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

I am so proud to be standing here today to debate the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013, and proud to be a member of a loving same-sex couple who was legally married in Australia. Voting for marriage equality is well overdue. We need to achieve a vote on marriage equality to achieve equality and to stop discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people.

My marriage to Penny is so central to my life. I cannot imagine life without her, and I am so proud of being a legally married same-sex couple in Australia. We became that in 2003, 13 years ago, when Penny transitioned to Penny and became female, and suddenly our life changed. Suddenly we went from being a normal heterosexual couple to a same-sex couple. Then, in 2004, the change to the Marriage Act, introduced by John Howard, meant that our marriage was no longer a legal marriage in Australia—that is, if Penny's recognition as a female was changed on her birth certificate.

In 2004, with the change to the Marriage Act, we were placed in the position that, if we wanted to stay married, Penny would not be able to change her gender on her birth certificate. So we entered this netherworld of discrimination. Penny absolutely wanted to change her gender on her birth certificate but we absolutely did not want to get divorced. So we have chosen to stay married and in this netherworld—a world which has been there for far too long. We need to be acting on this. We have been debating marriage equality in this place and in the other place for far too long. Since 2004, when the Marriage Act was changed, the debate has continued.

Penny and I have been lucky. We have been very lucky. Everybody should have the opportunity to marry the person that they love, but, right now, same-sex couples in Australia do not have that opportunity. I spent some time on the weekend at the ChillOut Festival in Daylesford, surrounded by friends, surrounded by lots of people celebrating their life as LGBTIQ people. There was my friend Sean, who is engaged to his partner and who would dearly, dearly like to be married. He cannot be married. There was Rachel, the person I travelled in the car with; similarly, she is in a same-sex relationship with her partner. I do not know whether Rachel wants to get married, but she wants to have that choice. There were the two women that I danced with who were dressed as brides. They said it was lovely to be there in this celebration at ChillOut, to be able to be celebrating. They said it was almost like a wedding—almost. But there is the sadness that they are not able get married.

We have fallen behind the rest of the world. Twenty-one other countries now have marriage equality. Australia is the only developed English-speaking country where loving couples are discriminated against simply because of their gender. Not only has the time for marriage equality come in Australia, but it is so long overdue. For the couples who are being denied the right to marry, it breaks my heart. Now is the time. It falls to us. We have the opportunity to change that. We have the opportunity to change the law. We have the opportunity to vote and change the law today. It was in 2004, after the change to the Marriage Act, that the first bill to legalise equal marriage was introduced into the parliament by the Greens' first member of the House of Representatives, Michael Organ. In 2007 former Senator Kerry Nettle introduced a bill; in 2008 Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett introduced a bill, and Sarah Hanson-Young's bill, the bill that we are debating today, was introduced in 2009.

This is going to continue until we vote to legalise same-sex marriage, because this is the last state sanctioned discrimination against same-sex attracted and transgendered people, and it is the most important state sanctioned discrimination that still exists. Now in 2016, after 17 bills in the parliament—17 bills since 2004—and after countless hours of debate we can take a crucial step on the path to equal love right now. We are now debating Sarah Hanson-Young's bill, but we have had enough talk. Let's bring on the vote. It is long past time. If we ring the bells now we can be hearing wedding bells in no time. We do not need extra time for debate. The Labor Party was confident that the numbers were there earlier this week, so let's get this long overdue reform through the Senate and get it through today. We need a vote this morning. Labor, it seems, want to vote to keep on talking. We want to vote to change the law.

If Labor's position on same-sex marriage were motivated by a genuine desire to win the vote, not to sabotage Senate voting reform, then there is no reason why we cannot just vote on the bill this morning, without delay. We are ready to vote. We are ready to vote 'yes'. But we are not going to be bullied on unrelated pieces of legislation. We have got time this morning to vote and we can do it, so I am calling on Labor. Labor are saying that they are committed to equal marriage. Labor are saying they want to have a vote on equal marriage, so I am calling on Labor to allow it. Labor, we can do it this morning. There are people's lives that are dependent on this. There is Penny's and my life, there are other people in this parliament's lives, there are the lives of the people that I have talked about this morning.

