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

I present the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee on a popular vote on the matter of marriage, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and the documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

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

I wish to speak to the report of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee on the marriage equality plebiscite. The Australian Greens completely support the recommendation that the issue of marriage equality be decided by a vote in the parliament. We believe the committee report is an excellent articulation of the reasons as to why it is the case that marriage equality should be resolved by a vote of the parliament.

We were convinced by the evidence from witnesses and submitters who voiced really serious concerns about the potential harm that would be caused by a popular vote and agree that it is undesirable to amend the definition of marriage in this way. The evidence that was given to our inquiry by LGBTIQ members of the community and their families showed what the possible consequences of a public campaign accompanying a plebiscite might be. There were some really powerful points made to this inquiry both in submissions and at the public hearing that was held last Thursday.

It really struck me as I listened to the firsthand evidence of human rights and mental health experts, researchers and LGBTIQ community representatives that any form of public vote on the issue of marriage equality could have irreversible mental health and public health implications for many LGBTIQ community members and their families. For example, we heard from Dr Paula Gerber from the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law at Monash Uni, who said:

… I do not think a plebiscite or referendum should be held from the perspective of children's rights. We are, as you know, a state party to the Convention of the Rights of the Child and that requires us to act in all matters concerning children in the best interests of the child. There are two groups of children that are likely to be harmed if a plebiscite or referendum is held on marriage equality, those two groups being the 6,000-plus children who are being raised by same-sex parents … and also LGBTI youth. All the research demonstrates that LGBTI youth are vulnerable, have a high incidence of mental health issues and higher rates of suicide.

At the hearing last Thursday night we heard from Amelia Basset from the Rainbow Families Council. She talked about the potentially damaging impact on children with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex or queer parents or carers if there was a public vote. She said:

It is our strong belief that a lengthy public campaign would be a particular risk because it is so much in the community … It brings the debate into the streets, the schools, the swimming pools, these sports clubs and neighbourhood houses—all the places and spaces where our children hang out. I think it would be impossible in this media-saturated age for parents to enforce any kind of a media blackout as a way of trying to minimise the exposure of their children, including young children, to a publicly funded no campaign.

She spoke of an example from Ireland. She said:

We have a very powerful example from Ireland, where a young boy said to his mother, 'Will I still be your son if the no campaign wins?' For him, that very deep sense of stability, identity and security in his family was absolutely being challenged by the discussions he was hearing in the media.

So the evidence was very strong and very convincing that a plebiscite is not an appropriate way to decide on the issue of marriage equality. We have the power in this parliament to make that decision, and we should be making it as soon as possible.

But, of course, we are in a scenario where we have a government saying that they are determined to proceed with a plebiscite. The dissenting statement from the government members of the committee put that very strongly on the record, and our Prime Minister said very strongly that a plebiscite is the government's proposed way of making a decision on this issue following the next election.

So we wanted to explore, if we are in a situation of having a plebiscite, whether there were any ways to minimise the damage. Going down the path of a plebiscite does not have to be a decision of this parliament. It could be a decision made by the executive power of the Prime Minister. He could say, 'We are having a plebiscite,' and the parliament would have no say on the form of that plebiscite or what question could be asked. So in our additional comments to this report we wanted to note some of the criteria that would have to be in place to minimise the potential damage that could be caused if a plebiscite was proceeded with.

We feel that a plebiscite should only be considered in conjunction with the next federal election in order for it to be done quickly and to minimise the cost. To have a plebiscite at the next federal election would cost only $44 million compared with an estimated cost of over $150 million to have a stand-alone plebiscite. We believe, if it were to occur, that: the framework for its conduct should be the subject of a bill agreed to by parliament; voting should be compulsory; a joint select committee should be established to consider all aspects of the conduct of the plebiscite; and the question for the electors should be researched and developed by the Australian Electoral Commission. To ensure that the views and human rights of all participants are respected and upheld, we firmly believe that appropriate parameters must be established around: public advertising for the plebiscite and regulation of the media, including social media; appropriate limitations on campaigning, including the period of time during which campaigning is allowed; and taking into account what the impact of campaigning could be on vulnerable people, particularly those in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer communities. There need to be social support services available to them.

