Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. Has the High Court settled the question of whether the federal parliament can legislate with respect to the definition of marriage? Is a referendum necessary to give the federal parliament the power to legislate in respect of this matter?

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

The High Court has settled the matter. You will recall that in 2013 the ACT legislated for same-sex marriage. The Commonwealth took the ACT to the High Court because we took the view at the time that Australia's marriage laws ought to be uniform. We also took the view that the paramountcy of the Commonwealth's marriage power in section 51 of the Constitution needed to be protected. I am pleased to say that the High Court unanimously upheld the Commonwealth's position in that litigation, against the urgings of the then ACT government of the present Senator Gallagher. In the course of that judgement the High Court unanimously said that the federal parliament has legislative power to provide for marriage between persons of the same sex.

Senator Singh, you asked me about a referendum. Under our system, there is only one purpose for a referendum, and that is to amend the Constitution. That is what section 128 of the Constitution provides for. Were this parliament ever minded to legislate for same-sex marriage, the High Court has made it perfectly clear and unanimously clear that the marriage power in the Constitution in its current form would provide sufficient legislative power for a future parliament to do so.

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take your answer to indicate that a referendum is not necessary. Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. What would a referendum on the matter of marriage cost? Would funding be provided to proponents and opponents of the question asked of the Australian people? Would voting be compulsory?

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

I think questions of the cost of such an event are really best directed to the Special Minister of State, Senator Ronaldson. But Senator Singh I cannot imagine there being a referendum on this question because, as I indicated to you in my earlier answer, the Constitution is perfectly clear on this issue, the High Court has spoken unanimously, unambiguously and recently, and that is really the end of the matter. Whether or not parliament, in the future, decides to introduce same-sex marriage—which has been a topic of much discussion this week—is a matter for a future parliament.

Kim Carr (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He could answer a question for once!

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

Order! Senator Carr!

Lisa Singh (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. I refer to the Prime Minister's statement in May this year that:

I don't think anyone's suggesting that the Constitution needs to be changed in this respect.

And:

Plainly, this is a matter that could quite properly come before the Commonwealth Parliament if members of Parliament wanted it to be raised.

Was the Prime Minister right then, or is he right now?

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

I am not aware that the Prime Minister has said anything contradictory about this matter. In the statement you quote, the Prime Minister said that a referendum would not be necessary for the parliament to deal with this matter. That is correct. That is also my view, and this is not an area of legal doubt. I know there are some who are not lawyers who have commented on it, but this is not an area of legal doubt.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

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

Senator Carr!

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

This is a matter about which the coalition parties had a long discussion on Tuesday. We have settled a position. The Prime Minister gave a press conference at which he raised the possibility of a popular vote on the question in a future parliament. Because a constitutional amendment is entirely unnecessary to enable this parliament to deal with the matter, were there to be a popular vote, that plainly would be a plebiscite.