I am calling on Labor to support this bill going to a vote this morning. If Labor do not support this, maybe it is because they are not confident of getting the outcome, and they are not confident in their numbers. If Labor do not support bringing on a vote this morning then maybe it is just a cynical exploitation of an issue that means so much to so many. And if Labor does not allow a vote today then they are going to be responsible for missing an historic opportunity to vote on this issue. We are ready to bring on a vote today, and we can guarantee with a vote today that every one of our MPs will vote unanimously for marriage equality, because we have done that—every vote, every MP, every time. Every time there has been opportunity to vote on marriage equality the Greens have done it—17 bills in this parliament. We will continue to vote for marriage equality because it is so important for ending discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people.

We want to see marriage equality. We need to see marriage equality. Now is the time. We can vote on this today, and I call on all people in this place today to be voting for marriage equality, to be voting for love, to be voting for those wedding bells to be ringing as soon as possible.

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

In my long time in this chamber I have heard a number of speeches that were dripping with hypocrisy and insincerity, but the one I heard this morning from the Leader of the Opposition on a formal motion—a procedural motion relating to the same subject—just about took the cake. I want to explain to those who might be listening to the debate what the coalition's position is. It starts from the premise that, if you are a member of the Liberal and National parties, you go to an election and make a promise, and you make the promise intending that promise to be kept. This subject of same-sex marriage is one that I know raises a lot of emotions on both sides of the debate, and I understand the emotion that is engendered on both sides of the debate.

But this is an issue that has been around for some time and the coalition have a policy on it. We went to the last election saying that the definition of marriage would stay the same as it is in the Marriage Act for this term of parliament, and that is the commitment we took to the Australian people. I remember that, at the time, the coalition thought long and hard about that policy. We were petitioned by the church groups, if I can loosely label them as that. They had very, very strong views on it and they made a point which resonated with the coalition as a whole. We decided to go to the last election with this commitment to retain the definition of marriage as it is in the Marriage Act.

I know Labor senators find it hard to believe that a political party would make a promise, intending to keep it, and then actually keep it. I know that is foreign to the Australian Labor Party. We all remember the promise by the Labor Party: 'There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead.' Having been elected on that promise, what was the first thing that an Australian Labor government did when it took the reins? It introduced a carbon tax—the direct opposite of what they had promised before the election. That is not a one-off.

In the last few days, I have raised a number of times the Keating Labor Party's l-a-w law tax reductions. Remember that? Some senators might have been around then, as I was. Thinking they were going to lose the next election, Mr Keating and the Labor Party actually legislated for tax cuts before the election. It was passed and Mr Keating said: 'It's l-a-w law. These tax cuts will happen. They have been legislated.' Low and behold, unexpectedly, Mr Keating and the Labor Party won that election. What was the first thing that they did, the first legislative program that they indulged in on being returned to government? It was to renege, to cancel, to abolish that bill giving what was then called the l-a-w law tax cuts.

The Labor Party have form when it comes to making promises and then doing the exact opposite when they come to power. Take the current issue of electoral reform. Two years ago, I sat on the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and we looked at the issue of the rort—the dishonesty of the Senate voting system at the time. That committee travelled all around Australia. It took evidence from everybody who wanted to have a say and it took evidence from some very clever academic people, people who understand the voting system.

The committee deliberated long and hard and it came to a unanimous conclusion. Firstly, I will just explain that the committee comprised Liberal, National, Labor, Greens, Xenophon and anyone else who wanted to go along. I was not a formal member of that committee but, under the rules we have in the Senate, any senator can become a participating member, with all the powers and privileges of the committee. I put myself onto that committee because I was interested in the issues. As a senator who has been around for a while and as a Queenslander, I wanted to make sure that when the people of Queensland cast a vote for the Senate, they were actually making the choice themselves, not putting 1 in a box and then letting the various political parties to determine where the preferences go.

