Skye Kakoschke-Moore (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Hansard source

This is not my first speech. At the outset, I would like to say that I am proud to speak on the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013 and to be able to, in my relatively short time in this place so far, make a contribution to a debate the outcome of which would fundamentally change the lives of LGBTI couples in this country for the better.

The position of the Nick Xenophon Team on this issue has been made clear for some time. We support legislating marriage equality, and we do not support a plebiscite on this issue. It is our belief that, as members of parliament, we are paid very well to vote on laws for our country, and that is exactly what we should do in this case.

When former Prime Minister John Howard changed the Marriage Act in 2004 to exclude same-sex couples, he did so with legislation through the parliament. There was no plebiscite. As could and should be done now, but in reverse, legislation was passed by the parliament.

Before speaking on our support for marriage equality, I wish to note the reasons why we do not support a plebiscite. As already stated, we believe that parliament can and should decide on the issues in a free vote of all members and senators. In our representative democracy, we are paid to make decisions on behalf of Australians who have voted us into office. This bill is our opportunity to do that today.

Secondly, the plebiscite—which, in any event, could be disregarded by the parliament—could cost in the order of $160 million, although this figure is probably conservative. Plus, as we have heard this week, an additional $15 million of public funding will be spent on campaigns for both sides of the debate. It would be the world's most expensive opinion poll. We believe this money could be much better spent.

Another point, which has not been touched on much by us as a group because we believe the first two points are enough of a case against a plebiscite, is that of the concerns around the divisiveness of the debate—the impact on the health and wellbeing of LGBTI people during the lead-up to the vote. Once we, as a team, confirmed again that we opposed the plebiscite a couple of weeks ago, our electorate offices were bombarded with calls, many from people wanting to express their disgust at the suggestion that same-sex couples should be able to marry. One of my staff members recounted one of the phone calls, and it went something like this: 'Gay people are a minority; why are we bowing down to what they want?' Other calls have been so distressing that I could not repeat them in this place. If the debate over whether or not to have a plebiscite is inciting this much hate, imagine what will be said when the question becomes should the law be changed to allow marriage between same-sex couples. I shudder to think. To sum it up in the words of High Court justice Michael Kirby:

We didn't do this for the Aboriginal people when we moved to give equality in law to them, we didn't do it when we dismantled the White Australia policy … we didn't do it in advances on women's equality, we didn't do it most recently on disability equality. Why are we now picking out the LGBT, the gay, community?

It is important that the views of all are considered and respectful; I believe that is important in a great democracy such as ours. It is my job, indeed my duty, to do my best to understand the people who both support and oppose a change to the Marriage Act. I believe that I have done that in forming my position on this bill. Although this is a conscience vote for me—and for those within our party—my colleagues have also carefully considered both sides of the debate and, luckily for us, we have arrived at the same position.

We have all been married. We have had that right to marry the person who we love. I married my husband Simon in 2007. We were married in Adelaide in front of our closest friends and family. We declared our love for each other and pledged to spend the rest of our lives together. Our marriage has highs and lows but we have them together—as a married couple. That is a different and very special connection and bond. According to Australian Marriage Equality, 72 per cent of married same-sex partners feel a greater commitment to their spouse, 60 to 70 per cent feel more accepted by family and the community and 93 per cent of same-sex people who marry do so because of the love and commitment they share. This is no different to the reason Simon and I married. It is not okay with me that I have had this opportunity but someone who happens to love a person of the same sex does not. Why shouldn't they have rights which are equal to those afforded to heterosexual couples?

Those who oppose changing the law say that to do so—to legalise same-sex marriage—would undermine the traditional definition of marriage, and that it would also affect children. Let us deal fairly with those two arguments. Interestingly, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull can help me to deal with these arguments through a speech he gave in 2012 at the Southern Cross University on the Gold Coast, in honour of former High Court Justice Michael Kirby. Mr Turnbull, could not see how allowing a same-sex couple to marry would somehow affect the sanctity and strength of a marriage between a heterosexual couple. And, as for children, Mr Turnbull pointed out that unfortunately some biological parents are neither loving nor wise. What is important is that a child is brought up in a safe and loving environment. The reality is that this bill does not in fact change the right of same-sex couples to raise children. That was dealt with at a federal level several years ago, with bipartisan support, and this bill does not change state laws about adoption or IVF. But this bill would give recognition to the inherent commitment that marriage brings with it.

Many other countries have legalised marriage equality, including Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden and New Zealand. And when it happened, the sky did not fall in. This is proof that our traditions are continuing to evolve. A thousand, a hundred, even 30 years ago, marriage did not mean what it does today. This evolution is important. Our traditions are valued because they are still relevant, because they still mean something to us today. But this bill will not in fact change the tradition of marriage within our churches. Ministers of religion will be free to continue to abide by their beliefs and their definition of marriage. This debate has seen an intense degree of lobbying by various churches—which they are entitled to do in our democracy. Our team believes that churches and religious bodies should retain the right to decide for themselves whether to perform or recognise a marriage. We regard the right of a person to hold their religious beliefs as fundamental in a free society.

But, beyond religion and religious beliefs, we also believe in the law—and I believe our laws should apply equally to all. Aristotle said, 'The law is reason, free from passion.' This is a debate that raises passions more than almost any other issue. But if we remove the passion from this debate, we are looking at a simple fact: this bill rectifies discrimination in our law. As elected representatives and law makers, we have a duty to make the best laws we possibly can. A law that excludes people from such a significant cultural institution just because of who they are? Well, it is time that changed.

Much of this debate has focussed on apparent so-called conservative values, such as marriage and the family unit, although I think it is unfair to suggest that those values only belong to conservatives, in some political partisan sense. I am a strong supporter of these principles. But I believe they are reasons for, not against, marriage equality. Former British Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron said, on this very issue:

Yes, it's about equality, but it's also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; that society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I am a Conservative."

There are so many problems facing our society today. Anything that encourages people to commit to each other ultimately can only be a good thing. That is why the Nick Xenophon Team supports this bill.