Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The President has received the following letter from Senator Moore:

Pursuant to standing order 75, I propose that the following matter of public importance be submitted to the Senate for discussion:

The Prime Minister's failure of leadership on marriage equality.

Is the proposal supported?

More than the number of senators required by the standing orders having risen in their places—

I understand that informal arrangements have been made to allocate specific times to each of the speakers in today's debate. With the concurrence of the Senate, I shall ask the clerks to set the clock accordingly.

Katy Gallagher (ACT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Here we are, today, the Monday after the week that was—the week that broke the figurative Liberal Party camel's back—and what a spectacle it has been since then. What we have seen is a government that prioritises political strategy over equality amongst Australians.

In my short time in this place the issue that Canberrans have written most to me about is marriage equality. I am well aware that there are a range of views in the community about marriage equality; however, there is no escaping that the strong majority of Australians support this reform and want to see it dealt with as quickly as possible. I have received letters from advocates on both sides of the debate but the overwhelming majority have been in support of this change. I have said before that the community view has changed faster than our parliaments have been able to respond—and this is something we have seen over a number of years across all state and territory jurisdictions and indeed in the federal parliament.

So let's look back at how the week evolved. It started with a surprise announcement in the coalition party room last Tuesday, where Warren Entsch said he would launch a co-sponsored bill for introduction that would create marriage equality in Australia—a positive step, many would say. A six-hour party-room meeting was called and held, where the Leader of the Government in the House, Christopher Pyne, accused the Prime Minister of branch stacking the meeting to prevent a free vote from being supported. The Prime Minister's strategy against equality prevails; one-third of the coalition party room voted in favour of a free vote but, unfortunately, two-thirds voted to bind others against equality. Ministers and backbenchers then took up open warfare against each other in the media in the following days over the appropriateness of what had happened and also the debate over whether a referendum or a plebiscite should be held. This bickering continued over the weekend and continues into this week. It has been astonishing to see one minister on one TV channel openly arguing for one position and then turn the channel and see another minister rebuking and lecturing that minister with a different position being put forward.

Despite all this division, and through all this internal turbulence, sanity prevailed and the cross-party bill on marriage equality was introduced to the House this morning. It is sad to note, though, that this bill appears to have already met its fate on the floor of the House. So what we have seen is one full week of open warfare among coalition members. The coalition has taken its eye off the ball. The government has shown that it is more focused on itself and on preventing individuals within the cabinet or the wider party from getting their way than on what the general population, the majority of this country, are expecting from their elected representatives.

The PM, through this, has consistently shown a reluctance or a refusal to see the marriage equality debate progress in this country. We have all known for a long time Mr Abbott's personal views around marriage equality and his staunch opposition to it. His position is disappointing. However, the Prime Minister, like all of us here, has the right to hold an opinion. The problem is that the Prime Minister, the leader of the country, refuses to see past his own personal view to let the majority view of Australians prevail. Last week's coalition party-room meeting was an opportunity for the Prime Minister to show leadership and show that he was a leader for all Australians. By allowing the debate to be held, respectful of all members and senators views, he could have taken an inclusive approach instead of the divisive one that was allowed to leave the party room meeting that day.

The reason I speak on marriage equality so often—and I think it is one thing that can get lost as politicians argue, delay and seek to run interference—is that the marriage equality debate is all about people; it is about families that you and I know; it is about loved ones that we share meals with; it is about children who go to school with our children. I do read all the emails that come into my Parliament House account on any issue—I make sure that I do. One email that arrived on Thursday evening was titled 'Heartbroken Australian', and I would like to read a bit from Lucas's story; he shared it with a number of politicians in the parliament on Thursday night. He said:

I, like millions of other Australians, was on Tuesday eagerly awaiting the decision of the coalition party-room whether to finally and consciously settle the issue of same-sex marriage before parliament. I have been checking Twitter every few minutes, trying to cling onto hope and optimism that the leaders of our country would put aside their personal views to allow the majority of leaders in parliament to reach a consensus. And then my world came crashing down. I phoned my mother, who is an elderly lady from a non-English-speaking background. I did not think she was even aware of the same-sex marriage debate. But as soon as I said, 'The vote has not been successful,' she began to cry. Despite my parents' reservations about me coming out as gay 15 years ago, they have always loved and supported me and my partner. They have always wanted me to be happy. But being treated by the members of this parliament as a perceived threat cannot be easily borne.

I then had a look at Facebook and was immediately confronted with dozens of photos from a friend's wedding on the weekend. This was further heartbreaking and distressing. Seeing the couple's sheer joy and ability to declare their love and commitment in front of family, friends and the law was a profoundly beautiful expression for them but a reminder that I and my relationship are somehow innately not worthy. The groom and bride even made a point to approach my partner and apologise for the celebrant's inclusion of the words defining marriage as a union between a man and woman. However, I am well aware that this is a legal requirement imposed by our parliament. My partner and I are both highly educated and contributing members to Australian society. He is a doctor and I hold a master's degree. We go to work, pay our taxes, contribute to the economy, socialise with friends and enjoy good coffee. Never until this day had I felt like a second-class citizen and someone whom my country, Australia, does not want. I am left to wonder: where does that leave gay and lesbian fellow Australians?

