Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Okay. One of my colleagues will move that the debate be adjourned. Let me explain why they will do that, because of this farce of procedure by the government. I note Senator Scullion’s refusal of leave to do that, which would have been sensible at this stage. I will explain why we will be moving to adjourn this debate. I spoke with Chief Minister Stanhope last night because it appeared to me that the federal government override—and it is a government override; it is not a parliamentary override that we are talking about—was high-handed and had come without the possibility of looking at what alternatives the ACT legislature could take.

Mr Stanhope made it clear to me that the ACT government would remove section 5 on the next sitting day, which is in August. Otherwise, as he clearly explained—and it is commonsense—the ACT goes back to having nothing and having to start again. My colleague will move for the adjournment of this debate so that it can be resumed on 17 August, which will give the ACT legislature time to sensibly continue the debate with the federal government so that the problem Senator Minchin has with it can be fixed by negotiation so that the ACT law stands, with the Attorney-General having explained just what it is that needs to be altered. Is it not sensible that, in an important matter like this, a process of negotiation takes place over the next eight weeks so that there is a reasoned outcome? We do not have to use the sledgehammer on the ACT. It is a sign of statesmanship from the Prime Minister if we hold this over for eight weeks and have the ACT and the Commonwealth come to an accommodation. We are dealing with real people, real relationships and real legislation.

I say to the government: accept a procedural change here which allows commonsense to come back into this stand-off where the bigger party wants to sledgehammer the smaller party against the interests of the ACT voters who, after all, voted for the legislation which the Stanhope government has since passed. That is sensible. I ask the other members of the chamber to consider an adjournment of this debate until 17 August—the ACT Assembly sits on the 15th—which can see a proper negotiated outcome in that time. To not do so would be a failure of proper process and a failure of the federal government to reasonably come to an accommodation with the ACT. That is what we should be having here.

Having said that, let me ask this: what is it that is so offensive to the Prime Minister or to Attorney-General Philip Ruddock about civil unions of same-sex couples? What is it that offends these gentlemen so much that they have used the executive power they have, not the parliament, which is the proper place? The parliament is considering this because of Senator Nettle’s motion, but they have used their executive power to override the populace of the ACT on this matter. Let them spell it out. And let me say here, with the greatest forethought, I recognise and honour John and Janette Howard’s relationship. I recognise and honour Philip and Heather Ruddock’s relationship. What is it about these gentlemen that they cannot recognise and honour my relationship with my partner, Paul? What is it about these gentlemen that they cannot recognise thousands of Australia’s loving relationships in a society where love and caring for each other ought to be at a premium in this troubled world of ours?

It is a mixture, I think, of ancient dogma, which we should have long gone past, and a tendency to discrimination which should have been left in the middle of the last century at the latest. I say to the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General that they ought to catch up and recognise that in giving and honouring same-sex couples without discriminating against their relationship and their ability to publicly express that relationship they make our society more secure. They increase the aliquot of happiness in life where everybody has the right to pursue happiness and they raise the dignity of a society where indifference, discrimination and hate of other people on the basis of lifestyle should have no place. It is my belief and the policy of the Greens that there should be no discrimination on the basis of sexual preference under the law. If Canada, Catholic Belgium and Catholic Spain can recognise marriage for committed couples, whoever they might be, why cannot Australia?

This will pass and all these things will be changed. That is the tide of the evolution of human society. It may be that this government is stuck in the middle of the last century—in fact, it is—but to override the ACT legislature where the government was elected on the basis of this very legislation is deplorable. The people gave the government of the ACT a mandate for this legislation. This government has no mandate and did not go to an election on the basis of this legislation.

The ACT is a territory. Under the Constitution the Australian parliament—let me remind the Prime Minister of this—not the executive, is charged with the responsibility for the good maintenance of the territories. The Howard government abused its executive power to move against the ACT legislature. The Howard government should have brought legislation into this place. It did not. It used an executive instrument in the night to override the democratic right of the people of the Australian Capital Territory to pass their law on civil unions. It did not breach any Commonwealth law but it was a law that the people of the ACT had voted for. Whatever else, one would have thought that Prime Minister Howard would have stood by democratic principle and the right of Australians to vote and have that vote respected.