In conclusion, this inquiry and the report very firmly collated the evidence to show that the most appropriate way to make a decision on the issue of marriage equality, to end discrimination against LGBTIQ Australians, is for parliament to decide. We should be deciding it with a free vote available to all members of parliament as soon as possible. That was the evidence presented very clearly. A plebiscite has the potential for considerable harm and is very much only a second best option.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition members of this committee strongly object to the recommendation of the Labor/Greens/Independent majority in the committee. In response to the previous speaker, Senator Rice, how outrageous that in a democracy like Australia we should ask the Australian people what they think of this issue. I am not quite sure why there are so many people concerned about this. If, as we are being told, an overwhelming majority of Australians support this move, the opposition of those who also support it but oppose sending it to a vote of all Australians seems to be a little strange.

I urge senators to have a look at the coalition's dissenting report and to understand that this is a question with many views in all political parties. They are complex questions and the best way to deal with them once and for all is to let the Australian people have a say. This particular matter has been debated in this parliament on many occasions in recent times. It never seems to be resolved. One would hope that once the Australian people have a say the matter will be resolved permanently. Regardless of my own views, in this parliament I would intend to support legislation implementing what the majority of Australians tell us they want to do on this issue. I reiterate, as coalition senators said in the dissenting report, what Mr Turnbull, the Prime Minister, said in question time yesterday. He made the same point:

Our government, our party room, has decided that the decision will be taken by a plebiscite. Why is the opposition afraid of the people having a vote? Why don't they want all Australians having a vote? There is no greater virtue in a free vote here or a plebiscite.

I am delighted that the Prime Minister, just yesterday, set out so clearly what the government view is. That proposal meets the coalition's commitment to the Australian people before the last election. Before the last election the coalition said that we will retain the definition of marriage during this term of parliament and in the next term we will have a look and see what should happen then. We are a coalition that, when we make promises, we actually intend to keep them, unlike the Labor Party, who promise no carbon tax and immediately change their view, supported by the Greens political party, when they get into government.

There is a strong opposition to the recommendation of this committee. I would also draw the attention of the Senate to my additional comments in relation to this matter. They relate to the farcical situation into which the Senate committee system is being taken by this and many other inquiries undertaken by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. This inquiry was effectively an inquiry into a private member's bill—a piece of legislation—which, as a matter of course, go to the legislation committee. But this committee and the majority of the Senate at the time decided that, contrary to the regulations and practices of the Senate, these bills—this is the second where this has happened—would not go to the legislation committee but would go to the references committee. Why? Because, under both Labor and Liberal governments from time immemorial, there is a majority of government members on legislation committees. On references committees normally there is a small majority of opposition. In this particular committee there are three Labor members representing a small number of senators in this chamber, and there is a Greens Independent chairman representing only himself. So that means four from the left side of politics and two from the government side of politics.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Macdonald, resume your seat. You have a point of order, Senator Lazarus?

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

Mr Acting Deputy President Williams, I rise on a point of order. Senator Macdonald is suggesting that I am a Green. I am certainly not a Green. I am an Independent and very proud to be one.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That may be a debating point. Continue, Senator Macdonald.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to hear that, Mr Acting Deputy President. I thought that Senator Lazarus was elected to this parliament as a member of the Palmer United Party. He received votes because he was representing the Palmer United Party views.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order on relevance. What does that have to do with this report?

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We do have broad terms of speaking here, Senator Lazarus. Senator Macdonald, I bring your attention back to the document being tabled and ask you to speak a little more directly to the subject.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I will, of course, as always, comply with your request. I raised that because Senator Lazarus always votes with the Greens, or seems to establish his vote on the basis that whatever the government is in favour of, he is against. We saw that in that even more ridiculous committee set up—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, resume your seat. Do you have another point of order, Senator Lazarus?