I well recall at the time Mr Katter, the member for Kennedy—who had been a member of the National Party but had left the National Party and become an Independent—telling people that he was still our way inclined, that he did not like some of the things that were happening so he had left the party to became an Independent. But he indicated to people, 'If you vote for me, I'll be okay and my preferences will go to my old party'—by then the Liberal National Party of Queensland. We then looked at the Katter Party voting ticket that he had registered and, low and behold, who got the preferences?

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

Labor.

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

Yes, Labor got the preferences. In good faith, people said: 'We'll vote for Mr Katter for old time's sake. He's not very effective but at least we know him. He's a nice enough guy. We'll vote for him and we'll vote for him in the Senate because our preferences will flow on to the LNP'—because that is what he had indicated to them. But when you looked at his card which is registered and locked up in the AEC vaults in Brisbane, you found that the preferenced the Labor Party before he preferenced the coalition.

Now, we do not want that sort of thing to happen, not because we did not get the vote—and he did not get many anyhow, so it did not have a great impact—but people should be given the chance to make their own decisions on where their preferences go. If people want to vote for Mr Katter's party in the Senate, fine, that is great. But if they want to give a No. 2 preference to the Labor Party, that is fine; they can put a 2 next to Labor.

If they want to give their preferences to the LNP then are able to do it themselves, making a conscience vote when they go to fill in their ballot paper, and it will not be very hard anymore when this legislation comes in. People will be able to vote 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 above the line, if they are the political parties they want, or they will be able to vote 1 to 12 below the line. It is simple, anyone will be able to do it. I have always voted below the line. But I can tell you that when you get up to 103, you start to wonder whether you have left out a number or not.

The committee that looked at this voting came to the conclusion that the voting system in the Senate, for various reasons, one of which I have mentioned, had to be changed. Who voted for that?

It was a unanimous decision of senators from all parties; that is, senators from the Liberal Party, senators from the National Party, senators from the ALP, senators from the Greens and Senator Xenophon. I emphasise: senators and members from the Labor Party were there. I remember that Senator Tillem was there, and I remember that the respected Labor Senator John Faulkner was there and—as you would imagine—took a leading part in the debate. He signed off on changes to the Senate electoral voting system, as did Mr Gary Gray. Whatever you think about Mr Gary Gray, he is recognised as an honest, fair and sensible leader of the Labor Party. He signed off on it, because he understood, as did everyone on the committee, that the system that was in place was being rorted. I find it hard to understand how the Labor Party continue this process of saying one thing—

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

Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: we are debating the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013. I have been extremely patient. I have waited 10 minutes. Halfway through Senator Macdonald's contribution to this bill, I do not think he has mentioned the bill. His attention should be drawn to the issue before the Senate.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Cameron. I will rule on that. Senator Macdonald did mention it earlier. He is straying into other areas—which is not uncommon, might I say, in these debates. I would simply remind Senator Macdonald that we are debating the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill.

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

Thank you, Mr Acting Deputy President. I thank Senator Cameron. He has been patient, particularly when the examples I am using in relation to this bill—which I will come back to shortly—are things that I know the Labor Party do not want to hear about. Particularly as we seem to be on broadcast today, I am sure the Labor Party do not want me reinforcing to those people listening just what hypocrisy abounds in the Australian Labor Party when it comes to promising one thing before the election and doing another thing after the election.