The talk about a referendum and plebiscite cannot be seen as anything but a further attempt to delay any progress on this issue. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman was imposed by parliament without asking the people, and rightly needs to be changed by parliament. The issue has been settled in almost every western developed country. Indeed, Australia and Northern Ireland are, embarrassingly, the last English speaking countries that have not recognised same-sex marriage. I used to be in favour of a plebiscite, but now I am scared about the impact of another prolonged debate as I can only see it bringing out the worst in people. The accusations, suspicions, labels and taunts are often unbearable—even when not front and centre of speeches by our respected leaders. Yes, LGBTI identifying people are a minority in Australia, but this issue presents a momentous opportunity for 'Team Australia' to stand up and respect and recognise the rights and dignities of all Australians. Same-sex marriage—or just 'marriage' as it is now called in most western countries—will not fundamentally change anything for opposite sex couples but it will be a life-changing affirmation and expression of love for same-sex couples who call Australia home. We are your family, friends and colleagues, and I want to stand shoulder to shoulder as equals with my heterosexual friends. I still hold out hope that love for fellow people will prevail.

That was Lucas Segu, who is a fellow Canberran. In a very personal and touching way, it really sums up just how hurtful some of the decisions that were taken last week were for everyday Australians. I thank Lucas for sharing it, because putting the person in front of the politics often helps to explain to others just how words and positions translate to people living in Australia—particularly on this issue—and how hurtful they can be.

The MPI today relates to a failure of leadership on marriage equality. No-one was asking the Prime Minister to change his views on marriage equality; nobody expected him to. But I think a lot of people around the country thought that the Prime Minister could, and should, have allowed, navigated and promoted a way for the debate to actually occur. It is funny how there are a whole lot of decisions that do not require plebiscites or referendums that occur in this place and how there are many decisions that have far-reaching impacts on people's lives, but, all of a sudden, we come to a crossroads. The polls are very clear: almost 70 per cent of Australians support ending discrimination for people in same-sex relationships.

The Prime Minister last week had an excellent opportunity to stand up and show that he governs for all Australians, even if he does not agree and does not have to personally vote in a way that would end discrimination against same-sex couples. He failed to meet that test. I think that sums up, really, the Prime Minister and the government we have—they are out of touch, are arrogant and will do anything to stop losing a debate they do not want to lose.

David Fawcett (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on this matter of public importance. I notice that the focus of the MPI is on leadership. I think it is important to understand what good leadership is about. At its heart, good leadership is about integrity. One of the things that I think this Prime Minister has demonstrated in this issue is that he has maintained the integrity of the position he took to the Australian people prior to the last election. In fact, he came out and made a very specific statement prior to the last election that, were this issue to be raised during the life of this parliament, he would bring it to the coalition party room to be dealt with in the normal manner. That is exactly what he has done. If there is one thing that you look for in a leader—I speak as someone who has served in the military for a couple of decades—it is integrity and consistency. That is what the Prime Minister has shown here.

The senator opposite was talking about things that are important and about the community asking us to deal with things that are important. I go to a number of opinion polls that have been conducted by various polling groups around the country. They clearly show that the issue of same-sex marriage is not a first-order issue for the vast majority of Australians. They are concerned to have a government that will deal with the economy, the creation of jobs and opportunity, and national security—whether that be securing our borders or dealing with the foreign fighter threat, dealing with the terrorist threat and countering violent extremism. They are concerned about things like the environment and having emissions targets in place that are effective and also will not cripple the economy by causing disincentives to people investing and employing—and, in fact, things that destroy jobs and shift manufacturing and other things that create emissions offshore in places where there will be much worse outcomes. In this Prime Minister I see leadership both in terms of this issue—in being consistent and maintaining faith with his promise to the Australian people—and also in terms of providing very clear direction and leadership and, most importantly, achieving outcomes with the things that the Australian people have consistently rated as the top priorities that they want the government to be focusing on.

The senator opposite complained that the Prime Minister had not been inclusive. The very fact that he had promised to take this issue to the coalition party room, maintained faith with that promise and included those people in what was a very lengthy but robust and respectful debate indicates that he was prepared to be inclusive of all the people whom he had said, in this first step, he would engage with in that process. What is important here is that he listened to that—as any good leader should. He is often criticised for making decisions without adequate consultation. Now that he has put in place a process whereby he has consulted and listened to the members of the coalition party room—which is exactly what he promised he would do—he is now being criticised for listening and not taking decisions off his own bat. As a result of that listening, he has indicated that he will include not only the coalition party room but the broader Australian society.

