Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. Firstly, I must commend my close friend and Western Australian Senate colleague Senator Dean Smith. Dean and I have been friends for over 30 years and his magnificent speech this morning moved me to tears. There are no words to describe just how proud I am of him today. I'm proud of Senator Smith's courage, his commitment and his perseverance. I'm proud of his eloquence and compassion.

We asked Australians to have their say and, by heaven, they have. It is now up to us to respect their will and pass this bill this year. This is why I was very proud and honoured to co-sponsor the motion to bring on this bill to start the debate today, the day after the results were known. As Liberals, we cherish and fight to preserve freedoms of parliamentary democracy: the freedoms of thought, worship, speech and association. For me, this debate has always been about preserving and balancing two potentially competing democratic principles: equality and the freedoms of religion and speech.

In Australia, there is no more valued principle than equality—that all Australians are equal, but they must also be treated equally under the law and have an equality of opportunity in all aspects of their life. That of course includes the legal right to marry. Yesterday's results and historic participation rate demonstrate that Australians are also invested in legal equality in marriage. As a Christian, I also believe we must ensure that we continue to cherish and preserve religious freedoms and the freedoms of speech and of association. As Senator Smith observed this morning, they are two different but equally important principles.

I believe that this bill provides legal equality for all Australians in relation to marriage without diminishing existing religious or speech freedoms. That said, I have reserved and continue to reserve my right to support amendments in this or in any other subsequent bills that strengthen these freedoms as long as they do not conversely restrict the freedoms of others. I also think it is important, noting what those on the other side of this chamber have said, that all of my colleagues in this place have the opportunity to have their say on this issue and also have the opportunity to move amendments that they believe would strengthen religious protections.

This debate has also caused me to reflect on the role of us in this chamber. As we know, probably more so in this chamber than in most other places, in any democracy we always have to balance freedoms, and no freedoms are ever truly free. Therefore, it is our responsibility to have robust debate to work out where we and where the community see those balances to the infringement of our democratic freedoms. With almost every bill that we introduce and pass in this place, we do trade off in some way individual freedoms for the collective good. This is one of the most important responsibilities for all of us, and it is something that I addressed in my first speech and that I remain very cognisant of. It is also, I would note, one of the greatest sources of ideological friction in positions on policy in this place, but I think that is a good thing. It is a good thing for Australia and it is a good thing for our democracy.

But, since becoming a senator, I have regularly observed this balance should never be achieved through force, through coercion or through community apathy or lack of engagement. To preserve our democracy and our society, we have to retain ways of hearing things that make us all uncomfortable and then be able to robustly and respectfully debate the issues. How else can we in this chamber preserve what is of value to those we represent and to our community?

Quite often in this place I have reflected somewhat despairingly that I believe we as a society sometimes appear to be in danger of losing this ability to robustly and respectfully debate the issues of the day. But, whatever your personal opinions of the survey, we promised the Australian people we would seek their opinions and attitudes on this, and we have. Whatever you personally think about this, one of the, I think, most unexpected but absolutely wonderful outcomes of this is that it has been demonstrated that, if we ask Australians for their opinion on things that they care deeply about, they will have their say and they will clearly let us know what they want.

I think that is so important for us here in this place for a number of reasons—first of all, that there are still ways of engaging the Australian community on issues that are of importance to them and making them feel that their voice counts and they are not as disenfranchised as they may have thought in our democracy. Over the course of my career, I've had the great privilege to work for many Australian and international democratic institutions, and I've often had cause to reflect on the nature and health of our own democracy. I have seen all too often, globally, what others sacrifice, including their lives, to realise and achieve the same democratic rights and responsibilities we have here in Australia and, all too often now, take for granted. In fact, not only do many Australians take our democratic rights and responsibilities for granted but they're increasingly ambivalent and disillusioned with the way our democracy runs. So one of the many wonderful outcomes of this survey is that this proves that that is not always the case. Maybe the reason that people are so disillusioned with politics is that, as politicians, we haven't gone back and asked people their opinions often enough. While we are responsible for making those decisions ultimately, finding ways to more regularly engage and really listen to what's important to the Australian people is a prospect that I and, I'm sure, others in this place relish pursuing. So yesterday was a significant victory for our democracy because, as I said, it demonstrates that people can be invested in the democracy and the decision-making processes.

One thing that struck me, particularly over the last 12 months, as I've engaged with a number of bright, articulate, passionate younger Australians, is that I keep hearing them say 'I want to be heard'. I say to them: 'Well, here I am. What do you want to tell me? I'm a senator.' You can almost hear the crickets chirp, and they'll say, 'But I want to be heard,' and I say, 'Yes, but what about?' So one of the other wonderful things is that this has given the next generation of Australian citizens and voters an opportunity to demonstrate that they still care about issues but perhaps we just haven't been listening to them in the right ways. I think this survey again has given us an indication not of having surveys every year but of finding new ways of engaging people and giving them a voice, because if they didn't know what they actually wanted to tell us then this has given us a great idea. The level of engagement is something that, again, is a wonderful news story in this, and I think the nearly 80 per cent has defied the expectations of even the most optimistic proponents of this survey.