I must confess that I am not absolutely confident of what the Labor Party's position is on same-sex marriage, but it seems to change quite a bit—

Australian Greens senators interjecting—

You are not clear either. Then I do not feel so badly that I cannot work it out. I know there are a number of people in the Australian Labor Party who have very, very strong views on both sides of this argument. But my understanding of the Labor policy—and perhaps Senator Cameron, who is speaking next, can elaborate on this for me. I understand that the Labor Party have now decided that this will be a party policy vote. So you will not be able to have a conscience vote in the future, you will not be able to vote on this very complex and difficult issue as you might believe, in all sincerity, that your conscience demands that you do. The Labor Party will regiment you into voting in a particular way. And, if you dare cross the Labor Party, you know the consequences. You are out on your ear, and we have seen a couple of times over the last couple of decades where Labor senators and members have dared to have their own view and they have been expelled from the party for doing that.

I am a member of the coalition and so I went to the last election promising, as all of my colleagues did, that the definition of marriage would stay the same in this term of parliament. Because we are a party that keeps its promises, that is what we are going to do. We know that there are has very, very strong and genuine views on both sides of this matter and so, after a very long, full and involved debate in the coalition party room, we decided by a good majority: why not ask the Australian people what they think on this very complex, difficult, sensitive subject? So that is what the coalition have done. We have said that we will ask the Australian people—and what could be fairer than that? Frankly, I am gobsmacked that anyone could think that asking the Australian people what they think on this rather different matter could be wrong. What could be better in a democracy than going to the Australian public and asking, 'What is your view on this?' I genuinely believe that asking the Australian public what they think is the right way to go about it. And I say here and now that, whatever the result of the referendum, that is what I will be implementing in parliament in the years ahead.

If the Australian people say, 'Yes, this is a good idea', then, in a democracy, having been told by my constituents across Australia, that is what I will be doing. I simply cannot understand why anyone would think that is a bad idea. Ask the Australian people in a democracy. People will say, 'We don't ask them to pass the budget', 'We don't ask them to pass road traffic laws'; we do that in parliament. That is what parliament is about, and that is all true and correct. But I think everyone would agree that this is an issue beyond the normal rules of government and it does involve people's very personal beliefs, opinions and emotions, and it is something that I think the Australian people should be given an opportunity to have a say on.

I know the churches have a view, and it is a genuine view, but I know other people—a lot of my gay friends—have a quite different view, and I respect that view as well. But I do think in an issue like this the right way to do it is to ask the Australian public. Isn't that what a democracy is about? If I were in the Labor Party and asking people to vote for me because I had a policy on this, I would not know which member of the Labor Party I was supporting, because I know some on the other side have very strong, deeply held, reasonable views against same-sex marriage, and I know that there are members of the Labor Party, similarly, who have very strong views in favour of same-sex marriage. If you vote for the Labor Party, which one are you voting for?

So there is that difficult question. It is an unusual question in that it is not the normal sort of thing we debate here. I think the coalition has made the right decision, and certainly I was part of that decision that said, 'In issues like this, let's ask the people of Australia.' Mind you, I would not mind if we added to the referendum a question on medically assisted termination of life. That is another issue in that same category. I have made my views on that known very clearly, but I think that is another decision that could well be put to the Australian public to ask the Australian public what they think about it. Again, those two issues are issues where people have very firm, very reasonable, very fixed, very deeply held and emotional views: the subject of same-sex marriage and, I might add, the subject of euthanasia. In a democracy, what better can you do than to ask the people of Australia what their view is? Frankly, I have never heard a real argument as to why asking our fellow Australians what they think is so wrong.

I think Senator Brandis indicated that the referendum would be held pretty soon. It does not matter to me whether it is by 31 December or by 31 January or whenever, but it will be pretty soon. Once the referendum is held, the results of the Australian view—the decision the Australian public give in that referendum—will if necessary be legislated very quickly and will become law very quickly—that is, assuming that the voters say yes. People tell me in debates, 'Everyone supports this.' Okay, if everyone supports this, why not have the referendum? Why not confirm it? You will never have any doubt about it if you ask the Australian people what their view is. If, as those in favour of this legislation before us say, it is a foregone conclusion and everybody wants this, let's just ask the Australian people. It is their right, and perhaps they do. Then they will have no fear from the plebiscite. The plebiscite will express the view of all Australians on this quite difficult and sensitive issue.