Going down the path of having a plebiscite means that people will have their say. It is instructive and important, I think, to look at what a plebiscite means. If you go to the commentary that the Australian Parliamentary Education Office have on their website, they call it an 'advisory referendum' as an alternative name to a plebiscite because it does not change the Constitution. There have only been three previously. Importantly, the PEO identified that there are no specific rules around a plebiscite. In fact, in the act that the government puts in place, it will set the rules for the plebiscite. It is important that, when those rules are set, we do have a plebiscite that is compulsory and is also one that will be binding. It being compulsory is important because that means we will avoid the situation that occurred in Ireland, where we saw a massive investment of funding from an individual in America to target and influence an active group within the Irish society so that they became the majority of those who did turn out to vote, even though the actual turnout was only around half the society in Ireland. If we are going to get a true reflection of the views of the Australian people, then that does need to be a process that all Australians are involved with.

The binding side of it is also important. The Prime Minister indicated in a couple of the media interviews he has done recently that he would be looking for a process where the parliament would be bound by the outcome of that plebiscite. That is important, because this parliament has decided. There have been several votes on the issue of same-sex marriage, and they have been defeated. But those who are actively pursuing this have not accepted that and keep bringing back more proposals. If the people speak with a voice to say that they support it, it should be binding; it should go through. But if they speak with a voice that says it is not supported, then, equally, the parliament should listen, and that should be the end of the story. There should be no more bills coming through the parliament seeking to overturn a binding plebiscite that the people of Australia have put forward.

The leadership this Prime Minister has shown is consistent. It has kept faith with what he promised to the Australian people before the election, not only on this issue but, most importantly, on that list of issues that people have consistently identified in polling as being important to them, such as the economy. Growth of the Australian economy is equally as good as, if not better than, that in most developed countries at the moment. The rate of jobs growth in the last measured period is 10 times greater than it was for the same period under the previous government. Australia is generating more jobs and is well on track to achieving the one million jobs in five years that the Prime Minister promised prior to the last election. I will note that the one exception to that is my home state of South Australia, where we are in dire circumstances because of the consistent decisions in nearly 14 years of a Labor government that have destroyed the environment that gives employers and businesses confidence to invest and grow and employ.

The Prime Minister has met the commitments we made prior to the election to restore security to Australia's borders, despite the last government, which opened the borders, saw over 1,000 people drown, saw 50,000 people come here and, importantly, went from having no children in detention when it came to power to having over 1,900 in detention in July 2013. This government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, has stopped the boats coming and, importantly, has also stopped people drowning and reduced the number of children in detention to under 120 on the last figures I saw. That is a significant outcome, delivered through the leadership of this Prime Minister from both a national security and a humanitarian perspective. People should never forget that he achieved, with his team and with the same departments and the same resources that were available to those opposite, an outcome they said could never be achieved.

In terms of national security, we saw $21 billion either deferred or taken completely out of the Defence budget; we saw no decisions taken to contract new shipbuilding. In fact, regarding the one decision that was taken—to buy a large ship—members opposite bought a second-hand ship from the UK. In the one decision that was taken to build vessels, they sent the contract for 12 smaller vessels to Spain. When industry came to the members opposite with an unsolicited proposal to build the future supply ships, they did nothing. And they now have the hide to say that they did not have to take a decision, because the shipyards were working at capacity under them. Well, they were working at capacity because of the leadership of the Howard government, which signed the contracts for the LHD and the AWD. And in the future they will be working because of the leadership and commitment of this government to bring forward future shipbuilding programs to give Australia and Australians a secure future.

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

The Prime Minister is stubbornly refusing to listen to the Australian people on this important issue of equality and ending discrimination. As a result, it is our friends and neighbours, our brothers and sisters, our colleagues at work—even the Prime Minister's own sister—who are suffering. Around Australia, there are loving couples who want to show their commitment to each other in front of their family, their friends and the law and to take part in our society's rituals and celebrations, but they are being denied that right because of who they love. Last week the Prime Minister had the chance to change that. Instead, we saw a six-hour meeting that achieved nothing other than dividing his own party room. What a show of leadership!

The opinion poll that came out today reinforced what we know: that over two-thirds of Australians recognise that a couple should be given the opportunity to marry, to declare their love for each other, regardless of their gender or sexuality. The Prime Minister is out of touch with this majority, and he is trying every trick in the book to delay the inevitable change. We will see marriage equality in Australia, and we will see it sooner rather than later. On marriage equality we are lagging behind our peers in the world who have recognised it: the UK, New Zealand, Ireland and, most recently, the United States. However, we have the Prime Minister wanting to drag us further behind the rest of the world. And every day that we delay, Australian couples are waiting for this discrimination to end. We have to act now.

In terms of leadership, we have so many options up in the air at the moment, from a referendum to plebiscites—after the election, at the election, before the election. Who knows the meaning of these plebiscites. A referendum is a ridiculous idea. A referendum would require a majority of states, a majority of people—

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

To change the Constitution when the Constitution—

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, a point of order: I think Senator Rice should be allowed to be heard in silence, as we have listened on this side to previous speaker, from the government.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Moore. I remind senators on my right that other senators will be heard in silence.