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order on misleading the Senate. I do not vote against the government on every piece of legislation. If the government put up decent legislation I would vote for it.

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

Thank you, Senator Lazarus. There is no point of order.

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

There it is in a nutshell, Senator Macdonald, in a nutshell

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

Order on my left. Continue, Senator Macdonald.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I point out that when legislation that the Palmer United Party supported and campaigned on comes here, Senator Lazarus votes against it. It can only be that he has decided to vote against—

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

That's why we left.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's why he left? Well, that is great democracy. People vote for you because they think you support the Palmer United Party policy. You come in and then vote against them.

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order on relevance. Can we please get back to the report? How I got to this place is irrelevant when it comes to this particular issue.

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

Thank you, Senator Lazarus. Senator Macdonald, I will direct you back to the tabling of this document.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not often agree with Mr Palmer, but I do agree with the letter he distributed to most Queenslanders about the senator. Mr Acting Deputy President, this continues an approach by the Labor-Greens and Greens-Independents senators of disrespect for the Senate and for the once proud record of recognition of the work of Senate committees. More and more inquiries by the legal and constitutional affairs committee go to the references committee, because they know that with the Greens, the Labor Party and the Greens-Independent senator they will always have a majority, they will always be able to predetermine the issue and write the report before the committee even takes any evidence. That is again what happened in this instance.

I draw senators' attention to my additional comments, where I despair at the way in which the Senate committee system is being made farcical by these blatantly political matters—there is always a bit of politics in them. This is about the third inquiry where this committee has dealt with blatantly political matters; there is no policy content, nothing of any substance that anyone is really interested in. The Labor Party and the Greens continue to supplement and support this process, which brings the whole Senate committee system into disrespect.

This committee, of all the committees I have served on in my long term here, is the most outrageous for calling meetings at short notice. We have a chair's draft of what happened this morning—which seems to change every five minutes, because apparently the chair cannot make up his mind—and then we have a meeting at 10.35, and the committee decides by majority—

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order: (1) Senator Macdonald was not at that committee meeting and (2) I would ask him to withdraw the comments he just made about me not having any idea.

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do not think it is a case of withdrawal here, Senator Lazarus, but I do ask the Senate to conduct the debate in an orderly fashion. Continue, Senator Macdonald.

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

No, I am sorry—this senator goes out of his road to ridicule and—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Lazarus, that is a debating issue, not a point of order.

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

So, Mr Acting Deputy President, what you are saying is that you are allowing senators to make reflections on other senators. Is that what we are hearing?

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have sought some advice, Senator Lazarus. I do not think it is a reflection against your character, and there is no point of order.

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. I draw your attention to the meeting of temporary chairs, where the President and the Deputy President gave some guidance, if you like, on civility in the chamber, particularly about the use of the words 'lies' or 'lying'. I do think it is wider than that and that we do need to maintain discipline and order—

John Williams (NSW, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I agree with you totally. There is no point of order, Senator Gallacher. I did not hear the words 'lies' or 'lying'. Continue, Senator Macdonald.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might give Senator Lazarus some advice: if he cannot take the knocks, he should get off the field—or, perhaps more appropriately, if he cannot stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.

Senator Lambie interjecting—

And thanks, Senator Lambie, for your advice—another one who was elected under the Palmer United Party policies and who continues to vote against them.

