as I say, the arithmetic, in my judgement, dictates otherwise. This is an important debate to continue, and I think it has greater success of public traction, of greater understanding within the public's mind and of greater contemplation of the complexities that have been proposed, the difficulties that we seek to address and the attacks that we seek to neutralise during the course of debate next year. I think that is incredibly important. I said at the start that my intention is to vote yes on this bill, and I commit to that again tonight

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A man named Brian wrote to me last week. He said, 'The past year has been excruciating for Andrew and me. For me, it evoked memories of being harassed and bullied when I came out in high school in 1993. Vacillating between pride and self-loathing, this was a period when I attempted suicide four times. I felt vulnerable again during the debate, a feeling not felt since I was that 15-year-old. I had to take medical leave from work to manage my anxiety and depression when it became apparent earlier this year that the marriage equality debate was about to intensify. I had to take steps to protect myself mentally. I had to affirm my value and worth. I'm hopeful that when marriage equality is achieved it will satisfy my 15-year-old self and all the young vulnerable people in our community that we are not the rejected, the abnormal, the deplorable, the deviant but are cherished and highly respected equals.' Brian, I'm voting yes this week for you, mate, and for Andrew.

I went to school with Brian in the early to mid-1990s. I'm voting yes because the bullying that he went through at our school, that I'm ashamed of not stopping, does not square with what I took from those 12 years of Catholic education—not just the lifelong friends or the ideas of service and social justice, but, above all, to love thy neighbour, the idea that we treat others as we would be treated. We failed Brian then—I failed him then—but we will not fail him now. Because as we reflect on the overwhelming support for marriage equality in this country, one inspiring thing about the last few weeks, amidst the wreckage, is that we showed that we as a country have the capacity to treat others as we would be treated; that we do have the collective ability to walk in each other's shoes, that most admirable of all human attributes; and that we can support change which may not narrowly impact on our own lives or marriages but which welcomes, includes and enriches us all.

The government asked an incredibly difficult thing of gay and lesbian people in Australia. It asked Australians to judge whether some of us deserve to love and be loved and to have that recognised like everybody else. It is hard to overstate the hurt that has been inflicted on our brothers and sisters by asking the country to vote on the worth of their relationships.

I'm voting yes for my brilliant friends Chris and Dan, who wrote this about that survey: 'We are very lucky people with nothing to complain about. We have amazing families and friends and have had the good fortune of a great education and careers, yet during the survey campaign there were days when we both felt like outsiders in our own country. We felt at times sad, angry, confused and sometimes all three.' Chris and Dan believe that in resolving this here this week 'it is that new feeling of equality that counts the most. It's knowing that kids growing up today that happen to be gay won't have to worry about being the odd one out anymore'.

The postal survey was unnecessary and divisive, and we now need to come together. We do so having learned a lot more about ourselves, about our ability to walk in each other's shoes, about the capacity for our community to step up and lead when the government fails the community and also about how changes which may seem so far down the track can all of a sudden appear within reach and be achievable.

Many of us fear that as a country we are becoming more polarised and polarising, more insular, more concerned with our own circumstances than the circumstances of others, afraid and intolerant of differences. But this vote shows the opposite. More than six in 10 of us said yes, so many of us with enthusiasm and with pride. That shows that we care about the people around us, that we understand their situation and that we empathise with them, and that gives me great hope and great heart for the future.

I was confident that the 'yes' vote would succeed nationally, but, if I'm honest, I underestimated the groundswell of support in my own state and in my own community. Queensland, where I am proud to be from, is in many ways still viewed as a very conservative place. In 1991, we were the last mainland state to decriminalise homosexuality, thanks to our finest Premier, Wayne Goss. As a state we have come so far. We have confounded our critics, with Queenslanders delivering a resounding 'yes' vote of 60.7 per cent, more than New South Wales. In Logan city, the place where I was born, where I grew up, the place I live in and love, I thought it could go either way. But, in my seat of Rankin, I'm so proud to say that three-quarters of people participated and 54.6 per cent of our community voted yes, and there was an even more resounding result next door in Forde. I'll be proudly representing them when I cast my 'yes' vote on their behalf in this place this week.

My community and so many other electorates around the country have overwhelmingly voted for compassion, for fairness and for equality. They stepped up when the parliament failed to deliver the resolution that so many on this side of the House and other friends have been pushing for for so long and for too long. And we know that this progress is being made despite the Prime Minister and not because of him.

I'm voting yes because it is not for us to determine where love begins and ends. When I asked my wife to marry me, I didn't survey millions of people. I never had to worry about fundamental questions like: could we marry, and how would society judge our relationship? We got married in Byron Bay, a cherished place, a sentimental place not far from our home. We didn't have to leave our own country to have our vows recognised.