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

A referendum is unnecessary. We do not need a referendum to change the Constitution, which clearly states that it is in the power of this parliament to decide on marriage. A plebiscite will tell us what we already know—that the vast majority of Australians want marriage equality. But, if it comes to a plebiscite, we must not prolong the process. Some plebiscites can take years, which will give a microphone to the more homophobic elements of our society and take a really heavy toll on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians and their families. If we are going to have a plebiscite, it must be held as soon as possible, no later than at the coming federal election, and the wording has to be owned by the parliament. It must not have the opportunity to be left to another of the Prime Minister's disastrous captain's picks.

We have the opportunity to end discrimination and to legislate for marriage equality in this parliament. It is up to this parliament. We are in this place to represent Australian people. The easiest and most straightforward way is to allow the cross-party bill which is currently in the House of Representatives to be debated in the House of Representatives and for the members of the Liberal Party to be given a conscience vote, a free vote, so that they can be listening to their constituents and voting according to their conscience. We should be allowing legislation to be debated similarly in the Senate. Every day that the Prime Minister delays this is another day that the discrimination against LGBTIQ people, and their families, in Australia continues.

Last week I raised in question time the story of 62-year-old Gerard, who is despairing that he may never get the opportunity to marry his long-term male partner, the love of his life. But, symptomatic of this government, the Minister representing the Prime Minister completely ignored my question, just like this government is ignoring the Australian people. Today I received a message from Gerard. He thanked me, saying, 'It's typical of the parliament that you didn't get an answer, but you did persevere, and I am so grateful for this.' There are thousands of people just like Gerard around the country, and the Prime Minister is failing them. But, despite the best efforts of the Prime Minister, the Greens will continue to stand— (Time expired)

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak on the matter of public importance:

The Prime Minister's failure of leadership on marriage equality.

We have already heard in Senator Fawcett's contribution on this matter how difficult it was for him to support his Prime Minister on this matter, because he talked about a lot of things, but I did not hear marriage equality being one of the things that the Prime Minister has led on. We only have to look at Mr Abbott's own words to see that this motion is supported on the fact that there has been no leadership from the Prime Minister on marriage equality.

After last week's marathon six-hour joint party room meeting on marriage equality, the Prime Minister stood before the press and announced:

As a result of the discussion in the party room …

I've come to the view - I believe this is the party room view - that this is the last term in which the Coalition party room can be bound, although we will definitely maintain the current position for the life of this term.

Going into the next election, we will finalise another position. The disposition of the party room this evening is that our position going into the next election should be that, in a subsequent term of Parliament, this is a matter that should rightly be put to the Australian people.

What a lot of gobbledegook. That is the kind of failed leadership we have come to expect from Mr Abbott on this issue. Under Mr Abbott the government policy could currently be best described as 'something else at some time in the near future'. Mr Abbott's recent actions have once again shown that he is the biggest barrier to marriage equality in Australia. It seems that every day is Throwback Thursday for Mr Abbott, as he clings to an outdated policy driven by his own out-of-step ideology.

The community have made it clear that marriage equality is something that they want. We have seen again today polling that overwhelmingly supports marriage equality. That has not just been in 2015. The results that we see in the paper today go back to 2010. The support for marriage equality in the community is growing. It will continue to grow regardless of the tactics by the Prime Minister to delay a vote on marriage equality in the parliament. With young people aged 18 to 24, the support is at 88 per cent. As I understand it, even a majority of Mr Abbott's own front bench support a conscience vote on this issue.

Clearly, marriage equality is an issue that should be dealt with by the parliament. In fact, the High Court has made it clear that this is an issue for the Commonwealth parliament. However, if Mr Abbott is so adamant that he wants the people to vote on this issue then let them. Let the people vote, and let the people vote now. Mr Abbott's political ineptitude and dogmatic ideology have fractured his own party, with senior cabinet members duking it out on the airwaves to shape the government's future policy on marriage equality. And do you know why they are doing that? It is because they do not trust him, so they are out there trying to put their view first before Mr Abbott decides what it is for them.

We have heard repeated calls from the self-appointed leader in waiting, Mr Morrison, suggesting we need a referendum on the issue of marriage equality. That is nothing but a political ploy to delay the momentum for equality. The Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, conceded as much in this chamber. Senator Brandis agreed with Labor that the High Court has ruled that the Commonwealth parliament has the power to legislate for same-sex marriage when he said:

I can't imagine there being a referendum question on this issue because, as I indicated … on this issue, the Constitution is perfectly clear.

He said:

… the High Court has spoken unanimously, unambiguously and recently, and this is really the end of the matter.

