Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013 to change the Marriage Act to allow for marriage equality regardless of gender. This week in this place we have heard from a number of senators offering their favourite quotes in support of their arguments and claims for a better future. We have heard from people quoting Banjo Paterson, Aristotle and Judith Wright. So let me keep with this trend and begin with a quote from JFK who said:

If we cannot end our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity.

JFK was speaking to an idea that we can hold different views on issues without subjugating one group to another, without whipping up fear and hate in the community. That is what I take from his words about keeping the world safe. I might not understand the faith of my neighbour, I might not share it but I hold that he or she is entitled to it.

Some people—and I get it; I understand this—may not think that the love between two men or between two women is equal to the love between a man and a woman. I understand that they might hold those views, but we do live in a secular society and we do live by the rule of law, which should be able to be enjoyed equally by all citizens.

It is that diversity that JFK was seeking to protect and was working towards through a profound process of dialogue and social change with the likes of leaders like Martin Luther King and other civil rights activists. They were working at a time when there was so much to be done across the world to ensure that freedoms experienced by some people within the community could be experienced by all. They were working for equality. It was a different time back then. It was a time when lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people were demonised, criminalised and medicalised. They were excluded from their faiths, they were thrown in prison, they were harassed out of their jobs, they were bashed for fun, they were subjected to horrendous medical procedures in an effort to change them, or, in some cases, just to punish them.

I was listening to former leader of the Greens, Bob Brown, talk about his own personal experiences in this regard. It was a different time. He described in detail—and he has only done this in recent years—some of those medical procedures that he was involved in. He shared about the torment that he felt at the time. His experience is similar to many other experiences like his at a time when people regarded the way they felt as something that was abhorrent—that was what society was telling them—and that needed to change. Thankfully, a lot has changed since that era. It has changed for women, it has changed for First Nations people, it has changed for people with disabilities and it has changed, in many regards, for the LGBTI community. But, sadly, many things remain the same. We have a lot of work to do if we are to make the world safe for diversity.

You cannot half do human rights. Human rights are absolutes. You cannot go some way. It is something that is an absolute. On one hand, you cannot say that same-sex relationships should no longer be punished by law and that they should, in fact, have the same material rights and responsibilities as opposite-sex relationships—that is, they should be treated equally with regards to taxes and welfare—and then, on the other hand, exclude them from an institution that we consider to be the bedrock, or cornerstone, of our society—that is, marriage. Human rights are an absolute. While we continue to exclude people from this fundamental institution, offering them some concessions but denying them what others take for granted, we send a profound message that perpetuates the history of oppression. What it does do is it emboldens the haters.

In this place, the debate has now moved from one simply about the principle of inclusion to one about how we best resolve this issue on behalf of all Australians. We know that there are still those warriors out there who want to continue to perpetuate the cause of division and exclusion. We have heard from some in this place who try to equate the love that people feel towards each other to something that is abhorrent. We have heard claims about this being the thin end of the wedge and where it might lead. I will not dignify those comments with a response. But at least here in this chamber we are now having a debate about not whether marriage equality should happen but, indeed, how it should happen. I do think the Prime Minister is genuine about this. I think he genuinely believes in the principle of marriage equality. He does not support the prejudice that exists enshrined in law that says to people who love each other that they have no right to enjoy an institution that most Australians have access to. But what I do know—and what, I think, most Australians know—is he does not support the pathway to get to marriage equality that he is putting before the Australian people. This was one of those decisions that he made in an attempt to secure the leadership of the Liberal Party. Let's not kid ourselves that he thinks this is the safest or most appropriate way of achieving a goal that many Australians believe in.

We all face choices in this place. Sometimes when power is within reach we can compromise on those core values. The test of all of us is to know when not to compromise—when a line needs to be drawn, when we need to be true to our own values and principles. Because the Prime Minister did compromise, he himself stands compromised by those warriors on the hard right—we know many of them—who continue to win time and time again when it comes to issues of diversity. In this place we are now dominated by a view among government senators that we should be winding back protections against hate speech, despite the fact that the Prime Minister espouses a different view.

So when the Prime Minister was handed the marriage equality plebiscite, which was the gimmick that the equality sceptic Tony Abbott presented as a way to try to diminish chances of reform, he should have taken a stand, and he did not. Now, he is defending the huge cost—the $160 million-and-growing price tag for the plebiscite—when, at the same time, we are told that we need to tighten our belts. The irony, of course, is that, later on today, we will be presented with legislation that tells us about the urgent need for budget repair. It will cut investment in schools, it will take money out of renewable energy, it will cut funding for some of the most vulnerable people within the community. Yet, here he is prepared to not only offer that an $160 million price tag for the plebiscite but also scoop out another $15 million to fund both the yes and no campaigns.

Just think about what that means. You only need to look at where the debate is right now; you only need to access some social media pages to see what some of the opponents of marriage equality will do—the lengths to which they will stoop. Of course, by providing them with an additional $7½ million we are going to turbocharge that hate. We are going to fuel it. We are going to say to those voices within the community: 'Not only do you have a right to express those hateful and harmful positions but we are going to fund you to do so.'

