Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013, put forward by Senator Hanson-Young. I oppose this bill. However, I do firmly believe that same-sex couples should be able to marry. I am a proud member of the Liberal Party, the party that has gone to great lengths over many years to ensure that same-sex couples are not discriminated against and that their entitlements—be they in respect of medical benefits, taxation, superannuation or employment—are no different to those accorded to heterosexual couples. This is not a moral issue. This is simply fairness.

I am extremely proud to be part of the Victorian Liberal Party, which in 2014 righted a historic wrong by expunging the convictions of those who—although it was already decriminalised in 1981—had been convicted of homosexual acts. That was a proud moment for us. I am also proud to be a regular guest of the Victorian party's Montalto branch. The Montalto branch is a Liberal LGTBI branch whose views on all matters, not just LGTBIQ issues, are given voice and respectfully heard and considered in policy development. Marriage equality is certainly not the only issue important to the LGTBIQ community.

I know there are others who do not share my views. Same-sex marriage is an issue that invites very different opinions within political parties, communities, friendship groups and families. Though my sister and I stridently and firmly believe that same-sex couples should be able to marry, my parents do not. Every couple of weeks my sister, my parents and I get together with our partners and children for a very noisy and messy family dinner where, inevitably, we argue out the issues of the day. The sharing of opinions is extremely boisterous—none of us are shy and retiring—and the issue of same-sex marriage is one that arises regularly.

My parents were brought up Catholic and, although they are no longer practising, they still respect and practise Christian values. My parents are firmly of the position, as am I, that families are the foundation of society and that we would be a stronger society if marriages were encouraged. I firmly agree with this. I am unpersuaded by the proposition that any one marriage is undermined by two gay men or two lesbians setting up house down the road. But I know that others are of the same view as my parents. They have difficulty moving beyond their traditional view of marriage. They have pointed out that according to the Book of Leviticus, God speaking to Moses described homosexual acts as 'an abomination', and it calls for those who practice them to be put to death. My sister and I, over dinner, have pointed out that the Bible also believes that cursing your parents is also a heinous crime and that it too deserves a death sentence. That would certainly put an end to these very garrulous family dinners! But no matter how hard my sister and I try to persuade my parents otherwise, no matter the evidence of other countries' experiences, no matter how many people our family know or are related to whose lives this would affect, my sister and I cannot budge my parents' opinion. Does this make them bigots? No. Does it render my parents outdated, outmoded or uncool? Maybe it does—certainly, I think it does in the eyes of the Greens. Does it make them less considered, less educated, less intellectual, less involved or less evolved? Does it make them extremists, conservatives or del-cons? No, I do not think it does. Does it give them less of a right to have a say on this issue than my sister, Annie, or me? I do not think it does. All Australians—whether they be young or old; whether they be politically engaged, disengaged or ambivalent; whether they be in regional Australia or in the suburbs; whether they be inner-city urban hipsters; whether they be gay or straight, lesbian, bisexual, queer, transgender or intersex—everyone—should have a say on this issue.

Yesterday, the Turnbull government honoured its mandate when the Prime Minister introduced the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016. This bill provides for the plebiscite to be held on Saturday, 11 February 2017. The question that will be put to the people on that day is, 'Should the law be changed to allow for same-sex couples to marry?' Voting will be compulsory, and the result will be determined by a simple majority of votes—50 per cent plus one vote. It cannot get any simpler. 'Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?' There is nothing tricky. It is very simple. There is nothing unclear. The terms that are used are not pejorative and they are not persuasive. The mechanisms that are used are entirely transparent. The architecture of the process is familiar from the 1999 referendum. There are no surprises. Most importantly, it is thoroughly democratic.

The coalition made a commitment to the Australian people at the July election that a decision on same-sex marriage would be made through a vote by all Australians in a national plebiscite, and that is exactly what we are doing. We have a mandate to do it, and it is disingenuous for any party or any independent senator in this place to try and circumvent that process. The coalition won a majority. The coalition have a mandate. By introducing any amendments to the Marriage Act yourselves, you are denying the will of the majority of the people.

Such an act is pure showmanship. It is grandstanding, because you know the bill will be defeated. You know it will be defeated, because it has been defeated before. How many bills do we need to introduce into this parliament that will be defeated? However, if there is a plebiscite and that plebiscite demonstrates with a simple majority—50 per cent plus one—that the Australian people want to change the laws to allow for same-sex couples to marry, the coalition will act on their wishes.

Please do not doubt my party colleagues' intentions here. The discussions I have had with my colleagues have been more than encouraging, and this is an issue about which I feel particularly passionate. I have canvassed their views and I am comfortable. Indeed, I am extremely encouraged. Literally dozens of them have said to me on separate occasions in public and in private that they will vote no in a plebiscite but, if the plebiscite returns a yes vote—not an overwhelming yes; just a yes vote—they will listen and they will respect the views of the nation. Then and only then will they vote to change the laws to allow for same-sex couples to marry. The plebiscite will allow the nation to make a decision on same-sex marriage, and then the coalition will respect the outcome.

The Turnbull government will listen to the will of the Australian people and it will act. Unlike Labor, we stick to our commitments. We are committed to the democratic rights of Australians. The plebiscite gives every voting Australian a say. It is thoroughly democratic. Those who fear a plebiscite—those who oppose consulting the Australian people—do so because they are concerned that they might not give them the answer that they want. That is not a good enough reason for obstructing democracy. If you are genuinely worried about the answer you might get, do not criticise the process; concentrate your efforts on mounting a better argument. That is what I will be doing.

I genuinely believe that there has been an evolution of attitudes. When the Victorian CWA can vote in favour of same-sex marriage, I believe that our society has come a long way, so please trust the Australian people. To those who criticise the plebiscite on the basis of cost, the answer is simple: what price democracy? $7.5 million for both the yes and the no camps is fair, it is reasonable, it is measured and it is considered. It is based on past experience. The entire architecture of this plebiscite is fair and transparent. The date set is the earliest possible according to the advice from the AEC. It is also timely. The coalition is living up to its commitments to the Australian people. It is obeying the mandate it has been given.

I urge those opposite to respect the decision of the Australian people, to respect the people that they represent, to respect their intelligence and their civility and their capacity to debate and discuss and decide and resolve this issue. I urge those opposite to extend the hand of friendship, to extend the hand of love and to extend the hand of progress. I urge those opposite to use common sense and pragmatism rather than sloganeering and rhetoric, because that is what we have been elected to do, so let's get this done.

The fastest and surest way to ensure that same-sex couples can marry is not to introduce yet another bill amending the Marriage Act. It will be defeated. This bill will be defeated. The fastest and surest way to ensure that same-sex couples can marry is to support the bill introduced by the Prime Minister yesterday. The fastest and surest way to ensure that same-sex couples can marry is to support a plebiscite. The fastest and surest way to ensure that Australia joins the ranks of 20 other nations around the world that allow same-sex marriage is to support a plebiscite. The fastest and surest way to ensure that same-sex couples can marry is to trust our citizens to have a mature and civil and responsible debate like my family does—to have a robust and respectful and reasonable and rational debate about something that so many of us care about very deeply.

I implore you to reject this bill like the parliament has rejected so many others that have attempted to do the same. I implore you to support the Prime Minister's bill to hold a plebiscite and to give all Australians a say. And then, I implore you all to do what I will be doing: I will be voting yes in the plebiscite. Colleagues, please, let us get this done.