David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Hansard source

I indicate that I will support this motion. I also indicate that I support same-sex marriage not for reasons of equality, as is often the argument used by its supporters, but because I don't believe it's any role of the government to tell people who they can marry.

I have supported same-sex marriage since I have been in this place. I have supported it ever since it was ever mooted. I believe I'm the only senator in this place who, in the last parliament and the current parliament, has supported it at every opportunity, including procedural votes. The question we are debating, though, is how to achieve it. The issue, I think, that really underlies this discussion is: is there a perfect way to achieve it? I don't think perfection should be the overriding factor here. I think achieving same-sex marriage should be the end result, and we shouldn't be too fussy about how we get there, as long as we do get there.

We have three options available to us. The free vote is my first choice, but I have to say I am not at all certain that, if there were a free vote, it would pass both houses of parliament. I am not at all sure, and I question why people are so adamant that a free vote is the only way to do this. How can they be so confident that it's going to pass? A plebiscite has its flaws; however, it was previously, in years past, supported by Labor. There is a cost aspect which can't be ignored. My preference would be to hold the plebiscite at the next election. I would've been happy for it to be held at the last election too. I'm absolutely confident—and opinion polls support this—that a plebiscite would be overwhelmingly in favour of changing the Marriage Act to allow same-sex marriage. Yes, Senator Di Natale makes a valid point about voting on other people's rights, and I think that's a legitimate objection, but there are countries—democracies every bit as robust and secure as ours; Switzerland is obviously right at the top—where they vote on these sorts of things all the time, and the sky doesn't fall, so I don't think it's a very profound objection. Then there's the postal vote option. It has its flaws but it could work; I'm certainly not going to condemn it out of hand.

In the end, my concern is for the same-sex couples that want to get married. They're the ones I'm concerned about. I will not let the perfect be the enemy of the good in achieving that.