David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion regarding the resolution regarding the hours of meeting and routine of business considered earlier in the day.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That the resolution agreed to earlier today relating to hours and routine of business for this week be amended as follows:

(1) Paragraph (4) add the following bill:

"Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013"

(2) Omit paragrapf (4)(b) and substitute the following:

"(b) the Senate shall adjourn either:

(i) After it has cosidererd the bills listed above in paragraph (4) only.

or

(ii) A motion for the adjournment is moved by a minister only after the Senate has finally considered the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013.

(3) Add the following new paragraph "(4)(c) for the purposes of this order, the consideration the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013 be listed and considered as a Government Business Order of the Day.

The government's motion states that if certain bills have not been finally considered by adjournment on Wednesday then on Thursday we will have special arrangements and we will not adjourn until either these bills are finally considered or a minister moves a motion for the adjournment.

My motion—my amendment—adds the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013 to the list of bills that trigger special arrangements on Thursday, and it prevents a minister from moving a motion for Thursday's adjournment until at least this bill has been finally considered. My amendment does not limit the government's ability to require the final consideration of the bills on its list; it just requires that there also be consideration of the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013.

The Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013 was introduced in December 2013, was debated extensively in November 2015, and largely replicates a bill debated in the previous parliament in August 2012. The Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013 is a Greens' bill. I support this bill—even though it differs from the Liberal Democrats' own bill on this issue, the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014—because I support allowing same-sex marriage, irrespective of which party's bill finally makes this a reality. I propose that the Greens' bill be the one we add to this motion, because the Greens are the swing vote on this motion. I do not want to see an opportunity to allow same-sex marriage squandered, just because the Greens did not like a detail of someone else's same-sex marriage bill.

The Greens have said that parliament should deal with same-sex marriage and that there is no cause for delay. They have repeated this position recently at Mardi Gras and in the wake of the Safe Schools debate, which foreshadows the kind of debate we would see in the lead-up to a plebiscite. I do not look forward to an expensive and divisive plebiscite where people would be asked to vote on other people's rights. The potential for coalition parliamentarians to vote as a block against allowing same-sex marriage is not a reason to put off a parliamentary vote. It is a reason to proceed. Each voter should know before an election whether their coalition parliamentarian is committed to allowing same-sex marriage. It would be perverse and undemocratic for the Greens to avoid parliamentary consideration of their own bill just to provide coalition parliamentarians with cover on this issue.

I call on all senators to support this amendment—including senators who do not support change to the Marriage Act. Supporting this amendment simply means that you do not fear voting on the issue of same-sex marriage and you accept that it is part of your job.