Andrew Bartlett (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

It's appropriate for me to start my contribution on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 by noting the very strong affirmation of support of the Australian people and, in particular, those in my home state of Queensland in calling for clear equality for all when it comes to marriage and the marriage law in this country.

Senator Moore, in her contribution this morning, reflected back on some of the speeches from 2004. My contribution will be interrupted at question time at two o'clock, so perhaps, in leading up to that time, it is worth emphasising, for those who might not be aware, why we're actually here today. We are here today because of that terrible historic wrong that the parliament inflicted on our nation and that hurtful wrong that this parliament inflicted on gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and intersex people over 13 years ago. If it had not been for that decision in 2004, we would not have had 13-plus years of legally entrenched, legally validated and politically validated, at the highest level, discrimination that said to a significant part of our community: 'You are less equal; your relationships matter less.'

I do agree with Senator Moore that it is worth going back and reading some of the speeches from that time to get a full sense of the context of that debate. It is particularly relevant this week. We will probably be debating this legislation all week. We have an open-ended second reading debate where anybody can speak on this legislation, and then we have the entire week for amendments. Like me, I am sure many other senators in this place are getting emails from people saying: 'This is all being rushed. You're not getting enough time to consider the complexity.' Well, we've had 13 years to do that. It is 13 years since that vote was taken. On that day, Friday the 13th—perhaps quite aptly—in August 2004, the legislation was introduced into the Senate at six minutes past two in the afternoon. The second reading debate concluded two and a half hours later. One hour was allowed for consideration of any amendments—amendments that were moved by the Greens and the Democrats to try and include some protections, to try and reduce discrimination and to try and prevent harmful consequences. One hour was all that was given. A guillotine was brought down with the support of both the larger parties. So it was three and a half hours in total for that legislation and just one hour to consider the amendments.

On top of that, when the legislation was first mooted by the then Howard government, quite rightly a Senate committee inquiry was established to look at what it might mean and, most importantly, to hear from the community and from those who would be personally affected, directly affected and directly harmed. Then the quite extraordinary, not quite unprecedented but certainly extremely rare, decision was made by the Senate to say: 'Actually, forget about that committee inquiry. We don't want to hear from the community. We just want to force this through.' It was forced through. It was during the final sitting of this Senate, before the 2004 election was called, that this discrimination was put in place and this unnecessary harm and hurt was inflicted on so many Australians. It was a deliberate political manoeuvre, using those people as pawns, using them as disposable, collateral damage, as a wedge, leading up to the 2004 election. That's why this happened, and it is wonderful what has happened since: to have the community come on board and create an irresistible push to finally reverse that discrimination, back in this chamber 13 years later. But, as part of that, we should not forget what that parliament did and how it was a deliberate decision, deliberately inflicting harm or, at very best, being callously indifferent to the harm because of the immediate potential political and electoral advantage that was seen at the time.

Senator Moore mentioned the public galleries here at the time—the crowds that were watching that debate in this chamber. For people who look back at the Hansard from that time, the date of the Hansard shows 12 August, the Thursday, but the Senate sat through and debated this into the Friday, which was the 13th. But, if you look for the Hansard, it will say the 12th because we went through into Friday. At the same time, leading up to that debate, there was a huge gathering of fundamentalist Christians in the Great Hall of this place, in the heart of this Parliament House, the people's house, and some of the statements they were making at the time are reflected in the speeches given not just by me but also by former Senator Brian Greig, a gay activist himself who obviously felt even more directly the deliberate barbs of these statements. Some of those people at that event said that people who were not in opposite-sex relationships were shameful, vile, immoral terrorists; that their relationships were unnatural, inherently unstable and harmful to children; and that they were mentally ill with a psychiatric disorder. These were all statements made at a huge gathering in the Great Hall. Many of those people were in the gallery while the debate and vote were happening back in 2004. Those were the views that were being validated by this chamber.

It's an interesting quirk of history that I find myself back in this chamber now and can see how few are still here from that time. I've counted 12 others apart from me who were in this chamber in 2004 when that vote happened. I want to pay tribute to all those from that time, including Senator Bob Brown and Senator Kerry Nettle, who both gave great speeches for standing up and voting against that discrimination—that harmful, hurtful and hateful legislation that was guillotined through—and also Senator Brian Greig, Senator Natasha Stott Despoja, Senator John Cherry, Senator Andrew Murray and Senator Aden Ridgeway. As I said at the time, that defeat was clearly a wrong, and the people who recognised it as a wrong would not rest and would continue to campaign until that wrong was reversed.

We are not through this yet. We have the committee stage of the debate and, unlike in 2004, there will be plenty of time for consideration of the amendments. There will be much more than one hour, and I urge the Senate, when they're considering those amendments, to ensure that we do not enable that great wrong of 2004 to continue to stand and that we do not continue to have legislation, the law of the land, that entrenches discrimination and says to people in our community that they are less equal than others and that their relationships matter less than others.

It has taken 13 years, and I want to pay tribute to all of those people who have campaigned throughout that time tirelessly and with genuineness and gentleness of heart, despite all the hurt and despite the potential for rancour. As Senator Rhiannon said in her contribution, we could not have got to this stage without the movements in the community. This issue is a classic case where the parliament, which is meant to act on behalf of the people, actually inflicted oppression upon the community, and it has taken the community itself and the movements within the community to force the parliament to change. That campaign still must continue right through until the final vote happens, but it is a great tribute to many people in the community, and I will mention some of them when I finish my contribution later today. Since that 2004 mistake was made, there have been a range of different inquiries, unlike in 2004, when the Senate committee inquiry was guillotined and closed down. There have been a number of inquiries into this issue.

Debate interrupted.