So that is the approach we have taken. The coalition parties are always open, transparent and honest about what we will promise at an election and then what we will deliver after it. We are not one of these parties—unlike, regrettably, our opponents in this chamber—who before an election say one thing, as I have demonstrated, and after the election do the exact opposite. We promised before the election the marriage definition would stay. We subsequently promised we will carry out our promise for this term, but we have said, for the next term, 'Let the people of Australia decide.' What could be fairer than that? (Time expired)

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

I always enjoy following Senator Macdonald.

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

He makes a great speech, doesn't he?

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

No, Senator Macdonald does not make a great speech. He is absolutely full of nonsense when he gets on his feet. He spent 10 minutes not even going near the issue of marriage equality. I want to indicate clearly that marriage equality is an issue that I believe needs to be dealt with. It is an issue that discriminates against people who love each other in this country, and it is an issue that should not be determined by what Senator Macdonald describes as a 'referendum'. He said 'referendum' on a number of occasions. We are not having, according to the coalition, a referendum, so Senator Macdonald needs to get his facts right. It is a plebiscite; it is not a referendum. I will come to that later, but the plebiscite, in my view, is an absolute abrogation of the responsibility of members of parliament and senators who were elected here to make decisions on the basis of a decent society in this country.

I will divert, given that Senator Macdonald probably spent two minutes out of his 20-minute speech on the issue of marriage equality. So I will divert to deal with some of the other issues before I come back to the important issue of marriage equality. Senator Macdonald spoke about the hypocrisy of saying one thing before you are elected and doing a different thing after you are elected. Senator Cormann is sitting here. Maybe Senator Cormann could give Senator Macdonald a lesson in the 2013-14 budget—the broken promises that were layered through that 2013-14 budget. There were the attacks on pensioners, when pensions were not going to be touched, to try to force down the increases in pensions to make it tougher for pensioners to survive in this country. There was the broken promise on health—$80 billion taken out of health and education.

Senator Cormann thought that was such a great manoeuvre, that he would break out the Havana and have a cigar after the budget to celebrate taking $80 billion out of health and education in this country. They cracked out the Havana, taking away the living standards of pensioners in this country. They made promises on Gonski and walked away from education promises. They walked away from promises on family benefits. They walked away from promises on health and imposing a $7 co-payment. They walked away on promises on superannuation and took away support for low-income earners to get an opportunity to have superannuation when they retire. They walked away from a promise on company tax rate. They walked away from 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. I am not advocating that, but this is another area where they walked away. They walked from a promise to build 12 submarines in South Australia and do a deal with the Japanese government to send them there. They are now sending 3,000 jobs over to Spain. These are only some of the broken promises. For Senator Macdonald to come here and talk about broken promises, I think he is on the wrong track when the coalition government talks about that. I can go on—broken promises on spending, tax, small government and doing cost-benefit analysis. They are all broken promises—broken promises on multinational tax-dodgers, broadband and the NBN and broken promises to young people on the six months on the dole.

Robert Simms (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Acting Deputy President, on a point of order: Labor has been calling for this to be dealt with and they have yet to actually discuss the substantive issues. Could we have some actual debate about the issue of marriage equality rather than more partisan posturing.

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately, that was a debating point rather than a point of order. What I will do is as I did to Senator Macdonald. I will remind Senator Cameron that we are discussing the Marriage Equality Bill.