A public vote on this issue would run the real risk of being a taxpayer funded campaign for discrimination. Tony Abbott has the ability to lead a respectful debate in the parliament, but he has chosen the path of division and delay. If the Prime Minister cannot step up, if he cannot be the leader to this nation on this issue, the very best— (Time expired)

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

On this matter of public importance, I want to note up-front that this is a very personal and very heartfelt question for many people. I want to start by quoting someone else, someone who a few years ago said: 'On the issue of marriage, I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious and historical view around that which we have to respect. I do respect the fact that's how people view the institution.' That was a quote from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Penny Wong, in July 2010, defending her then position in favour of traditional marriage. I do not begrudge anyone the right to change their view, after consideration, and obviously Senator Wong did that in the intervening five-year period. But she had a different view five years ago, and I still have a view—I have not changed my view over that period—in support of keeping the current definition of marriage. I respect other views. I am not going to try and make any comment on the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, but I do note that, from senators opposite, sometimes I do not feel that respect coming through in their contributions in this chamber on this debate, including from some senators who have changed their views in very short spaces of time. There is almost this view that it is a moral issue, that you must be immoral if you hold a different view, that you must be cast out if you do not agree with their view, when only a few years ago they held the very same view as me. That to me seems anomalous and something that cannot be held up to right and proper scrutiny in this debate.

I would also say that there are still Labor senators who support traditional marriage, and I speak to some of them sometimes. Sometimes they freely admit that they continue to support traditional marriage, except you would never hear them say that in this chamber.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're not allowed to speak.

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

Senator Bernardi is right. They are not allowed to speak. We hear from the other side that they do support, at the moment, a free vote, but where are the other speakers for this side of the debate from the Labor Party on this issue? I would suggest that they are silenced by the Labor Party; they are not allowed to have their voice.

When you look at the position the Labor Party adopted at their recent convention, they are not showing any clarity over what their view is on this issue, because their position at the moment is that the Labor Party will have a free vote until the next election and then, after the next election, their members will be bound to support their party's policy in favour of a change to the Marriage Act.

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

How does that work?

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

Through you, Chair, to Senator O'Sullivan: I do not know how it works, because they come in here and call on us to adopt a free-vote policy but their free-vote policy has a time limit on it and then they will adopt a binding vote after that. So I am not exactly sure where their criticism is coming from for our position of maintaining a party policy on this issue.

I noted that the first speaker on this MPI today was Senator Gallagher. I was not here for her contribution, unfortunately. But a few months ago she very succinctly summarised the dichotomous view here of the Labor Party. She was asked in a press conference a few months ago, 'Do you support a conscience vote in the Labor Party on this issue?' Senator Gallagher in response said, 'Well, I do. I do support a conscience vote.' Later on in the very same interview, she said, 'Myself—I do support a binding vote in the party.' Then she was asked the logical question after those two seemingly contradictory positions: 'Are you saying you support a binding vote or a conscience vote within the Labor Party?' Senator Gallagher said, 'Well, I support both.' I do not know. I am not getting any clarity from that position, but that is actually the Labor Party's position right now. Senator Gallagher was criticised quite strongly for it at the time, but that is what the Labor Party actually ended up adopting at their conference only a few months ago.

What the coalition adopted last week was to maintain our party position, which has been a position for some time, in support of a view that marriage is between a man and a woman, as it has been for centuries. That is how we believe it should be defined and remain defined. We do have different views in our respective political parties, the Liberal and National parties, and I have no problems with that whatsoever. It is a great thing. We should celebrate the fact that there are different views from time to time. But of course it is also the case that in our party it is the proper jurisdiction and power of the party room to establish the policy of the party room. There was a lengthy debate last week, where every member got to speak. This is an important issue, in my view. Everyone was allowed to make their contribution. At the end of it, the clear majority was in favour of maintaining our party policy position. I actually think that there should be great respect given to our Prime Minister because he gave that time of his—it was about six hours—to hear all of his party members' views and then respected the views that were in the party room and they were adopted as the party room's policy.

We have also said that there should be a people's vote after the next election on this issue. It is really important—it is such a significant issue—that we should be deliberative about this change. It is not something we should rush into. We hear from the other side that this is just delaying and it is taking too much time. Every culture known to man has had a position that marriage is between a man and a woman, for more than five centuries—and apparently taking five years to make a change to our Marriage Act is too long. I reject that view. I think the Marriage Act is very important and the definition of marriage is extremely important. I believe the nurturing of a child in a relationship between a married mother and father is the best outcome, the ideal outcome, for a child. Notwithstanding that there are other very, very good parents, the ideal outcome is to have the biological mother and father remain married and provide the care for that child. That is not something I believe from any religious or personal view; it is something I believe from a very extensive and clear-sighted look at the literature in this area. The technical literature in this area is very, very clear: the best outcome for a child's development is to be nurtured by a mother and a father who remain married.

