Senate debates

Monday, 27 November 2017

Bills

Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017; Second Reading

5:31 pm

Photo of Carol BrownCarol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Hansard source

I must say at the outset I'm extremely happy and proud that we're actually at this stage, debating the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017, with the very real prospect that it will deliver legislation that Australians voted for. This is an issue that should have been resolved a long time ago. For too long our nation's politicians lacked the courage to do what was right. For too long our nation's politicians were beholden to the interests of those who were on the socially conservative fringe. As far back as 2010, polls showed that 65 per cent of Australians believed the time had come for marriage equality. This is an issue that should have been resolved in this parliament, and it is deeply regrettable that it wasn't. There have been a number of bills brought before the Senate that would have delivered marriage equality, including one in 2012 that I co-sponsored with my Labor colleagues former Senator Trish Crossin and Senators Pratt and Marshall. Unfortunately, that bill was defeated at the second reading stage. Rectifying a wrong required real leadership from our politicians. Sadly, it was not forthcoming, and it was left to the Australian people to lead the way.

The Australian people provided the leadership when this parliament would not, and in doing so they have said loud and clear what supporters of marriage equality already knew: that we are a country of tolerance, a country that respects our LGBTI community and a country that believes in fairness. Australia said yes to marriage equality and no to fear and division. Australians voted yes because they knew that denying loving same-sex couples the right to marriage was not consistent with the Australian ideal of fairness. They voted yes because they knew that giving same-sex couples the same rights as those in heterosexual marriage would not take away from their marriages but would give LGBTI Australians the equality that they had been denied for far too long.

Over the course of the campaign, we saw LGBTI rights groups join together with other community organisations, politicians from across the political spectrum and the trade union movement to campaign for equality. I want to make a particular point on the role trade unions played during this debate. We've seen from the Turnbull government so often a vilification of our nation's unions and, in particular, the obsessive singling out of the CFMEU. I've always been a proud supporter of the union movement, and I was even prouder over the course of the marriage equality campaign. The CFMEU, like other unions, saw the injustice that LGBTI Australians faced and decided that they could not allow it to continue without doing something. They were told by some to stay away from the campaign, but in response they said:

You might want to tell us to stick to our "bread and butter"—to winning you better wages and conditions at work. But here's the thing about that: a better, fairer Australia where more people are equal? That's our bread and butter. That's what we work towards every day.

Sure, most of the time we achieve that by helping construction workers stand together and be paid a fairer wage, or be safer at work … but that doesn't mean we won't also stand up for our LGBTI members. Or for our LGBTI friends, family and neighbours. We stand for a fair go. We stand steadfastly with all our members who've waited far too long to be equal before the law.

That response sums up the attitude so many of our nation's unions took during the campaign, and, after a long and at times divisive postal survey, we now finally have a bill before us which all MPs and senators will have a free vote on. The road to this point has been long, and it has been hard for many LGBTI Australians and their supporters. As we know, the fight for marriage equality began long before the start of this postal survey. It has been a debate that has often dominated political discourse over the past decade, and it's important to acknowledge those without the tireless dedication of whom we would not be standing here today discussing this bill.

Thankfully, more than a decade on, attitudes have changed, and Labor has also led the way on that. There will still be work to do for LGBTI Australians, but, when it comes to achieving marriage equality, the end is now finally in sight. Over the course of the equality campaign, led by the fabulous Tim Gartrell and Alex Greenwich, I saw rainbow Labor and the wider Labor Party, mobilise the campaign. The campaign showed what we can achieve when we work together. The issue of equality is not and never should be viewed as a partisan issue. The emphatic 'yes' vote was the result of different parties, community groups, sporting codes and religious groups coming together with a common cause and a shared belief that discrimination against same-sex couples has no place in the Australia of 2017.

Our nation has come a long way on LGBTI rights. The process began in 1975 when South Australia decriminalised homosexuality, with Tasmania being the last state to decriminalise homosexuality. But I am very proud to say that Tasmanians voted 63.6 per cent in favour of equality. In fact, every single electorate in my home state said yes, and we recorded the third highest 'yes' vote of any state. I'm proud but I was not surprised. From Hobart to Burnie and everywhere in between, thousands of Tasmanians from the LGBTI community, their families and friends came together at market stalls and phone-calling nights to passionately campaign for equality.

When we look to the voices that joined together over the course of the campaign, we see teachers, police officers, doctors, defence personnel, nurses, labourers, office workers, mums, dads, sisters, brothers, neighbours and friends joining together. The 'yes' campaign was not about vested interests or a small minority; it was a grassroots movement which involved Tasmanians from all walks of life. That campaign was joined by Tasmanians United for Marriage Equality, with Rodney Croome, who has dedicated so much to the cause of marriage equality. I'd also like to take a moment to mention those who campaigned tirelessly alongside Rodney: PFLAG; Robbie Moore, president of Rainbow Labor, of which I am proud to be the patron; and Rajan, Michael, Megan, Robyn, Radek, Andrew, Rick, Vincent and Kym. And to Sam Watson, who, at 17, couldn't vote but was tireless in his advocacy for a 'yes' vote: your work saw a wonderful result.

The result on 15 November was met with euphoric scenes of jubilation across the country. Those were the scenes that were relayed in our living rooms on the nightly news, but I know of many who quietly took in the result themselves or in small groups, breathing a sigh of relief at the result and that the divisive and hurtful postal vote process was finally over. Equality had won.