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

It took you about 4½ minutes to remind me. It took 10½ minutes for me to remind you of Senator Macdonald's contribution, so I am happy to take on board—

Zed Seselja (ACT, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Cameron, I have given the same ruling that I gave—

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

I am happy to do that. Debate is wide-ranging. I have a bill in front of me. I raised the issue. I have only spent a few minutes on these issues, and I am not going to have Senator Macdonald come here and claim that the coalition are not a government that has broken promises. They are a government that cannot be trusted. They cannot be trusted on marriage equality, health, education or any of the key issues that build a good society in this country, including the $100,000 university degrees. It goes on and on. For Senator Macdonald to come here and argue those issues is complete hypocrisy.

The issue of marriage equality is a very difficult situation and position. Senator Macdonald's argument is that we should have a referendum. We are not going to have a referendum. I hope we see some common sense and decide the matter in parliament not on some crazy plebiscite cooked up by the right wing of the coalition. Senator Williams came in and said I am voting against democracy. The way democracy works in this country is that you elect parliamentarians to make decisions after an election. That is what you do. That is how democracy works in this country. Marriage equality is not a matter of life and death. It is not a conscience matter that people keep telling me. It has been captured by the right wing of the Liberal Party and to some extent the churches, especially the Catholic Church, running the arguments against marriage equality. I did not ask Most Reverend Anthony Fisher, the Archbishop of Sydney in the Catholic Church, to write to me to tell me what I should be thinking about in terms of marriage equality. What I think on marriage equality has nothing to do with the Archbishop.

I have come late to this debate. I do not come here saying that I have fought for marriage equality all of my life. I was 27 years a blue-collar union official. I was a blue-collar worker before that. I did not think a lot about the lives that were being decimated around this country by homophobic attitudes towards LGBT people in this country. I did not think about that. Shame on me—I did not do that. I did not realise it, but I did when I became a senator, and I have told this before. One of my constituents from the suburb of Greystanes in the western suburbs of Sydney—a mother—rang me crying because of her son, who had been brought up in the western suburbs of Sydney. He was gay. He had been targeted by homophobic behaviour at school and after school, and this kid had a terrible life in school and in his formative years, being attacked on the issue of his sexuality. The mother said to me that he had found love. He had a same-sex partner. They were in a loving relationship and they wanted to get married. For the first time in his life, he was actually happy.

I do not think this would be an unusual story for many people after I have started to engage in this debate. This would not be an isolated incident. For those people that want to get married, in my view, they should be allowed to get married. If people love each other, why should some homophobic attitude pushed by some our colleagues in both the Senate and the House of Representatives stop people from entering a loving relationship?

The last time we had this debate there were discussions about the 'sanctity' of marriage. That puts marriage in a religious context. Marriage has not always been a religious issue; marriage is not a religious issue. I have now been married for 45 years. I was not married in a church or a chapel; I had an ordinary marriage in a registry office in Scotland because my wife was Catholic and I was Protestant. We did not want to get engaged in any of that. We did not want to tell our kids what religion to be brought up in or whether they would have a religion. So we decided to have a civil ceremony. The civil ceremony that I engaged in, that has kept my marriage for 45 years, was no less important than any marriage in a church. And I think my marriage has lasted a lot longer than many church marriages, where the sanctimonious position has been taken and people have given vows. I have had a marriage for 45 years, with all its ups and downs—as every marriage has—

Senator Williams interjecting—

Yes! We are not saying anywhere that if the view of the churches is that being married in a church when you have a same-sex partner is some abomination against God, or any of that, that they do that. That is not what is being proposed here. I just think that is an absolute nonsense argument anyway. I say that one day churches will start providing same-sex marriages within churches because that is going to be seen to be part of the process of keeping churches alive and keeping churches at least a little bit relevant to what is happening in the rest of the community.

After I spoke to that woman I was really concerned that I had not dealt with this issue effectively as a parliamentarian. I then went to Albury-Wodonga on a Senate reference committee hearing. I was having a cup of tea in one of the cafes in Albury and a middle-aged guy came up and said hello. He introduced himself and said, 'Look, I know who you are and I just want to put a proposition to you. I have lived in the Albury-Wodonga area all my life. It's a regional-rural area. I'm gay and my life has been hell in terms of the homophobic attitudes that have been taken against me. But, again, I have found peace, I've found love and I've found happiness. I have been with my partner for 10 years and we want to get married. I've got the support of my family, I've got the support of my friends—why can't you politicians just give me the opportunity to get married?'