In my view, that is one of the key reasons why this institution has evolved. We come into this place sometimes and think we know what is best for humanity and the world, without due respect for the institutions that have evolved over time in our human culture to properly reflect the problems of humanity. This institution is something that has evolved over decades and centuries to form around the relationship of a man and a woman. I believe it has been formed for one very clear reason: while it is the right and proper institution for children to be raised today, it was the right and proper institution for children to be raised five centuries ago as well. That is why it has been adopted. We should be very careful before we tinker with an institution that has lasted the test of time. I believe it is right to allow the Australian people to make that choice after a lengthy and considered debate.

Glenn Lazarus (Queensland, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Tony Abbott's approach to marriage equality is nothing short of embarrassing and out of step with the views of the Australian people. In fact, I am embarrassed by the way Tony Abbott is behaving and I think he should be sin-binned from parliament until the issue is resolved. Not only is he failing to show leadership; he is making a shameful mess of a very serious issue which needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency. The people of Australia are being affected and our international reputation is being further trashed as a result of the Abbott government's stupid actions. This is why I want same-sex marriage to be taken out of the government's hands and put to the Australian people in the form of a plebiscite, so the people can vote on this issue. While not everyone is in favour of a plebiscite, at least this process will ensure the people of Australia are directly involved in the resolution of this important matter.

Marriage inequality only does one thing: it fosters discrimination across all areas of our community and promotes discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. Discrimination of any type is not acceptable. My sport of rugby league was the first national sporting code in Australia to embrace marriage equality. We in rugby league understand the importance of marriage equality. We understand that marriage is about love and not gender. We understand that marriage equality is about human rights. We understand that everyone deserves the right to marry, enjoy the benefits of marriage and experience true inclusiveness, which we know provides important social and cultural benefits. Together with the Greens and other crossbenchers, I am sponsoring a bill which will be introduced in the Senate in the near future to force the government to undertake a plebiscite at the next federal election. I want marriage equality to become reality in Australia, as do most Australians.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to start by sharing with you the story of Sandra Yates and Lee Bransden from Devonport in my home region of north-west Tasmania. They first met about 30 years ago when Sandra volunteered to pick apples in an orchard that Lee managed. They love to go camping and they both love music, art, cooking and politics. They describe each other as soul mates. Recently, Sandra and Lee flew to New Zealand to get married at a ceremony in the Mitai Maori Village in Rotorua, an idyllic destination for an ordinary couple in love to make their vows and embark on married life you might think. But, sadly, the reason that Sandra and Lee had to go to New Zealand is that they are not being treated like an ordinary couple in this country. They would have loved to have sealed their union on home soil, but they cannot because it is not legal because Sandra and Lee are both women, and, quite frankly, they simply do not have the luxury of time to wait for the day when we in this place give them the freedom to choose the path that millions of other people take for granted. Lee suffers from an incurable lung disease and it is very possible that she has only months or even weeks to live.

Lee and Sandra knew that time was short, but they also knew, without a doubt, that they must find a way to legally marry. Unfortunately, they also knew they would not be able to do it in this country, so they put out a call to the community for help through a crowdfunding campaign. The community response was incredible. In only two days, Sandra and Lee managed to raise more than $10,000 so they could fulfil Lee's dying wish to be joined together with Sandra in marriage. While this is a very special and touching story of the triumph of love over adversity, it is a story that simply did not need to happen and one that should not have happened. It should have not have happened to Lee and Sandra and it should not happen to any other couple.

After they returned from New Zealand, Sandra and Lee have continued to be active campaigners for marriage equality. They continue to advocate for change so that other couples will not find themselves in the same situation. They have tried to reach out to their local members of parliament, asking us to meet with them to listen to their story and to ensure that we are guided by the principles of humanity, fairness and equality when we make any decisions.

I met with Sandra and Lee prior to them heading off to New Zealand. They are very caring human beings who just want to have their relationship recognised by marriage while Lee is still with us. We laughed and joked about a number of things. Lee told me about her little dog and the struggles that she has with her condition, and they both talked about how the recognition of their relationship by marriage would mean the world to them and provide them with peace. I hope they have found some of that now, although I know that whatever the future holds for Lee, Sandra will continue with the battle to ensure other couples are able to have their marriage recognised legally in Australia.

Unfortunately, despite Sandra and Lee's public plea, their local member of parliament, Mr Brett Whiteley, still has not got in touch. He has not reached out to learn more about their story. He has not made any attempt to understand what they have gone through and to consider how many others in his community might also be suffering from this discriminatory legal framework. Through the local newspaper, he said that they could pick up the phone and call him. Well, why couldn't he do what I did and reach out to them, and at least offer to meet with them and hear from them what this discrimination means to them and to others in our community? Mr Whiteley said that the push for marriage equality 'fails in, my view, to carry the goodwill of the community'. He is not alone.

Many on the conservative side of politics continue to assert that they know that Australians do not want marriage equality. But the facts do not support this assertion. In fact, polling shows that almost three-quarters of Australians are supporters, and the momentum is building. There is nothing that Mr Whiteley or anyone else can do to hold off the push for the removal of this discrimination, not in Australia or around the world.

