Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to Senator Evans, the Minister representing the Prime Minister. Given that the Tasmanian House of Assembly has passed the Greens bill enabling equal access to marriage for same-sex couples, in the event of that legislation passing the upper house will the government rule out a High Court challenge to the validity of that law; and, further, will the government rule out any clarifying legislation that would seek to invalidate such state law?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Milne for her question. I suppose the first point to make is that I am not briefed as to the scenarios that the senator poses as to what possible responses we might have to a series of events. I can, though, say that the question of equal right to marry is the subject of, I think, four separate bills currently before the parliament. This government has undertaken to ensure that the parliament has the opportunity to debate one of those bills in both chambers. We want to give every parliamentarian the opportunity to have a say about this important public policy issue and we are facilitating that by allocating government legislation time and also seeking to have the Senate sit late next Tuesday evening to facilitate the participation of as many senators as want to take part in the debate. My expectation is that sometime next week both the House of Representatives and the Senate will vote on one of the bills currently before the parliament that seeks to give equal rights to gay and lesbian people to marry. So the parliament will get a chance to express its view on that issue in both chambers, which I think is appropriate given the public interest and debate around that. From the Labor point of view, we will be having a conscience vote on that. But I understand other parties—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on both sides! Senator Evans is entitled to be heard. Senator Milne is entitled to hear the answer.

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, the Labor Party members will be having a conscience vote on that issue. But in terms of expressing the view of the federal parliament, the parliament will get that opportunity next week.

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. I note the minister did not answer the question about whether we would have the government ruling out a High Court challenge or clarifying legislation, given that the move to debate it next week is to get it off the federal agenda—this is about state legal rights in terms of the Constitution. Can the government now tell us whether there is any legal advice from the Crown Solicitor or any other source regarding the legality of the Greens bills for marriage equality in state parliaments? If so, will the government now table that legal advice?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

(—) (): In answer to that question, Mr President, my first response to Senator Milne was to answer that question and say I did not have any advice on the scenario she painted. I do not have that advice, so I cannot respond to the various propositions that she has put. I did say how this government is intending to handle that matter and allow all parliamentarians the chance to make their views known. I am interested to know that the Greens are now wanting to argue a states rights proposition. The suggestion that this is designed to get the matter off the federal agenda is (1) wrong and (2) given that the Greens are sponsors of one or two of the bills currently before the parliament, a very odd position to take when we have been under pressure from the Greens to bring these debates on. So I do not quite understand the point the senator makes. (Time expired)

Christine Milne (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I would ask the minister to take on notice for the Prime Minister's office the question about the legal advice and to table any that there might be. Has the Prime Minister or her office had representations from ALP national executive member Joe de Bruyn regarding marriage equality? If so, what were those representations and what was the Prime Minister's response?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I am happy to seek advice from the Prime Minister's office as to the issues raised by the senator, but I do not think we will be tabling legal advice, if it exists, on the sort of scenario she paints. In relation to who the Prime Minister meets, including the Greens, the Prime Minister does not talk about that publicly. I would not have thought people would think that that would be a wise thing to say. In relation to Mr de Bruyn's views, he put those at the national conference. He put them very forcefully. That is the national conference of the Labor Party, which is open to all, which is conducted in public and which was attended by hundreds of media representatives. During that debate there were strong views put from both sides and, in the end, the party adopted a policy position that its members would have a conscience vote. That authorisation, or that policy, will be reflected in the parliament when we debate these matters next week.