There of course is a much more sensible, fairer, faster, cheaper and less harmful way to resolve this question, and we all know that that is to allow a free vote in this parliament. We have got plenty of time—at least in this term—for the Prime Minister to take some leadership on this question, follow what his espoused convictions were before he became Prime Minister and allow a free vote in the parliament. Far be it from me to offer him some free advice but I will do it nonetheless: his prime ministership is in big trouble and, if he continues to pander to those hateful voices on the far right of his party, he will not see out the next few years. If he does, he will be trounced in the next election. Here is an opportunity, a golden opportunity, for the Prime Minister to stand up once this plebiscite is defeated and say, 'Enough is enough. I'm going to be true to the person that I am and I'm going to allow a free vote in the parliament.' It may just be the tonic that he needs to help turn his fortunes around but it requires leadership and courage to be able to take such a stand.

We saw some of that courage from one of his counterparts in the Senate only a few days ago. I want to pay tribute to Senator Dean Smith who showed courage and conviction this week by making it very clear to his colleagues, as an openly gay senator, that he believes the plebiscite to be an abhorrent idea. He believes, as do we, that we are put in this place, the seat of Australian democracy, to consider and resolve the easy and difficult issues that face our nation.

Senator Smith's voice is not a voice in the wilderness; it is shared by many others within the LGBTI community. He is joined in this view by former High Court judge Michael Kirby, who, again, made his comments publicly only a few weeks—again, he is somebody who is an openly gay judge who has long been an advocate for marriage equality and understands that our job as elected representatives is to ensure that we do not put issues of fundamental human rights to opinion polls.

Michael Kirby is joined by almost 200 LGBTI community leaders who this week put out an advertisement also declaring the plebiscite to be an abhorrent idea. He is joined by the parents and friends of gay and lesbian children who say they do not want their children and the children of others to be exposed to the hate that will come with a plebiscite. He is joined by rainbow families. He is joined by the health professionals, such as the Australian Psychological Society who have said very clearly that they believe this plebiscite would lead to harm. They also believe that young people will take their lives, if this hate is unleashed on our community.

The Greens have been listening to these voices. We understand that good people will differ on what the pathway to marriage equality is but we also understand that the overwhelming majority of the community—both those affected and those health professional engaging in this debate—believes that the plebiscite is the wrong way to go.

Fundamentally, these people all believe that human rights should not be subjected to an opinion poll and they are concerned about the precedent that resolving this question in this way sets for other issues. Let me say: I am in awe of those people, who have spent a great part of their life campaigning for marriage equality, who have said, 'Not now in this way, because of the harm that it will cause.'

We should never set the precedent that human rights are simply a matter of getting 51 per cent of the popular vote. We should never set a precedent that says: 'Minority rights should be subject to a vote of the majority.' That is not how issues of fundamental human rights are resolved in this country. Of course the irony here is that John Howard felt no need to go to a plebiscite when he joined with the Labor Party to amend the Marriage Act to ensure it only applied to a marriage between and man and a woman.

Like many people, I have wrestled with this issue and what the most appropriate pathway is to get there. However, when you do work as a medical practitioner and see the harm that is experienced by young people, who are struggling with gender and sexuality, and that that harm results in physical and emotional pain, and is associated with increased rates of mental ill-health, substance abuse, you understand that even in the current environment that people are suffering. The last thing that we want to see is that suffering increase.

Yesterday we heard the profound words of Senator McCarthy in both the language of her Aboriginal ancestry and in English about tradition, culture, hardship and love. She shared with us the deeply touching story of her sister who lost her life simply because of the prejudice that she experienced. The idea of placing $7.5 million into a campaign that will stir up hate speech against people like Senator McCarthy's sister is utterly unacceptable. To use the words of Senator Smith: 'It may not be the intention of the 'no' campaign to do this but it will absolutely be the effect.'

We are now only beginning to learn of the hurtful effects of the Irish marriage referendum that is being promoted as the model for resolving the issue here. Like Senator Brandis, we have also met with people involved in that campaign. In fact, we were presented with a letter from the convenor, or one of the convenors, of the 'yes' campaign in Ireland, who said to us, 'If you have a choice, do not proceed with a plebiscite'. She shared with us, as have others, that the LGBTIQ community in Ireland felt threatened and, indeed, were threatened. The children with two mums or two dads were made to feel like second-class citizens. The very idea of putting their relationships up for judgement diminished their sense of belonging to that society.

Let us be clear: people in Ireland had no choice. Their constitution required change and the only way to change it was to go to a referendum. We do not have to follow that path here. As I said, it was done with the stroke of a pen when John Howard and the Labor Party joined to amend the Marriage Act and we can do the same to ensure that we achieve marriage equality here in Australia.

Returning to the start of my speech, we can make a choice here in this parliament to ensure that our world is safer for diversity. Let's show some courage, let's show some leadership, let's have a free vote in this parliament and let's ensure that we stamp out prejudice once and for all.