We are dealing here with a line of thinking which should long ago have passed. I had a delegation of Exclusive Brethren elders come to see me in my rooms on Monday a week ago, I think it was. In the course of a discussion there about a motion which I have for a Senate inquiry into the Exclusive Brethren, it was stated clearly that I would be subject to eternal damnation and the flames of hell for supporting same-sex marriages. I told them about my partnership and it was very clear that that is their prescription for my future.

I woke up this morning and heard Abu Bakar Bashir—this man with criminal connections who has just come out of jail for being involved in the mass death of people, including Australians, in Bali—saying that the Prime Minister of Australia faces the same outcome. What an appalling creature Abu Bakar Bashir is. Surely all of us discount this threat of hellfire, damnation and lakes of fire by some religious bigot wanting to declaim against a person on the basis that they are leader of the Australian nation. But one cannot help but think that in this disavowal of the right of loving people of the same sex to have that relationship registered there is an old chord going back to pillars of salt, hellfire and damnation. Surely we are past that in the 21st century, and surely we should move on to greater enlightenment than that in our legislative processes.

Senator Minchin, who a number of times confused the ACT with the ACTU—and, I think, just which unions he was talking about—said that Mr Ruddock was not satisfied with changes made by the ACT and the ‘particularly offensive clause’ in section 5(2). That clause establishes the core elements of a civil union, consistent with the Human Rights Act 2004—that any two people may enter into a civil union, regardless of their sex. It states:

A civil union ... is to be treated for all purposes under territory law in the same way as a marriage.

The government finds that particularly offensive. I find it particularly offensive that the government finds that particularly offensive.

Senator Minchin said that what the ACT did alter did not alter the substance of the bill. What does that mean? That the bill should be gutted? He also said that cabinet met and ‘the ACT refused to meet our objections in full’. As I understand it, what really happened here was that Attorney-General Corbell and the ACT government sought to know exactly what it was that the executive of the Howard government wanted changed—what the exact changes would be which would allow the ACT legislation to be acceptable. There is still no answer to that. Do you know why there is no answer to that, Mr Acting Deputy President? It is because the executive of this government does not want to reveal its bigotry—its 21st century wowserism—by being explicit in the expression of its discrimination against same-sex couples. That is the problem.

We have not heard from the Prime Minister what he would accept. He is clear in saying, ‘Same-sex couples shouldn’t be allowed to marry.’ The ACT legislation does not allow same-sex couples to marry. So what is wrong with the Civil Unions Act that the ACT legislation has passed, Prime Minister Howard or Attorney-General Ruddock? They will not say because it would reveal the bigotry of the argument that they have silently used, which is written there between the lines, which is that they abhor the idea of same-sex couples being given parity—loving couples, and the children within so many of these relationships, being given parity.

To repeat what I said last week, it is interesting that the Prime Minister went to the White House to consult George Bush and came home convinced that same-sex unions are dangerous and nuclear reactors are safe. It is muddled; it is incomprehensible—and the Prime Minister will not spell out why. Since then, of course, George Bush has been to the congress to try and do in the United States effectively what the Prime Minister is doing here—ban same-sex marriages—and has been rebuffed. One of the reasons for that is that the people of the United States and their representatives have moved on. A sea change has removed discrimination in their minds and in our minds—we were all brought up to it—like that sea change that happened 40 or 50 years ago in Alabama and Little Rock, Arkansas, against people who had a different skin colour and like the sea change that happened half a century before that against women. For goodness sake, how could you have women having the vote and have the economy survive? The bigots said that, often quoting St Paul, on their way to the legislature just 100 years ago. We are in that same situation now. The one thing we can know about this with confidence is that all this charade, this discrimination, this executive abuse of power to override the ACT will be changed. Even the Labor Party—(Time expired)