Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take this opportunity to, firstly, congratulate the government for putting to this parliament, within 12 months of its election, legislation to remove a great swathe of discriminatory laws against same-sex couples in Australia. This is indeed historic legislation and the government is to be congratulated for it. It means that same-sex couples who love each other and are in a committed relationship will in the main not be denied the opportunities, including those for raising children in Australia, that all other couples who love and are committed to each other have.

The matter of marriage remains at arm’s length for both the government and the opposition, and it will therefore remain some time before the injustice of the direct and inexcusable discrimination on the matter of marriage against same-sex couples is removed from the statute books. It was the Labor Party that first moved for a legislated ban on marriages for same-sex couples. That was taken up by the Howard government and put through this parliament with the support of the Labor Party. It is something that the Greens and, before us, the Democrats were opposed to. We remain very much opposed to it, and it is a matter that we will continue to attempt to correct in the parliament. There are some other areas of discrimination—for example, potentially in the area of private superannuation—but we will know that discrimination against same-sex couples has come to an end in this country when discrimination on the matter of marriage, which is a Commonwealth matter under the Constitution, is removed from the statute books.

There has been talk today about leadership. Here is a classic case of a failure of nerve by leadership. The polls clearly show that the majority of Australian people want to end the discriminatory practice of saying to same-sex couples, ‘You are equal under the law now, but not when it comes to a public declaration of your love for each other and a wish to register that through a marriage ceremony which has all the same advantages that we know and honour in our society for couples of opposite sex.’ Leadership here would have had these bills include an end to that discrimination, and it is quite remarkable that the Labor government has not taken up that leadership. The people are leading and the politicians are behind. Both the older parties have a task to undertake: to communicate better with the Australian community and to understand that the pressure coming from sectional groups, minority groups, to sanction marriage for all couples regardless has great public support.

So there it is: this challenge remains. The Greens will continue to be advocates for the end of discrimination in all matters, including marriage, against same-sex couples. That position of course fits in with international laws and moves. It follows up the innovative work of a number of countries overseas, including Catholic countries like Spain, and societies not too dissimilar from ourselves like Canada. It is high time this change was made in this great nation of Australia, which has led the world in so many social innovations but which under the Howard government, and now under the Rudd government, still lags behind in this innovation. The question is: why? The answer is that there is still a bigoted minority in our society which frightens the government and the opposition. This matter, by the way, should always be a matter for a free vote, and the Greens will be challenging on that matter again in the future.

I am not rising on an inconsequential matter. Marriage is and always has been the hallowing and the recognition by the public and by those who commit to each other of a special relationship by loving people, which is a stabilising factor in society. And if you leave people outside it then society is the lesser because of that. We have seen Senator Hanson-Young’s motion to amend this legislation to remove this discrimination voted down by the big parties. It is time that ended. It is not as though this matter rests here tonight. It does not. It is one of those issues that will come back to this parliament until the representatives of the parliament catch up with the public aspiration of the people of Australia in 2008, which is only going to become stronger, to remove this discrimination in the years ahead.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think it is also appropriate for me on behalf of the opposition to acknowledge the significance of the vote the Senate is about to take, which will complete law reform in the area of same-sex relationships which really began 40 years ago in the South Australian parliament when a Liberal member of the South Australian parliament, the late Murray Hill, moved for the first time in an Australian parliament to decriminalise homosexual relationships. The precedent which Mr Hill established was followed by all Australian parliaments over subsequent decades. The inclusion of same-sex relationships in the suite of Commonwealth antidiscrimination laws brings that long process of law reform, which has really taken a generation and a half, to completion. I do not want to be controversial about this, but I think that, on an occasion as important as this, it is a matter of regret that Senator Brown should have chosen to make a fractious and opportunistic contribution to a debate which has been characterised by bipartisanship and goodwill between the government and the opposition.

I want to take this opportunity to pay credit on my side of politics to two groups of people: to people within the non-Labor side of politics who have for years championed this cause, people like the former member for Leichhardt, Mr Warren Entsch; people like the member for Kooyong, Mr Petro Georgiou; people like my dear friend Senator Payne, who I see in the chamber today; people like the member for Sturt, Mr Christopher Pyne; people like the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Turnbull—and there are many others. As I have said before, it is a shame that these reforms were not undertaken by the previous Liberal government. It is a shame that these reforms were not undertaken earlier than that by the previous Labor government. From the time that homosexual relationships were regarded by society as respectable and legitimate, it ought always to have been the case that they were included in the suite of antidiscrimination laws. So I think both parties have been tardy with this, but I am glad to say in bipartisan fashion that this legislation will pass tonight.