Australia could have followed the lead of the United Kingdom, New Zealand, South Africa and so many other parliamentary democracies in voting on this issue in parliament. And I want to make this point again because, despite the resounding 'yes' vote and despite the overwhelming joy we felt as supporters of marriage equality, it should never have got to this point. We should be proud of the result but we should not be proud of this process. Thankfully Labor, with others, was able to stop the plebiscite from going ahead. We did so because we believed it would be divisive and unnecessary. Regrettably, the Turnbull government chose to get around the will of the parliament and introduced a non-binding, non-compulsory postal survey. Sadly, we were unable to stop that from proceeding.

Forcing LGBTI Australians and their supporters to stand on street corners or to knock on the doors of strangers, asking to have equal rights, was a shameful way to help achieve marriage equality. Subjecting the LGBTI community to the vitriolic abuse of the 'no' campaign over the course of a nationwide postal survey on their basic rights was hurtful, unnecessary and something we look back on with a great deal of regret. Labor warned the government prior to the survey of the sort of harm they were about to unleash. Sadly, we saw over the course of the campaign an increased need for counselling hotlines and mental health services for LGBTI Australians. It is my hope that the wounds from the campaign can now heal, and it is now the responsibility of this parliament to ensure we vote on the marriage amendment bill quickly.

I believe that the time is long overdue for Australia to legislate for marriage equality. I believe in marriage equality because I believe that all Australians deserve to be treated equally before the law. Our current marriage laws do not allow that to happen. The principles of equality and justice in Australia cannot be met if the key civil institution of marriage is reserved for heterosexuals only. Marriage is a declaration of love and commitment to a special person. All loving couples in Australia should have the right to participate in this institution if they wish. To deny same-sex couples this right based simply on their sexual orientation is discrimination and it has no place in Australia.

As Australians, we pride ourselves on our reputation as a generally inclusive, egalitarian and tolerant society, and we should use this opportunity to demonstrate these values. The core Labor values of equality, fairness and dignity underpin the debate surrounding marriage equality. The proposed amendments in the marriage equality bill are about respecting the rights of all Australians to be equal before the law. They are the final steps towards equality for same-sex couples. We should allow our friends, families and colleagues to define, formalise and celebrate their commitment to each other as they wish, whether they are straight or gay. That is why our current marriage law must be changed.

It is important to note that what we are discussing is not an amendment to how churches conduct marriages or for whom they conduct them. That will remain unchanged and at the discretion of churches. What we are discussing and what we are about to amend is the act relating to the civil institution of marriage. Amending the Marriage Act will remove this last barrier to full legal equality for same-sex partners and protect Australia's reputation as a proud multicultural, multifaith, vibrant and diverse country. The Australian people have done their part; now it is finally time for this parliament to do its part.

This bill will allow civil celebrants to solemnise marriage, understood as the union of two people to the exclusion of all others, and voluntarily entered into for life. This will remove the discriminatory amendment put in place in 2004. The postal survey asked a rather straightforward question: it was a question about marriage. It is disappointing that those who are opposed to marriage equality in this debate want to debate everything but the actual issue.

Despite the distractions thrown out by those opposed to equality, the postal survey vote was not about bakers baking cakes for weddings, the Safe Schools program or political correctness; it was a question of whether Australians believed it was appropriate to make our marriage laws equal. We cannot allow the same distractions used during the postal survey process to be used during the parliamentary debate, and we cannot allow a determined minority to delay thwart, twist and divert the will of the Australian people, 61.6 per cent of whom said yes to marriage equality. The survey was about the civil institution of marriage, and that is what this debate in this chamber must be about. We cannot allow this bill to become derailed by those opposed to seeing marriage equality.

The religious freedom arguments and proposed amendments are nothing more than last-ditch attempts to delay what people now need to accept is inevitable and the will of the Australian people. Churches currently, as I've indicated, are under no obligation to marry couples they do not wish to. That choice would not be removed with the passage of this bill. Australia voted to remove the discrimination against LGBTI people within the Marriage Act. They did not vote to impose different forms of anti-LGBTI discrimination under the guise of religious freedom, and nor should this bill.

As I've said previously, marriage will survive; indeed, it will be strengthened. Australia will survive and it will be strengthened too by showing that we truly believe in respecting all citizens. I urge you all to think deeply about the core principles of our fine country. I urge you all to reflect on the meaning of justice, the meaning of fairness, the meaning of equality, the meaning of love—because, when it comes down to it, that is all this is. It is very, very simple. It is saying to all Australians that, in the eyes of the law, we all have the same rights and we are all equal.

In closing, I would like to remind my colleagues that not one single state or territory voted no during the postal survey. If we are serious about being a chamber which reflects the will of the Australian people then we need to acknowledge the overwhelming 'yes' vote recorded on 15 November. My state of Tasmania voted overwhelmingly in support of marriage equality, and my vote will reflect that. It is an important step towards ending discrimination. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whose name is on the bill; the names that will matter are those of the couples who will, for the first time, be able to have their names on a marriage certificate. More than 7.8 million people said yes to marriage equality. The strong 'yes' vote delivers a message loud and clear: discrimination against LGBTI Australians must end. Australia voted for marriage equality, and that is what this parliament must now deliver. Thank you.

Comments

No comments