Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to take note of the answer given by Senator Abetz this afternoon to Senator Wong on marriage equality. The talk of the nation today, again, is about marriage equality, the unfinished business that lies before the nation around ensuring that we end discrimination against same-sex couples on the ground of marriage.

Again, it is a water-cooler discussion and the subject of the day because the current government is absolutely determined to do absolutely everything it can to prevent Australians achieving equality before the law.

Marriage equality really is a simple issue. It is an issue about love, about inclusion and is centred on ending discrimination. It has been some time since we have seen an issue like this that has created the level of division and disunity amongst the Liberal-National coalition. Yesterday, people around the country could watch on their social media accounts and the media on TV a six-hour extraordinary meeting of the coalition party room. The whole point of this meeting, it seems, was for the Prime Minister to ensure that his position became the majority one and that all coalition members were bound to accept his conservative view on this subject, despite at least one-third of his team wanting a free vote.

Last year the ACT government attempted to end discrimination for same-sex couples who wanted to get married. I reflect on this, having been the Chief Minister at the time. Marriage equality was achieved, albeit for a short time—seven days—when the laws were challenged and the High Court overturned those laws. It was always a risk, as we were passing the marriage equality laws, that the High Court would find that they were unconstitutional. However, we pressed on because we felt that ending discrimination for same-sex couples in the ACT was important and that every attempt should be made to achieve it. The result was disappointing in the sense that the laws were overturned. But one thing it did provide was a High Court decision that found, without doubt, that the only place that this question could be resolved was in the federal parliament. Whilst for the last 10 years state and territory legislatures have amended their statute books, as has the federal parliament, to end discrimination on the ground of sexuality in a whole range of areas, whether it be in areas like access to superannuation in local or state and territory governments or areas like adoption, all of those laws have been passed and attempts at various levels have been made around civil unions and civil partnerships. But every one of these stopped short of actually achieving marriage equality. The decision by the High Court made it very clear that only the federal parliament could resolve this and that it had jurisdiction on this matter. Since that High Court decision, every attempt to pursue this matter has been rejected, refused and blocked by this government.

Yet last night, I think it is fair to say, the hearts of those who support marriage equality and those who want to see it debated and people given the opportunity to vote with their conscience went out to all of those young gay and lesbian couples and individuals who, quite properly, felt that the Prime Minister of this nation and the party who support him are prepared to treat them like second-class citizens for at least the next year and then for several years after that, whilst they refine their position on a plebiscite. And let's be clear that the plebiscite is being used as a softener to try to ameliorate the backlash that is, quite rightly, coming from those who support marriage equality, who are railing against the decision of yesterday. This is the placation and the softener. The government say, 'We're sorry, we don't want to see you have marriage equality, but we're going to give you this faint hope that, in a couple of years, we'll get around to having a plebiscite after we've had our other plebiscites on it. Then we might listen to you.' It is not good enough. The campaign will not go away. People will maintain the campaign. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.