Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I seek leave to move a motion relating to discrimination in the Marriage Act.

Leave not granted.

Then, pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from moving a motion to provide for the consideration of a motion relating to discrimination in the Marriage Act 1961.

I would love to be standing up here today debating the issue of discrimination in marriage and taking a stand with the great majority of the Australian community that wants to see an end to discrimination in marriage rather than having a debate about the suspension of standing orders. I wish we had a public gallery packed to celebrate a rare moment of unity in this parliament, ending discrimination once and for all. Instead, we are here on the back of a decision by a Prime Minister who has once again failed to lead this country into the 21st century. The spectacle yesterday was shameful—a Prime Minister who, like a cornered alley cat, used every tactic in the book: he scratched, he fought, he stacked his party room with National Party MPs because he knew he was going to get rolled on this issue. He talks about it as a second-order issue, an issue that does not warrant dominating the political discourse in this parliament. And at the same time he says it is worthy of a plebiscite. Which is it, Prime Minister?

We know this is a rare opportunity to end the issue of discrimination once and for all. Think of the signal the Prime Minister's actions send to the young people right across this country who are being told: 'You are different. The love you have for another person is not the same as the love some other people have. The way you feel is not normal.' Is it any wonder that young people right across the country who are in a same-sex relationship have a greater rate of self-harm, higher rates of depression, higher rates of suicide? It is because of the symbol, the messages, the language that this parliament has used in squashing a debate that should be held about an end to discrimination against marriage between two people, regardless of their sex, regardless of their gender.

We saw a Prime Minister who failed to lead the nation into the 21st century. We saw a Prime Minister who was so desperate to use any tactic he could to stop this debate that he diminished his standing and the standing of this parliament. When the history of this parliament is written, yesterday will be one of its darkest days. We had everything pushing us towards a decision that would have ended the discrimination that exists towards people in this country. And there is never a place for discrimination, whether it is discrimination towards our Aboriginal brothers and sisters or discrimination towards people of different faiths or discrimination when it comes to the love two people have for each other. I say to the Prime Minister: you can stand there and obstruct this momentous change that will happen, but the tide of public opinion is overwhelming here. We will get this. This will be done. We will, at some time in the near future, be able to say to people right across the country: your love is no different to the love that many people right around the country are able to consolidate in marriage. We will offer you the respect that you deserve to be able to state clearly to each other and to the nation that your love is no different, that your love matters. That is what this debate is about. This debate is about whether we are, as a nation, prepared to say to people right across the country, 'No more will we tell you that your relationships don't matter, that they are abnormal and that there is something wrong with the feelings you have towards the people you love.' Is it any wonder that we have this epidemic of mental illness among those people who do nothing other than feel what all of us feel: love towards our fellow human beings? This Prime Minister has denied them that opportunity. It is to this parliament's great shame.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will not support this suspension motion. The government does not accept that there is discrimination in the Marriage Act 1961. The Liberal Party, the National Party and, indeed, the Australian parliament have a longstanding policy position in support of the current definition of marriage in the Marriage Act as a union between a man and a woman. Equally, the parliament over many years has worked very hard to remove all discrimination against couples of all make-ups, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual couples. Where there has been discrimination in the past, that discrimination has, appropriately, been removed in recent years. What is in the Marriage Act is a definition of what marriage is. It is a definition which, for time immemorial in our culture, has been understood to be a union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others with the intention to last for life. That is a position which has been the longstanding policy position of the coalition. But, as I have indicated, it has also been a longstanding position of this parliament. Indeed, when that policy position was formalised in the Marriage Act in 2004 it was done with bipartisan support. The Labor opposition at the time supported the initiative of the government at the time to formalise that particular position in the Marriage Act back in 2004 or thereabouts.

This is obviously a political exercise on the part of the Greens. I understand that. The government is not going to be a party to it this morning. We do understand that there are diverse views across the community in relation to this. We also know that in recent years this issue has come before the Senate on a number of occasions. I have been in the Senate now for just over eight years and I have already voted on this on at least two occasions that I can remember—probably more. On each occasion, the Senate has reconfirmed the position in support of the current definition of marriage as it is enshrined in the Marriage Act. I suspect that if the matter is dealt with in this parliament again, and the parliament again confirms that longstanding policy position, that will not prevent its coming back again in the next parliament. That is why, in our very good, very respectful and very constructive discussion in the party room yesterday, we came to the view that perhaps the best way to facilitate a more permanent resolution of this issue is to give the opportunity to the Australian people either in a plebiscite or in a referendum to pass judgement to resolve this question. That is a matter that the coalition will deal with in an orderly and methodical fashion between now and the next election and will determine a position on.

