Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is a very interesting debate on a very interesting topic, and I will focus on the plebiscite. For those who have any interest in my particular view, it has not changed on this question since a speech I gave on 18 September 2012, but I will make a couple of points prior to moving to the plebiscite. They relate to issues that I have heard raised here today about equality in this situation. As the now Attorney-General, Senator George Brandis, said in a contribution in August 2012:

Equality for same-sex people was won in this parliament, in this Senate, with the support of all parties, including mine, by the amendments that were made to a suite of Commonwealth statutes in 2008.

At that time, Senator Brandis said it 'had been too long in coming' and that he had been agitating for it for some years. It had support right across the spectrum within the parliament and within the Senate. I refer to my comments from 2012:

It was in 2009 in this parliament that discrimination was removed in relation to same sex couples. There were four bills: the Same-sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008, the Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Bill 2008, the Evidence Amendment Bill 2008 and Same-sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Act 2008. They went through the parliament with bipartisan support.

Their whole intent was to:

… remove discrimination against same-sex couples from a raft of Commonwealth legislation, including veterans' affairs, social security and income tax.

If time permits and if there is some interest, I can go through in greater detail what some of those bills actually allowed.

This is a serious matter, so I will not go into a number of the questions and answers that I was going to put before my colleagues in the chamber, but they related, ultimately, to who won the election on 2 July. We are all here as a result of the decisions of the people of Australia. In our democratic process we went to an election—it was long, arduous and in the middle of winter. The only bright thing I can think about it was that it saved we Western Australians from eight weeks of Canberra winter—if there was one bright side, that must have been it.

But let me put this view to you, Deputy President, and to those in the public gallery and to anyone who might be listening: there can be no doubt that Malcolm Turnbull—as our Leader of the Liberal Party and, ultimately, of the coalition—made it very clear to the people of Australia that, should we win the election, we would have a plebiscite on this question. It is equally clear that Mr Shorten—representing our opponents, the Labor Party—said that he would not at that time support a plebiscite but that he wanted the matter resolved by a vote in the parliament. I do not think I am incorrect in my recollection that Senator Di Natale, representing the Greens party, had much the same view. If I am wrong, no doubt I will be corrected.

At a time when the polls were showing fifty-fifty, there were three polls to which I which to direct your attention. The first was held the day before the election, on 1 July. It was a Fairfax Ipsos poll, and it asked people in the Australian community: do you favour a plebiscite on the question of same-sex marriage? In that poll, 69 per cent—more than two-thirds of Australians—said they wanted a plebiscite on this matter. How or in which way they wanted to determine it was not the subject of the question, but this was when we were fifty-fifty, on the day before the election, and 69 per cent were in favour. During the election campaign, The Australian Financial Review conducted a survey on the same question: who within the Australian community wanted this matter resolved by a plebiscite of the people? That figure was 76 per cent. Only 24 per cent said they did not want a plebiscite. The third of those surveys was an Essential poll held at the end of August this year, after the election. Again, 59 per cent—almost two-thirds of the population—said they wanted a plebiscite.

So, the coalition, which subsequently won government, said they would conduct a plebiscite. Two-thirds of the community or more supported a plebiscite in polls—so there must be Labor voters and Greens voters as well as Liberal and Nationals voters and those supporting Independents. They must have, in this case, been across the political void. The people of Australia knew that if the coalition were re-elected we would have a plebiscite. And we are going to the Australian people with a plebiscite. It is interesting that there is a call for this matter to be determined by the parliament, even after the people of Australia have had their say.

Let me put another point to you, which has been expounded on this morning by the previous speaker, representing the Nick Xenophon Team. We now know that the Labor Party will vote one way. We know that the Greens political party will vote one way. We know now that the Nick Xenophon Team will vote one way. We know the last late—not late as in having met his demise, but recent—senator from Western Australia, Joe Bullock left this parliament because, he said, 'I cannot support the position of the Labor leadership with regard to this issue of same-sex marriage.' So Senator Bullock, knowing that he could not support the position of that party, left the parliament—and it is good to see you back here again, Senator Pratt, but it is the fact that Senator Bullock was no longer available for election.

This matter cannot be resolved by the parliament. We already know before the vote takes place what is going to be the position of the Greens party, the Labor Party and, we now know, the Xenophon party. So I put this point: there is a mandate for the plebiscite to take place. There are not many issues that have been the subject of a plebiscite. I think something about our national flag was going to be the subject of a plebiscite. We know that in the First World War the question of whether we should or should not have conscription was of such importance—and, indeed, the government of the day cannot have liked the result of the first plebiscite, which was anti-conscription, so they went back for a second go. And I guess, in a sense, there is a situation—isn't there?—where the people of Australia might have their say and then the leadership, the parliament, might say, 'Oh, we don't like that one. Let's have another crack at it.' So they had another plebiscite into—