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

Oh, we have a view already. Thank you very much! And, just in case I have a view alternative to Senator McKim's, he is able to tell me what my view needs to be. I am so appreciative that, sir, you are able to assist me in the way you do! It would be much better if you were to keep your views to yourself until such time as you are invited to speak on this particular topic. I do not need the support of your views.

The machinery has been very carefully worked out. A comment was made that perhaps it has been structured in such a way as to support a no vote. And yet, as other speakers have said—in fact, from my own side—the Prime Minister supports a certain position, the Attorney-General supports a certain position. Do you think the leadership is going to agree to words that declare, move, favour or weigh a position different from the one that they have publicly declared? Of course it is not.

For those of you in the gallery, through you Deputy President: what is being followed is exactly the same process we have in this country for elections and, indeed, for referenda and, in particular, what we had following the discussion that was held when the country decided whether or not it wanted to proceed to a republic. In other words, voting will be compulsory. It will be according to polling booths. The only difference will be that, where normally in an election or a referendum we have it on an electorate-by-electorate and state-by-state basis, in this case it is a vote across the country of all Australians—50 per cent plus one. That is probably disadvantageous to us in Western Australia, as you and I know, Deputy President, for two reasons. Firstly, the concentration of population in this country is in Melbourne and Sydney, so we would expect to see a weighting in favour of Melbourne and Sydney. Secondly, 11 February is quite important to me: it happens to be my birthday. We know very well that there is a three-hour time difference between WA and New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania on that day. At three o'clock in the afternoon, while we are still voting, not only will the voting have concluded on the east coast but the counting will have started, so there is every chance that by the time we conclude our activities at six o'clock the result will probably be known.

Now, we move to the question of financial support, and it will be of interest to those who do not know that it will be exactly the same situation as occurred in 1999 with the republic debate. It is being conducted in this way: $7½ million for the yes side, $7½ million for the no side. Let me tell you how the audit process for how those funds will be allocated will be undertaken. Five parliamentarians will be invited for the yes side and five for the no, and another five citizens will be invited for each of the yes and no sides. Those five parliamentarians—two from the government side, two from the Labor opposition and the fifth from the Independents or crossbenchers on each side—will have accountability and responsibility for how those funds are expended. I have no doubt it will subsequently be the subject of review by the Australian National Audit Office, so that any advertisements, any use of the funds for research et cetera must have the agreement of that panel of 10 people respectively from each side. A point has been put by a previous speaker about some apparent level of unfairness in terms of the situation the churches may have—

Senator Pratt interjecting—

I thank Senator Pratt for her interjection, because it gives me the opportunity to make an obvious comment. The last time I looked, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and SBS were publicly funded. I do not think I have heard one comment from the ABC in the last 12 months with any view other than favouring same-sex marriage, so when people talk to me about the fairness associated with putting the two sides I just ask them to reflect on that. The ABC is publicly funded. The ABC has run one line on this question for as long as I can remember. But those who are opposed to same-sex marriage would all be pleased to learn that, in accordance with the policies surrounding an election campaign, the media will be required to give even-handedness to both sides of the debate. As we know, in an election campaign people very carefully calculate the number of words and the amount of time given to the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister of the day, and so it goes. That will also be applied in the run-up to this particular event.

Yes, $160 million is a lot of money. Again, let me remind—through you, Deputy President—you and those in the gallery that, as a result of the profligate debt visited upon this place by the last Labor government between 2007 and 2013, we now have a debt that is so high that we borrow $1.2 billion from overseas a month. We do not borrow that money to repay the debt; we borrow that money to pay the interest on the debt! We borrow $40 million a day to pay back the interest on Labor's debt. Yes, $160 million is a lot of money. It is the equivalent of four days in interest, to satisfy an issue that around 65 to 70 per cent of Australians have said they do not want their parliamentarians to decide—65 to 70 per cent of people in this country want to decide themselves.

My last point is this. For those who have not gleaned the view yet, I will be voting no. I happen to believe that marriage is an institution between a man and a woman, but I only have one vote amongst the Australian community. But I give this undertaking, and I hope that Senator Pratt might do the same—as might Senator McKim and Senator Rice. This is my commitment: if the people of Western Australia decide, by 50 per cent plus one, that they support the law being changed to allow same-sex couples to marry, then in the parliament I will vote in favour, because I am here representing the people of Western Australia. I challenge every senator in this place to do the same thing. If the people from their state or territory, the people who put them here, vote a certain way, I challenge them to accept the will of the people from their state. And indeed, in terms of electorates, I challenge every member in the other place to do the same thing. If their electorate favours same-sex marriage, I challenge them to do the same thing. That is the point I am making. It is a plebiscite. It is the will of the Australian people. It should be respected, and Labor should agree with it.