I have been distracted by these interjections, but can I simply say that this is another blatant waste of taxpayers' money, putting pressure on already overpressured Senate committee staff with these blatantly stupid and political issues. You always know when what I say is hitting the mark, is accurate, because you get point of order after point of order, because people cannot take the truth. I commend to the Senate the additional comments I have made about this issue, which regrettably brings the whole Senate committee system into disrepute.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Labor Party supports recommendation 1 of the majority report and believes that a bill to provide for marriage equality should be debated and voted upon in the parliament as a matter of urgency with all parliamentarians being allowed a conscience vote. Labor senators note that a cross-party marriage equality bill has been introduced into the House of Representatives by the member for Leichhardt, the Hon. Mr Warren Entsch MP, and the member for Griffith, Ms Terri Butler MP. This bill enjoys the support of like-minded members and senators from all political parties and those from the crossbench, and could be progressed in the parliament immediately if the Prime Minister were willing to facilitate debate in the House and the Senate.

The Australian Labor Party recognises that marriage equality is an issue in relation to which people possess deeply held personal views and upon which reasonable people acting in good faith will reach differing conclusions. If a conscience vote were granted to all parliamentarians, members and senators who do not support marriage equality would be free to express their view against it. The Australian Labor Party strongly opposes the proposal to make marriage equality the subject of a plebiscite or a referendum.

It is unnecessary to hold a plebiscite on marriage equality. The High Court has made it abundantly clear that parliament's power to make laws with regard to marriage under section 51(xxi) of the Australian Constitution extends to same-sex marriage. The question of marriage equality is clearly one which ought to be dealt with by this parliament. Australia operates under a system of representative democracy whereby the people of Australia elect representatives to the House of Representatives and the Senate to make policy decisions affecting the future of our nation. To abrogate this responsibility by deferring the question of marriage equality to the people by way of a plebiscite represents, in my view, a dereliction of duty and a breach of the public trust. A plebiscite would also be of no legal effect. It would be no more than an exorbitantly expensive opinion poll. The Australian Electoral Commission has advised that a plebiscite could cost up to $148.4 million. The government is yet to explain how it would pay for such a costly exercise.

The proposal to make marriage equality subject to a popular vote is not offered in good faith. It was invented by the recently toppled former Prime Minister, the Hon. Mr Tony Abbott MP, and his colleague the member for Cook, the Hon. Mr Scott Morrison MP, as really nothing more than a cheap tactic to delay progress on marriage equality and, if possible, frustrate it altogether. Whatever your view on marriage equality, the parliament should not allow itself to be used by the Liberal Party for its political purposes.

It is disappointing that the Greens party has decided to get on board with Mr Abbott and Mr Morrison on the plan for a plebiscite, because once you make it your default position, even if you prefer a different position, it becomes the position. The Greens party decision to sponsor the bill only serves to legitimise Mr Abbott's and Mr Morrison's cynical proposal. The plebiscite proposal which this bill seeks to facilitate was foisted on stakeholders without any consultation. The submissions to the inquiry make clear that the LGBTI community opposes putting marriage equality at the mercy of a popular vote, and experts at public law make clear that it is a legally pointless exercise. I cannot speak for the Greens as to why they would support Mr Abbott's and Mr Morrison's plan for a plebiscite. I think it is questionable and disappointing. It may be that they felt they were failing in their efforts to own marriage equality. But I do not want to cheapen that debate. Given the growing level of cross-party support, it may be one of those areas where they want to regain some lost ground. The Greens party should distance itself from Mr Abbott's and Mr Morrison's plebiscite proposal.

The greatest criticism in relation to the plebiscite must be reserved, though, for the newly appointed Prime Minister, the Hon. Mr Malcolm Turnbull MP. I think Mr Turnbull has deserted the LGBTI community on marriage equality. That desertion surpasses even his betrayal of former Prime Minister Mr Tony Abbott, who he deposed in a back-room political coup. It exposes him as the ultimate hollow man on this issue. Mr Turnbull has repeatedly, I think, made overtures to the LGBTI community and espoused his support for marriage equality, in an effort to present himself as a moderate alternative to Mr Abbott and gain the support of progressive voters. Mr Turnbull encouraged the Australian people to believe that he was committed to dealing with marriage equality through a conscience vote in the parliament. He expressed dismay that Mr Abbott had forced the government to adopt the plebiscite proposal through the procedures of the joint coalition party room.

