Senate debates
Wednesday, 9 August 2017
Business
Consideration of Legislation
10:23 am
Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Hansard source
As I said in question time yesterday to the Attorney-General, 'Let us do our job.' We're here to vote on this. We voted down a plebiscite the last time. I have quoted before various people, including the heroes of the Liberal Party. John Howard said in 2004:
We've decided to insert this into the Marriage Act to make it very plain that that is our view of a marriage and to also make it very plain that the definition of a marriage that should rest in the hands ultimately of the parliament of the nation and should not over time … be subject to redefinition or change by courts, it is something that ought to be expressed through the elected representatives of the country …
There's no mention of a bloody plebiscite and no mention of a postal plebiscite. That's John Howard. Tony Abbott has said in the past that it shouldn't be left to the courts. Tony Abbott said when a plebiscite was pushed through the party room the last time that it would only exist for the life of the 44th Parliament. This is the 45th Parliament.
As for people who say that Malcolm Turnbull promised—he did promise. He honoured that promise. He took that promise to the parliament. He got it through the House of Representatives, through the other place. He brought it here and he lost. So where's plan B?
With every other bit of legislation, they take it back downstairs, they bring it back here or they bring it back in with amendments. I will commend the government for the amendment they are putting up—and they can technically say that this is a slightly different bill, because they are going to amend it to cut out the public funding, which is a stupid idea. That'll save them $20 million. They should save $122 million for the other place.
Tony Abbott also said, on 2GB—sorry, the former Prime Minister—that marriage was between a man and a woman, and that it was brought in to protect women and children and therefore any move to break up a marriage would be a disastrous situation, shouldn't be done. Yet how come the Liberals' light on the hill—their light on the hill; Prime Minister Bob Menzies attacked so-called man-and-woman marriage, because he was the person who said there will be a conscience vote, back in 1958, a conscience vote for no-fault divorce. What's going to protect marriage, if you believe this more than that? No-fault divorce. He said:
As the question of divorce closely touches the individual conscience of members, we propose that, though it will be a government measure, it shall not be treated as a party measure. Therefore, honourable members will be in a position to discuss it according to their own lights and views.
I'm going to steal from Menzies and say: as the question of same-sex marriage closely touches the individual conscience of members. I propose that there will be a government measure—we would hope. It should not be treated as a party measure, and honourable members will be in a position to discuss it according to their own lights and views. Although I know there's going to be a move to try to kill this off before the government gets its second reading—it's tempting—but I voted against the plebiscite before. I wanted the government to have their say, even though there's nothing left to be said about same-sex marriage. I will support them as they try to get the second reading up. But then I will tell you: this man is not for turning. I don't care who comes at me or with what. I will vote a plebiscite down again, and I would also vote down any foolish postal plebiscite, which I think is open to fraud.
And is this government of all the people—what about young people? Young people wouldn't even know how to open a mailbox. What about them? Are you going to have text votes? Are you going to have email votes for young people? And older people—this one will be voluntary, so you will get the special-interest groups on both sides coming out with the hardest and toughest areas. I think it's a disgrace.
I watched the New Zealand parliament last night pass their same-sex marriage bill. I watched them pass it, and the moment in that house in New Zealand—and it's a single house—after it passed, equality for all people, they all came out and the gallery started singing 'Pokarekare Ana'. It was the most wonderful moment of unity. This government could unify Australia, if they just pass this damn bill, get it through, get it off the agenda.
I hope this morning you do not talk on and on, speaker after speaker. Get it on, get it over, get it done with. Thank you.
No comments