Another thing I'm very proud of is that I participated in the party room debate two years ago. I heard there was an opportunity for our party to put forward and to realise what we've got to here today. Despite the vehement opposition of those opposite to go ahead with a plebiscite or a survey, I hope even the most sceptical of those opposite would at least acknowledge that we were right in going to the people and giving them a say, and that it has resulted in this outcome. I'm particularly proud of this outcome, as a Liberal and as a Liberal-National coalition government, and I'm proud that it's largely through the efforts and perseverance of Senator Smith, whose bill we are dealing with here today.

I'd like to go through some of the participation figures because I think they are highly significant. So 79.5 per cent of all Australians had their say. This is higher than the turnouts for the British general election, the French presidential election and the Irish referendum, which were 68 per cent, 74 per cent and 60 per cent respectively. This is a triumph. In fact, the highest vote in a national Australian plebiscite before this was in the 1917 conscription referendum 100 years ago, where the no case secured 53.8 per cent of the vote. The highest 2PP vote in a federal election was 56.9 per cent in 1966 and the second biggest majority in parliamentary history was secured by John Howard in 1996, with 53.6 per cent of the two-party preferred vote. What this means is that with 62 per cent, the yes case has secured the strongest possible mandate on an issue for parliament to action on their behalf—more than any other vote or survey in this nation's history. I also agree with Senator Smith that Australians have not voted for equality before the law so that equality before the law in other areas can be deliberately or inadvertently stripped away.

For many years, we've had numerous debates both in and outside of this place on the merits and implications of same-sex marriage. A central pillar of those arguments, both for and against, has been predicting the attitudes of the Australian people. As we well know, there have been many and varied numbers bandied around in that debate over the years. While I do agree in principle that under the responsible system of government that we have it is ultimately our responsibility to make these decisions, I think that the turnout and the response and the definitive numbers that we now have indicate that this was an important exception to that general rule and that Australians have appreciated being asked. To again quote Senator Smith—I thought what he said this morning was very profound:

To those who want and believe in change and to those who seek to frustrate it, I simply say: don't underestimate Australia, don't underestimate the Australian people—

how right you are—

don't underestimate our country's sense of fairness, its sense of decency and its willingness to be a country for all of us.

Of all the things that we as a nation should be very proud of today, it is that point. What it does demonstrate is that not only does our country live these values, but it now also votes for them as well. I'd like to share the words of Winston Churchill, and I think his views on this are quite fitting for this debate. He said:

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.

Since the yes and no campaigns commenced in response to the government's postal survey, parliamentarians, and indeed all Australians, have heard a range of views on what same-sex marriage should look like in this country. We've also had the time to inquire into and reflect upon the appropriate way to amend the Marriage Act and related legislation in a way that respects the will of the Australian people and also acknowledges the concerns of those who support the traditional definitions of marriage. I know that all in this place understand that there is a need to respect those in our society who do hold deep religious beliefs and are unable to preside over, or conscientiously opposed to presiding over, same-sex ceremonies because of these beliefs.

I commend all of those who participated in the inquiry and those who drafted the bill. It is a considered and comprehensive response to the issue of same-sex marriage. It has consciously used the work of the Senate Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill as the basis for the development of this particular bill. I think it's important to go back and reflect now on what this committee said. It found there was a wideranging desire, amongst groups supportive and non-supportive of same-sex marriage, to protect religious freedoms in any future legislation. What we have before us today does represent a bipartisan and sensible way forward on the matter of same-sex marriage, and I believe it does achieve the intent of those who voted yes in this survey.

The Senate Select Committee on the Exposure Draft of the Marriage Amendment (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill reported in February this year, as I've said, and did deliver a consensus report. The committee was chaired by my colleague the very well-considered and well-respected Liberal Senator David Fawcett and, as you know, included Liberal Senators Dean Smith and James Paterson, Labor Senators Louise Pratt and Kimberley Kitching, Greens Senator Janet Rice and NXT Senator Skye Kakoschke-Moore. The committee received over 400 submissions from a wide range of submitters, including leaders of many faiths. Their report identified a broad desire and willingness from parties to protect religious freedom in respect of marriage in any future same-sex marriage legislation. The consensus nature of that report was the primary focus of debate when the report was tabled in this place. Senator Fawcett remarked that the report was a good example of parliamentarians working well together and identifying those fundamental rights that must be carefully considered, respected and balanced in future same-sex legislation.

I reiterate that I look forward to hearing the opinions of all of my colleagues in this place. But I also look forward to hearing their recommended amendments in the committee stage, because I think it is important that we have this robust debate here. I'm certain that, throughout that process in the next week, the bipartisanship and the goodwill that has been exhibited so wonderfully across this chamber in this debate will continue. And to be part of that, I could not be prouder.

My thanks to the millions of Australians who came out and voted. We have heard you very loudly and clearly, and we will, in this chamber, respect your will.