In June, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that same-sex couples can marry anywhere in the country. This progressive milestone comes on the back of another historic outcome in Ireland. Ireland is a deeply religious nation not known for its progressive values and actions, but last month it became the first country to put the issue of marriage equality to the people through a referendum. There was a great turnout for the vote. It even saw Irish expats filing onto planes to head home to have their voices heard. The result of the vote was a decisive 62 per cent to 38 per cent in favour of marriage equality. If the vote in Ireland and the ruling in the United States have taught us anything, it is how far the rest of the world has moved and how far Australia is lagging behind.

These milestones come on the back of legalisation of same-sex marriage in many countries, including New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Brazil and Sweden. And do you know what the outcome of the legal change has been in these countries? Do you know what has happened in the places that have decided to legalise marriage equality? Well, I will tell you. People who loved each other got married. That's it. Full stop. Other couples still got married, and their marriages were still just as special. And the sun continued to shine and the world continued to turn—even in conservative countries.

We need to understand that this isn't just about the right of two individuals to have their love recognised under the law; it is about the value we place on these relationships. It is undeniable that our legal framework has a direct flow-on effect on broader social attitudes. Until marriage equality is enshrined in Australian law, we will continue to send a state sanctioned message to couples like Sandra and Lee that their love is somehow less valid, less real or less important. And, in doing so, we tell the children who have two parents of the same gender that their family is somehow less valid, less real or less important.

Opponents of equality use the pretence of protecting children as one of their major arguments to blocking marriage equality. I challenge them to look at a child who is being bullied, because his family is different, and tell him that they are protecting him. No, we are not protecting the children. We are maintaining and reinforcing discrimination that can only foster ignorance and homophobia.

The momentum is building to change this anachronistic policy. As a member of the Labor party, I am proud of the fact that previous parliaments changed 85 laws to remove discrimination against LGBTI Australians and same-sex couples. That is our legacy. But we still have the final hurdle ahead: to remove the final gender inequity for same-sex couples.

Close to three-quarters of Australians recognise that this needs to happen. When will our parliament catch up? How can it be that three-quarters of our community believe in marriage equality but two-thirds of government members want to lock their party into a regressive and discriminatory position? How can there be such a disconnect between the people of Australia and our elected representatives?

Prime Minister Tony Abbott previously said the problem is that the bills before the parliament have been from Labor or the Greens. He said that any bill must be co-sponsored by all parties. But last week, when a co-sponsored bill was due to hit the parliament, he did an about-face and manoeuvred to ensure that supporters within his party could not vote with their conscience on the issue.

The Liberals did not spend six hours deliberating on their savage cuts to health, education and welfare; however, this is the amount of time they spent on deciding to entrench discrimination against same-sex couples. For a party that regularly brags that their members are not bound to vote in any particular way, this should not pose a problem. So why does it?

Australia's lack of action on marriage equality is an international embarrassment, and Prime Minister Tony Abbott's suggestion of a referendum would be an outrageous waste of money when we know that public support for change is overwhelming. Prime Minister Abbott has nothing to gain from this belligerent stonewalling, and it will only reinforce people's perception of him as a dinosaur. He is not going to hold off Australia's eventual move to marriage equality. The momentum is growing. Every day in the different states and territories, we see the momentum for change. It is time that the people in this place started acting on the will of the people across this country. It is time for the Prime Minister to step aside and let his government members do exactly that.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have to say I am a little embarrassed. I am embarrassed about the quality of debate that I have been able to listen to in this chamber. Whilst I understand that this is a very sensitive topic, I think it is incumbent upon us to be straightforward, honest and open about and accountable for the comments that we make.

I have to comment briefly on Senator Lazarus's contribution. In rugby league parlance, Senator Lazarus said he wanted the Prime Minister sin-binned for the grievous crime of putting in place a process that would deliver the same outcome that Senator Lazarus wants. He wants to sideline the Prime Minster, because he happens to agree with him. It was an extraordinary two-minute contribution. Perhaps he could come back and explain exactly what he is disagreeing with the Prime Minister about.

Then we have Senator Urquhart who channelled all the regular nonsense about people who are opposed to same-sex marriage. She managed to mention dinosaurs, homophobia and bullying and how it is not going to have any impact on the rest of society and the world. She quoted what has happened internationally. Once again, Senator Urquhart, in order to defend her position, said, 'Look at what happened in Ireland where the Irish people got a vote and had a say.' That is exactly what the Prime Minister is proposing for the people of Australia. It is okay when the Irish do it; it is wrong when Australians do it.

Senator Urquhart then went on to say that nothing else changed when same-sex marriage was legalised in other jurisdictions. She should acquaint herself with the facts. We have seen people taken to court, because they have had a disagreement or a conscientious objection to being forced to participate in certain actions or practices. We have seen it impinge on religious freedoms in court cases and challenges to churches who were regularly promised would be exempt from that. We have seen further demands for the redefinition of marriage. If it is only about who you love, why should the number vary? These are the sorts of things that have been going on internationally, but they do not want to admit that on the other side.