However, in a deal to secure the support of hard-right Liberals and wrest the prime ministership from Mr Abbott, Mr Turnbull has renounced his support for marriage equality. He has abandoned the commitment to a free vote and embraced the plan for a plebiscite. When the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Ms Tanya Plibersek MP, asked Mr Turnbull about his support for marriage equality during his first question time as Prime Minister in the House of Representatives on Tuesday, 15 September, Mr Turnbull said he had:

… decided that the resolution of this matter will be determined by a vote of all the people via a plebiscite to be held after the next election.

The member for Isaacs interjected that Mr Turnbull was a 'sell-out'. Whatever language you use to describe Mr Turnbull's behaviour and whatever your view on the question of marriage equality, on which reasonable minds will differ, one thing is clear from the behaviour of Mr Turnbull: you would have to say he is the ultimate hollow man when it comes to this issue. What has made it abundantly clear to me that a plebiscite would not be the best course is when you look at the work in the submission by, in particular, the Rainbow Families Council. I quote from the report, where they say:

… in particular the Council is extremely concerned about the impact of such a public debate on our children and young LGBTIQ people living in our communities.

No matter what explanation is provided about the need for a 'people's vote' by way of a plebiscite or a referendum, no matter what assurances or agreements are made to ask that the debate be respectful or must stick to the topic of marriage equality between two adults, we strongly believe our children and our families will always be dragged into the fray.

The Australian Psychological Society added their weight to that same argument, when they said:

Recent evidence from a suite of studies confirms that the process of putting marriage equality to a public vote can be harmful to the psychological health of gender and sexual minorities. The findings highlight that lesbian, gay and bisexual people (LGB) not only have to contend with the possibility of having rights to marriage denied through a public vote but also the stress associated with the campaign itself.

For those reasons, and for the reasons I have articulated today, I do not think a plebiscite is the right course for this debate. I know that some people, particularly the coalition, think it is the right way to go. I think it is simply a way to defer the issue to ensure that we do not get to have a proper debate in this place. It is not an argument to simply say the debate has come on many times and we have not been able to resolve it. We do have the ability to resolve it in this place. I also do not think it is an argument to simply say that a plebiscite is allowing the people to speak—we are representatives of the people, we have the ability to have these debates. People argue that debates such as this are too complex for us to deal with in this place. We have had many debates, for example on RU486—particularly tough issues and it has taken many times to deal with them and many hours have been utilised to ensure everyone gets to put their view, but what we have done is debate them in here and we have found a resolution.

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

I want to take a few minutes to commend the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee report and support the recommendation that 'a bill to amend the definition of marriage in the Marriage Act 1961 to allow for the marriage between two people regardless of their sex is introduced into the Parliament as a matter of urgency, with all parliamentarians being allowed a conscience vote.' I congratulate the committee on the report and say to the Senate that not that many weeks ago a number of senators were able to attend rallies held all around the country supporting marriage equality. I attended one of those rallies and I was happy to be able to speak there. I said to the thousands of people that were there that the only thing standing in the way of marriage equality and a marriage equality debate in parliament was Mr Abbott. Unfortunately I have been proven wrong. I was very disappointed, as I know many thousands of Australians around the country who have campaigned on this issue for decades were disappointed, to hear that the new Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, has been locked into having a plebiscite—a minister who previously supported marriage equality has now been locked into a position that by all accounts, including Mr Pyne's account, was a decision by a coalition caucus room which was branch stacked.

I want to take a few moments to put on record my support for the report and my appreciation of the work that the chair and the other senators who have signed up to the report have done. I say to members of the community who might be listening and to those thousands of people who have worked on this issue for decades, as well as to those who have come to it lately, that we do need to press on and we do need to put the argument that a plebiscite is not the way to go. The parliament is the place where this issue should be debated, with a free vote for all. That is what we do here. This is the work that we do. I commend the report to the Senate and seek leave to continue my remarks later.