Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Hansard source

My colleagues senators Griff and Kakoschke-Moore and I cannot support this motion. This motion seeks to restore to the Notice Paper the very same bill that the Senate rejected on 7 November last year by 33 votes to 29. The government is using a little-known, little-used procedure. It's a quite proper procedure that they're entitled to use, but we are also entitled to say this should not go ahead. We've already dealt with this issue. It does not need to be dealt with again. We do not need to revisit a debate on a bill which was comprehensively defeated at the second reading stage.

There ought to be a free vote of the parliament on this issue. I, along with my colleagues, am strongly supportive of marriage equality. We should deal with this. That's what we're being paid for as members of parliament: to deal with this issue. Senator Leyonhjelm makes a good point that there are other robust democracies in the world—the United States, in California in particular; and Switzerland—where citizens vote on issues all the time, but the fundamental difference is that they're initiated by citizens, they are binding and there is a process in place where citizens can say, 'The parliament is not listening to us, and we need to deal with this issue.'

This is the opposite. This is a case where the parliament is not listening to the people. We ought to deal with this issue as a matter of urgency. For those who have put to me, privately—and I respect their views—I want to pick up on what Senator Cormann said: we need to have a respectful debate. I support marriage equality but I also respect the views of those who do not. I think it's important that we have a debate free of rancour and bile, one that is considered and respectful on this important issue. But when it comes to the alternatives that have been put to us—if you don't vote for this, we're going to end up with a postal vote, which is a far worse option—can I say there is a third option, which is for the parliament to decide this issue as a matter of urgency. This really is a case of Groundhog Day, but we're not in Punxsutawney; we're in Canberra. It seems that we're going to keep repeating the same mistake over and over again until there is a free vote of the parliament to deal with this issue comprehensively, once and for all.