In the meantime, the coalition went to the last election—and, indeed, to every election since the definition of marriage was enshrined in the Marriage Act in 2004—promising to support that current definition. Yesterday we decided to keep faith with the commitment that we made to the Australian people. That is why for this term of parliament we will maintain the position as a policy. The effect of that means that, under the Westminster system, every member of the executive will have to support the formal position of the government. But we also understand that there might have to be an opportunity after the next election to resolve this on a more permanent basis by giving the opportunity to the Australian people to pass judgement on this question.

Today we obviously have some important business to conduct. We have the Medical Research Future Fund Bill 2015 to be dealt with. This is a very important initiative designed to boost important public investment in potentially life-changing medical research on a fiscally sustainable basis into the future. We ask the Senate respectfully that we get on with the business of the day and that the Senate not support the suspension motion initiated by Senator Di Natale.

Claire Moore (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Women) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor are not supporting this Greens motion this morning. We think it is a stunt in terms of getting some kind of political focus on an issue which we all agree is so important. There has never been any debate about the importance of this issue. As Senator Cormann has said, it has come before the Senate, and the Greens know that there is very strong support—and that there are different views—on this issue. We have a process in the parliament which allows due process to occur so that issues of importance can fit into the parliamentary schedule.

We have many ways of bringing forward these kinds of issues. The MPI process is one that is immediately available to anyone, any party in the Senate, to come forward and say they think that an issue is important and should be brought to the Senate. In fact this morning there was an opportunity for that, when both Labor and the Greens requested an MPI, which is standard practice. The Greens brought forward their request, which was around the emissions trading process and the environment. That is good. We came forward with an MPI on this issue of marriage equality, which we could have debated in this place as we always do, with opportunities for people to put their views and then a chance for the Senate to make a decision on what was put. However, by the nature of this morning's ballot, we lost. That happens. The Greens will have the opportunity this afternoon in the MPI debate to talk about this important issue. They have chosen to do otherwise. There are always other opportunities in this place. Private senators' business, where there are bills in front of the Senate on this particular issue, is another opportunity to bring forward this very important issue. But, no, the process that has been used this morning is without discussion, without awareness or sensitivity about how other people in this chamber feel about such an important issue.

We know there has been community pressure. We know there has been interest. But this has been done with no discussion, with none of the consultation that normally happens in this place when people are trying to put forward an issue that they feel is important. The way to do that is to seek the support of other senators to see what would be the best way to do it. That is how we operate. We negotiate, we consult, we share opinions and we come up with what would be the most effective way to have a debate, a discussion. Then there is the other method: to find out what is the most important way to bring people from the gallery into the chamber so that they can see what is happening down in the Senate, so people can have their photographs taken and be able to say, 'This is the way we feel and we are the only people who feel this strongly.' That is just not appropriate on such an important issue. The Greens can do that, and in fact they have, but the Labor Party will not support this methodology to bring forward a debate that could be had in another way—that must be had in another way, because this is an incredibly important issue for the Senate, for the parliament and for the community.

I do not want to see this portrayed as the Labor Party opposing any debate on discrimination in marriage—because that is what the Greens will be trying to do. They will try to say that we do not want to debate this issue. We have a clear record of debating this issue. We have strong views on the issue. We have come up with a policy position for the party. What we want to see, though, is for us, together in the Senate, to work through and engage in a process that allows the debate to occur in the appropriate way and to ensure that people are treated with respect. We want to ensure that this issue is not just turned into a sideshow to promote individual views about who is more powerful or who has a stronger position than anybody else in the debate. That is not how the Senate operates.

We will not support this. We want to have this discussion. Certainly we oppose any discrimination—we put that on record—but this is taking up more time of the Senate today, when we have a range of legislation in front of us which needs to be concluded. We are moving to make decisions on that. We have allocated time in the Senate to do our business. Let's not divert so you can get a cheap headline.

Matthew Canavan (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join Senator Moore in opposing this motion, I thank Senator Moore for the respect she has shown for different views in her contribution and I reaffirm that I very much respect the different views that are brought to this issue. There are different views, as is known, in our Nationals party room, in the Liberal party room and in the coalition party room; and there are different views in the Labor party room as well. I respect all of those views and yesterday we had a very respectful and very reasoned discussion in our party room about these issues. It is absolutely within the right of the Nationals party room, the Liberal party room and the joint coalition party room to come to a party position on any issue, and this issue as well, just as it is the right of the Labor Party caucus to come to its position on this issue and just as it is the right of the Greens party room to do the same. I do respect that diversity of views and I think we should celebrate that diversity of views in our parliament and in our community. That is what we come together to debate. We should have a respectful debate with a diversity of views that we come here to resolve—not through political stunts but through the debating of legislation and, as Senator Moore said, proper process.