Secondly, can I pay a particular tribute of regard to those on my side of politics who were deeply troubled and sceptical of some of these reforms because of their own conservative social views, held honourably and in good faith. If I may say through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, to Senator Brown: this is healing, ameliorative legislation. It is legislation to bind society together. It is legislation which will make Australia a more tolerant society. And, in coming to a consensus view, as this Senate in effect has, on the desirability of passing such legislation, it really does not do to spit in the face of those who have, in a spirit of great generosity, subordinated some of their own more conservative misgivings about the legislation, in order to make cheap partisan points. There are those on my side of politics, in particular many of my National Party colleagues like Senator Joyce and Senator Boswell, and others of my Liberal Party colleagues including Senator Ellison, Mr Morrison and Mr Andrews, to name a few, who have exhibited tremendous good faith and generosity in accepting that, in its amended form, this legislation is something that the non-Labor side of politics should support, albeit that they have had to set aside certain misgivings and to compromise their honourable conservatism in agreeing to bipartisanship on this issue. I think people who approach potentially controversial legislation with that spirit of generosity and goodwill deserve congratulations.

Finally, I will not disregard my own advice by making a party political point.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But you will.

George Brandis (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Attorney-General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, I won’t, Senator Wong. But let me state on the record that there were some who criticised the opposition for referring this legislation to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and who accused—quite wrongly—the opposition of engaging in delaying tactics. We now know that even the government accepts that the amendments that emerged from that committee’s inquiry were desirable amendments. I think no-one was more strident in their criticism of the opposition for referring this bill to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee than Dr John Challis, the convenor of the Comsuper Action Committee who represented public sector workers and was a witness at the hearings of the committee that subsequently took place. On 20 November I received an email from Dr Challis. In it, among other things, he said this:

Thank you for including the backdating amendments in the bill, which, as you will recall, I argued strongly for at the Senate inquiry mainly because of the then critical condition of my committee colleague—

and I will not mention the gentleman’s name—

Fortunately, his health has improved and he is elated by the passage of the bill.

Although at the time I was very critical of the opposition’s decision to refer the bills to a Senate inquiry, I have to agree with you that it did improve the bill and facilitated their passage through the Senate.

Warmest regards and thanks,

John Challis

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to make a brief contribution in this third reading debate on the Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—Superannuation) Bill 2008 in part to respond to Senator Bob Brown’s contribution. With the introduction and, hopefully, passage of this legislation—and subject to the House considering the amendments and requests that we passed today on the previous bill of this legislative package—this government delivers on a very clear election commitment. The terms of the election commitment were completely transparent to the Australian people when we went to the election. Our views on marriage were clear, and I have previously outlined our position in relation to marriage. We also said that we would remove discrimination from Commonwealth laws and seek to treat same-sex couples legally as heterosexual de facto couples were treated.

In terms of this legislation, let us understand how significant it is that the Commonwealth government has finally moved to do this. No government in Australia’s history has ever sought in this chamber to remove this discrimination. In fact, the last time I can recall Commonwealth legislation where these issues were dealt with was with the addition of sexual preferences as an additional ground of discrimination under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission regulations. Through you, Madam Acting Deputy President Troeth, I ask Senator Brown: when was that? Under a previous Labor government. I understand the position that Senator Brown puts but I would simply say that there are many in the Labor family who have spent much of their life regarding—and are here in this chamber because we do regard—equality of opportunity as an important principle. Whether we have pressed that on the basis of class or race or gender or, as now, sexual orientation, we do regard all these issues as important. Frankly, to have a suggestion that people who have pressed notions of equality on a whole range of fronts, most recently in terms of same-sex couples, are somehow beholden to what Senator Brown calls a ‘bigoted minority’ is a most unfair contribution.

I acknowledge there are differences of views in this chamber on these issues. Frankly, I think in large part the debate until now has demonstrated the capacity of individuals to recognise fundamentally the equality of other Australians. That has been the way in which the debate in this chamber has proceeded to date. We on this side welcome the passage of the package of bills. They deliver, on an important day for us, on a very important election commitment. Most importantly, they will deliver the sort of equality before the law that same-sex couples have never previously experienced.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.