After that there was a lot of debate within the Labor Party. With the arguments that Senator Macdonald put up about how strongly people believe in this, I do not see any reason why people should not give others the same rights as they have in a democratic country. I suppose that, as an atheist, it makes it easier for me to raise these issues. I suppose if you have a deeply religious point of view then, yes, these points come into play. But if you are religious and you are demanding religious tolerance and the right to exercise your religion, both that tolerance and those rights should not be exercised at the expense of gay people in this country, or transgender people or lesbians. They should not be treated differently because some people have a religious point of view on this. They should not!

Clearly, this should be a position that is determined without any interference from the churches. The separation of church and state should come into play. We should have a clear separation and we should show some backbone—actually have the debates and have decisions on marriage equality in this parliament. That is what we should do.

Senator MacDonald said that he had heard no arguments about why we should not have this plebiscite and let the people decide. Just recently, there was one big argument. If we want to talk about financial arguments, let's look at the cost of this plebiscite. The cost of the plebiscite is going to be about $158.4 million—$158 million because we are not prepared to make a decision in the interests of all Australians!

The funding to the ACCC is $132 million. The funding for rural assistance is $205 million. The funding for APRA is $121 million. And for natural disaster relief we get $33 million. So we are prepared to spend $158.4 million because the Prime Minister of this country does not have the courage and does not have the backbone to stand up for what he proclaims are his values, for marriage equality. I am just beginning to wonder whether the Prime Minister ever did have any of the values that he proclaims he has, because if he did he would not capitulate to the right wing and the homophobes in the coalition, and he would not capitulate to the worst elements in our society. He would stand up for his values and have a parliamentary vote, both in the House of Representatives and in the Senate, to give our fellow Australians equal rights.

What is going on is a nonsense. Senator Macdonald's argument that nobody has said there is a problem here is wrong, because people have raised the cost of this. But it is not only a financial cost: this is about a cost to the LGBTI community itself. We have seen the Australian Christian Lobby getting out and talking about 18C, that racial discrimination and discrimination should not apply during this plebiscite. So they want a free ticket to get out and attack people who are not heterosexuals and who do not fit their view of what a normal society should look like. I would hate to see a normal society if they were all like George Christensen. What kind of normal society would that be? The guy is out there spewing hatred, spewing homophobic views and not being called to account by the coalition. He is not being called to account.

We take the view that the Christian Lobby should be ignored, that people with crazy views like George Christensen should be ignored and that we should put our fellow Australians first because we do not want their mental position diminished even more because of attacks during a plebiscite. We do not want this position that they are pushing where they are going to have a debate about whether they are real Australians, whether they are real human beings, whether they are aberrations. These are our fellow Australians. They are the people who we should support. We should support them.

The cost of this plebiscite is a nonsense. We should support the gay community, the lesbian community and the transgender community. We should make the decision here, and we should do it because it is the right thing to do to make sure that people who love each other have an opportunity to get married.

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

Senator Waters.

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

Chair—

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you very much, Deputy President. I am next on the speakers list—

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

I understand that the convention normally is this. The Greens have had an opportunity. They have spoken. The opposition spoke—sorry, the government; you will be opposition soon. The government has spoken. The opposition had a contribution. It should now go to the crossbench.

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

I am basing the call on who I thought did jump in their place first. I thought it was Senator Waters. I am not particularly interested in the speakers list. That is simply something organised in the chamber, and it assists in the normal conduct. It was a close call, but I am afraid it is my opinion that Senator Waters did jump first, and the call is now going to the crossbench. Senator Day, did you want to say something?