I think it is extremely unfortunate that there are one group in this parliament who do not respect that diversity of views. There are one group who preach diversity constantly and always talk about how they want to celebrate diversity but, in fact, are the pillars of uniformity. They are the defenders of uniformity and oppression of different views. They do not really celebrate diversity; they do not really respect different views; they want everybody to only come up with their view—and, if you do not share their view, you are evil, you are terrible and you should be ostracised. That is not the kind of parliament that I want to be part of. That is not the kind of debate that I want to be involved in.

Look at the Greens party—look at them. They just reek diversity, don't they, Senator O'Sullivan? They absolutely reek it. They are a diverse party unit with different views. They are sanctimoniously saying that our party should have a conscience vote on this issue. When have the Greens ever had a conscience vote? They always vote as one. They vote as a block; they vote always as one. It is a remarkable thing that the Greens all have the same views. We had a six-hour party room debate on this issue yesterday, with very different views and very reasonable contributions. I hazard a guess that the Greens would never have a six-hour party room meeting, because they all agree with each other. A party room meeting for the Greens would be, 'What are your thoughts, Richard?' 'What are your thoughts, Larissa?' 'Yes, I agree;' 'I agree;' 'I agree—done. We can all go home.' That would be a good party room—'We can all go to the pub early.'

Yesterday, The Australian reported not on this issue but on climate change. The Greens discussed the government's target on climate change, which was also announced yesterday, and surprise, surprise! According to the report:

The Greens party room also discussed the government's target. The party's MPs agreed it was "an all-around science fail"—

Surprise, surprise!

and they "all nodded vigorously", a senior source said.

They all nodded vigorously. They are a party of nodders; they nod over everything. They do not ever disagree. There is never any debate in the Greens; they all agree, and I think that is an unfortunate thing because it is a great thing that we can come together with different views and celebrate that diversity of views.

This issue is not going to be resolved today after the Greens' stunt, but this issue, hopefully, will be resolved with a respectful debate in our community—hopefully with a people's vote, because I think this is something that people are very passionate about, and it should be decided by the people. If we are going to have it decided by the people we need to have a respectful debate. We need to have a debate where other people's views are not oppressed and they are not ostracised. All of us need to be allowed to come to a view with our own personal experience, and let the community decide it. In my view, there is a certain level of oppression of views on this issue. It is an unfortunate tendency by some. I hope that in the years and months ahead we can have a respectful debate, and we can have the Australian people decide it and this issue can be resolved one way or another.

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is very important that we are discussing this issue today. It is why the Greens have moved this motion, because every day we delay ending discrimination in marriage is a day that thousands of Australians around Australia are suffering that discrimination. There is no doubt that the existing Marriage Act is discriminatory. It needs to be changed, and the majority of the Australian population support that change.

Yesterday was a very sad day in Australian politics when the Liberal and National parties decided to deny their members of parliament a free vote on this issue, an issue of conscience. The Greens have a free vote on this, but we agree—every Greens MP, in every vote, in every parliament, every time—and we recognise that the issue of allowing equal marriage is an issue of human rights; it is an issue of ending discrimination; it is an issue of ensuring fair treatment of all Australians.

I am proud to stand in this place and represent lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people. The discrimination that LGBTIQ people face in their everyday lives is real and confronting, and every day that we have institutionalised discrimination against them by not having equal marriage is a day that that discrimination—the hurt and their feeling of being considered different from the rest of the community—is real. Every day that we delay is a day that there is further suffering. Every day that we delay is a day that Australia is still lagging behind the rest of the world in recognising this as an issue of discrimination, an issue of fair treatment, an issue of allowing love to prevail so that people can feel that they are being treated the same as other Australians and have the freedom to love the person they love—to marry the person they love.

I feel that I am in a very special place, in a same-sex partnership, and in one of the very few marriages in Australia legally recognised in Australia as a same-sex couple. I want other Australian couples—other lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex couples—to be able to share that right, to be able to share their love, to be able to declare their love in front of their friends and their family in their community, and to be able to say, 'Our love is equal to everybody else's.'

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But you don't want anyone else's views expressed, just your own.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order on my right!

Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is affecting thousands of Australians. In the year that I have been in the Senate I have had hundreds of people supporting our position of standing up for their rights. It affects young people; it affects old people. Just this morning there was an older man, Gerard—a 62-year-old man—who rang ABC radio in Melbourne, in tears, because he was so upset about this further delay. He is not in good health, and he is worried that he is going to die before he is going to have a chance to marry his partner, the man that he loves. You think of people like Gerard—there are people like Gerard all around the country who are being denied the ability to have their human rights accepted and their love accepted like everybody else in Australia.

There is a young friend of mine who has just got engaged to his bloke. They looked so happy. In the photos I saw of them they looked radiant. He was hoping to be able to set a marriage date so that they could be married in front of their friends and family and have that celebrated and supported by the community. Yesterday's decision would have been an absolutely tragic blow to him. The other thing happening is that people like my friend are likely to go off to New Zealand to get married before the end of the year. We are losing so much. It is a ridiculous situation for us to be in, here in Australia, when every other English-speaking country in the world accepts equal marriage. We are the laggards. We are being left behind.

But it is a matter of time. We know that love will prevail; we know that love will win out. We will have equal marriage in Australia. The sooner it happens, and the sooner this parliament catches up, the better a country we will be.

Doug Cameron (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Human Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I oppose this motion by the Greens. It is nothing more than a stunt. The Labor Party was clearly of the view that we wanted this issue debated. We do believe that this is a very important issue for debate in this parliament. But to progress this we need to get as much consensus across this parliament as we possibly can. You do not get consensus by pulling stunts. You do not get consensus by taking a position that you think will benefit the individual party—the Greens party against other parties and individuals in this parliament. You do not get that consensus by doing that. This is nothing more than a stunt.

I am really angry that we have a position that the Greens do not understand. We do not have, as Senator Di Natale says, a rare opportunity to end discrimination at the moment. You only have to look at what happened yesterday to know that this parliament is not in that position of having a rare opportunity to end discrimination. There is huge division on this issue. It will mean more work from those of us who want to end discrimination—more of working collectively to try to bring about change in this country—change that is long overdue, change that is important and change that gives everyone the same rights. Pulling stunts to try to get publicity for the Greens at the expense of others who strongly support the same endgame is nothing more than an immature gimmick. It is not acceptable for that behaviour to continue.

I expected more from the leader of the Greens, Senator Di Natale. When he took the leadership, he said he wanted the Greens to be a mainstream party. If you are going to be a mainstream party, Senator Di Natale, you have to work within the mainstream. You do not have to be out there on your own pulling stunts every chance you get. You are continuing to pull stunts at the expense of good policy. That is what you are about today. You said you are not an ideologue. Well, here is an ideological position that you are taking up that is against getting a result. So you failed two of the tests that you set for yourself when you became the leader of the party. I hope you do better, but you are not doing too well today. All you are doing is isolating an opportunity to try to work together to make sure that we get a position of fairness and equity in this country for everyone else.

I also want to talk about Senator Canavan's contribution. He was talking about respect. I have to tell you that I have no respect for Senator Canavan's contribution—absolutely none. I have no respect for people who would stand up publicly and who would, within this parliament, deny people their equal rights in this country. I have absolutely no respect for that. People are entitled to have a view, but it does not mean to say that I have to respect a wrong view. It does not mean that I have to respect a view that is absolutely unacceptable to the majority of Australians—a view based on discrimination, a view based on old-fashioned ideas that are really in the thirties and not now. I do not support any argument that this is about respect and respecting each other's view. We know this is not about respectful debate. We know what the Prime Minister did yesterday. He got the most conservative group in the parliament to make sure his numbers were shored up within the Liberal Party. He was not even confident that he would have the numbers within the Liberal Party on this issue. We want to work with those people of goodwill, with those people of common sense within the coalition who know the time has come for marriage equality. But you will not do it by pulling stunts, you will not do it by ideology and you will not do it by putting your party before the issue. (Time expired)

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Leyonhjelm, you have 44 seconds.

David Leyonhjelm (NSW, Liberal Democratic Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not deny this is a stunt, but there are plenty of stunts in this place. I support freedom to marry, because I believe people should have the freedom to choose their own life paths—pretty much what Mr Abbott said in his first speech. I am not gay and I do not have much interest in marriage but I strongly believe there are matters that are not suitable for government intervention, and this is one of them. It is not a matter of equality or discrimination, it is a matter of getting the government out of your bedroom. If Mr Abbott and his representatives should decide that their own party members cannot use their own minds on this, then my party will welcome you. There is another name for liberalism.

Stephen Parry (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The question is that the motion moved by Senator Di Natale be agreed to.