On our wedding day, Penny Wong was there with Sophie, and Penny and Sophie had to sit through that formal part of the ceremony that many people here are familiar with that limits weddings to being between a man and a woman. Chris was there as well. I've mentioned Chris already. It was before Dan was a part of our scene. Chris described that part of an otherwise happy wedding as 'a seed of sadness', in his words, which 'makes gay people feel like they are the odd ones out'.

My stepbrother, Shannon, is a total legend, a great mate of mine. He was there too of course on that on that wedding day, and he describes that part of the ceremony as being 'that stab in our hearts'. He and his partner, James, have been together for two years now, ever since they met for a quiet beer on a Saturday afternoon like countless other couples have throughout time. I'm voting yes for Shannon and for James. What our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters are asking for in this bill is not actually that much to ask. It's certainly not too much to ask. It's the very least that we can do.

I finish by reflecting on the words of a very talented and charismatic mate of ours called John who worked with us here in this building for a long time but who now lives overseas and who has been closely watching and celebrating our progress from afar. He reckons this debate has been about more than marriage equality. It's about addressing the dread that many young gay people feel that something is wrong with them and addressing the feelings of shame and self-hatred that accompany coming out. John wrote over the weekend:

'To me, the greatest significance of this recent vote and this legislation is not that anyone in Australia will now be able to marry whomever they love—though that is indeed an act of electrifying power and something that my friends and I celebrate with happy hearts. The greatest significance is in the affirmation that we are all equal, that we are all worthy of love and respect, that we are all valued and accepted. It is in knowing that the entire nation has said to the young person struggling with being different that 'There is nothing wrong with you; you are as important and as human and as Australian as the rest of us.' It is in knowing that, when I arrive in Australia this month for Christmas with my family, the country I have always loved loves me back.'

I'm voting 'yes' for John; for Brian, Andrew, Shannon, James, Chris and Dan; for Penny and Sophie; for gay and lesbian Australians I know, work with and represent; and for those I've never met, who are no less Australian, no less deserving of the right to have their love recognised like the rest of us have been fortunate to have ours recognised. I say to all of them and to all of us the same thing that I have been signing off to emails back to hundreds, if not thousands, of people who have written to me in the past few weeks: 'We are nearly there. Let's get this done.'

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've had the privilege of serving the people of Fisher and, more broadly, the Australian people for only 18 months. It has been the greatest privilege of my life, but with every privilege comes responsibility, and it is now my responsibility as the member for Fisher to speak on this marriage equality bill and to vote in accordance with my conscience. I would like to thank the Prime Minister for affording me that opportunity.

I think it's fair to surmise that few bills will generate as much controversy and consternation amongst the Australian people as the one which is the subject of this debate. As a barrister I acted as counsel assisting the coroner in respect of number of road deaths on the Sunshine Coast. The coroner, Maxine Baldwin, would often remark that in her role she needed the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon. I find myself wishing today, as I often do, that I too had Solomon's wisdom as I prosecute my responsibilities as a parliamentarian.

I closed my maiden speech in this place with a prayer written by Reinhold Niebuhr—a prayer I should like to open this speech with today:

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.

The issue of same-sex marriage is a deeply personal one for many Australians and for many more Australian families. Many of us have a story to tell about same-sex marriage, and these stories illustrate and illuminate the complexity of the legislative challenge before us. Like many colleagues, in contributing to this debate I'd like to tell the House about my own experience and the experience of my family which has brought me to my position today. This issue has perplexed me for a number of years. I am a practising, committed Catholic. I do my best to go to church every Sunday. In fact, in my late teens I joined a monastery, willing to give my life to God through the service to others. The teachings of the Catholic Church on the issue of marriage are very clear. The church teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others for life. There is no ambiguity in that stance. It is a stance which I shared for most of my adult life.

My daughter, Caroline, struggled through much of her teenage years with mental illness. She suffered from an insidious disease, an eating disorder, most notably anorexia and bulimia. My family and I watched our beautiful daughter and sister fight her demons as she slowly became nothing more than skin and bone. In and out of hospital for long stretches at a time, over a number of years she would wax and wane between sheer determination to regain her health, and utter desperation, sinking into the abyss of feeling that there was no hope of an end to this internal conflict.

As a dad, I am very pleased and proud to say that my daughter is now in a much healthier and happier place. She has a terrific job and a wonderful partner who our family love very much. 'What does this story have to do with same-sex marriage?' you may ask. About three years ago, our daughter told my wife that she was attracted to—

Debate interrupted.