If you want to get back to the leadership issue of Mr Abbott in this space, he knows that the Australian people, just like this parliament, have a number of different views. We have got to respect those views, quite frankly, and we should be able to have that battle of ideas without rancour, abuse and the pejorative slurs that some, like Senator Urquhart, have resorted to.

Our party took quite clearly to the last election that, if we wanted to redefine marriage, we would put it to our party room. I know of no other Prime Minister who has listened to 99 people have their say in their party room over six hours to gauge the mood of the party room before making a determination. That determination was: we would stick to our policy and put it to the Australian people after the next election.

If, as we are told repeatedly, there is growing and building momentum and three-quarters of the people want this, what do those on the other side have to be afraid of? What are they worried about in putting it to the Australian people? We have Senator Lazarus, the Greens and others saying they are going to put in their own bill about having a plebiscite. What is the problem with us on this side wanting to have a plebiscite or a referendum or however you want to characterise it? What is wrong with going to the Australian people with it? Apparently, to the Labor Party, there is something wrong with that. The Labor Party are frightened of the people. That is the big problem. They are frightened of the people, and they do not know what they are doing. They have been sidetracked with this.

I would say to you that every single one of us in this place knows people who are passionately in favour of redefining marriage and those who are equally passionately opposed to redefining marriage. How are we expected to respond to the issue that parliament should deal with this matter when parliament in the last 10 years has had 16 different bills introduced seeking to redefine marriage? Three of them have been introduced this year. All of them either have failed by vote or failed by not being brought to a vote because the numbers were not there, or have just sat there on the Notice Paper. Sixteen times in the last 10 years, this parliament, in one way or another, has legislatively dealt with the proposal to redefine marriage. Parliament has decisively ruled on this, yet that is not enough for those who want to redefine marriage in an image that they seek to do it in.

So what is the only answer? If parliament renders its verdict again and again and again and it is not accepted, surely it is time to put it to the people. People who are as opposed to redefining marriage as me—and there are very few who are more opposed to it, I have to tell you—would have very little basis to object if the people said, under circumstances appropriate to a vote, 'We want to change marriage.' I might not like it, but ultimately I live in a democracy. Issues such as this do have significant and profound consequences and implications for other people's rights and for the types of freedoms we have in this country—and unforeseen consequences, might I add. I would have very little case to argue against it, particularly if my state of South Australia did it in concert with the majority of other Australian states.

I am not afraid of the people. I am happy to take the argument there. I know I will get called names by those on the other side. I will not respond in kind, but I will put the facts on the table. I will show again and again and again that what is being proposed by the other side is not just some innocuous change and not some campaign slogan called marriage equality. It is a significant departure from what has always been in our country, in our culture and in cultures for time immemorial. It has profound implications for how our society functions and the freedoms we enjoy— (Time expired)

Jacqui Lambie (Tasmania, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to briefly contribute to the debate on the matter of public importance. It is clear that Mr Abbott is one of the worst prime ministers Australia has ever had. His leadership has failed on many issues, including same-sex marriage. Mr Abbott lacks the ability to unite and inspire ordinary Australians. If he were a leader who was sensitive to the needs and wishes of the Australian people, he would have supported my call and other crossbench senators' calls to hold a separate vote on same-sex marriage at the next election.

Let the people decide what our definition of marriage is, and let's get into talking about the out-of-control youth unemployment rates; organised criminals making big dollars selling ice to our kids; our pensioners struggling to pay their heating bills; our public hospitals, which are full, and Australians needlessly dying on record health waiting lists; homeless, desperate and suicidal veterans; and threats to prime agricultural land and hardworking farmers.

I strongly oppose any discrimination against LGBT people. LGBT Australians are very important and valued members of our community. I am sorry if my religious views have offended some LGBT people, but, just as non-Christian religious traditions are expected to be respected by all Australians, I would like my sacred Christian traditions respected as well.

A vote by the Australian people at the next election will quickly, fairly and legitimately settle the matter of same-sex marriage. If Mr Abbott understood leadership, he would realise that a vote by the people on this matter would also help to quickly heal the hurt that is created by this debate. The government talk about saving money and they talk about doing the heavy lifting. This is an opportunity to take it to the next election, save a lot of money, and once and for all get this done and get this voted on.

John Madigan (Victoria, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Children have rights, and their rights should be our primary concern. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that all children have the right to know and be cared for by their parents. Despite all the love and care that can be given in a same-sex-parents household, children grieve when they do not have a mother and a father. That is why, I believe, we as legislators should not normalise a family structure that encourages children to be raised in anything less than the ideal family unit. Our laws should uphold the highest ideals.

I do recognise, however, that there are different views on this issue. This is a matter of conscience for all Australians, not just us as politicians. I therefore call on the government to agree to a plebiscite on this issue, to be held in conjunction with the next federal election.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The time for the discussion has expired.