Bob Day (SA, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I did.

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

On a point of order?

Bob Day (SA, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. There is a spot for the crossbenchers, as Senator Cameron has said. We have heard from three Greens senators and only one crossbench senator, all in support of this motion. Surely it is time to hear from someone from the opposing side. I do not want to be gagged on this topic—

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

Senator Day, you are really now debating the issue. I know you both jumped very quickly, but I am probably in the best position in the chamber to make these judgements, and I thought Senator Waters did in fact jump first. It was a close run thing, Senator Day. I am sorry, but that is my decision.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the question be now put.

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

The question is that the question now be put.

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

I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy President.

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

I will take a point of order because I think there is some confusion in the chamber.

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

Yes, there is some confusion. We have only this minute had Senator Waters standing and arguing that she should push Senator Day out of the speakers list. Clearly there has been an arranged position, a clear position, and Senator Waters is trying to play games here—

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

That is not a point of order, Senator Cameron. Senator Waters can move such a motion because she has not yet spoken in the debate. She has moved the motion. Unless anyone else wants to raise a point of order, I will now put that motion.

The question is that the question now be put.

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

I wanted to indicate why it is the view of the government that this debate should not have been gagged and why government senators joined with Labor senators on this occasion in resisting a gag.

Nobody in this chamber doubts that this is a very, very serious matter. It is an issue on which there is a variety of different views within the coalition, and we do not have any difficulty with the fact that there is a variety of views. Both the Prime Minister and I are on the record as being in favour of change to the law but we respect the fact that there are many of our colleagues who have a different view.

What we are all united on though is in the belief that this matter is one of those matters which, because of its peculiar sensitivity, ought to be resolved ultimately by the Australian people at a plebiscite, which is what the coalition has committed to do.

I might say that that is the view of the Australian people themselves. Only two days ago the research firm Essential published an opinion poll on this very question. The results of that opinion poll are very instructive. When asked whether the matter should be decided by a vote of members of parliament or by a national vote of the Australian people, fully 66 per cent of respondents agreed with the government that the matter ought to be resolved by the Australian people; only 23 per cent were of the view that it should be decided by politicians only sitting in parliament.

That view was uniform across all party affiliations: 68 per cent of Labor voters thought the matter should be decided by a plebiscite; 67 per cent of coalition voters thought the matter should be decided by a plebiscite; and 58 per cent of Greens voters thought the matter should be decided by a plebiscite. So whatever one's views might be of the ultimate question—and we in the government respect the fact that there is a variety of views—there is a strong, overwhelming preference by the Australian people that they should be included in this decision, which is precisely what the coalition is committed to doing. It is certainly, in light of those considerations, not the sort of matter that should be decided here today by the device of a gag on a procedural vote.

Bob Day (SA, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to oppose the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013. As I said in a previous speech about free speech, it is shameful that activists for marriage equality assume that opponents must be bigots. It seems there is no free speech in this country as long as there is this concept of hate speech. It is anathema to free speech to have attitudes and laws that are called hate speech.

With this bill today the Greens seek to jump the gun on the efforts of others in order to claim a political win for themselves. The government has agreed to a public vote on marriage but no, the Greens do not want to wait for that. They are scared of putting the question to the people. They are scared of how the silent majority will vote when given the chance. Opinion polls on news websites seem enough for them. They want to rush headlong into yet another radical experiment on Australian society.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Radical experiment?

Senator Rhiannon interjecting—

Bob Day (SA, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Deputy President.

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

Even though it is a long way away from me and I cannot hear all the details of the interjections, I think senators should be more courteous when they are so close to another senator speaking and keep the noise down. Senator Day, you have the call.

Bob Day (SA, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When members of parliament and senators sought the views of their own electorates in the not too distant past the majority told them the truth—Australians do not want marriage or the word 'marriage' to be redefined. On the question of a public vote, you just have to ask how it can be a fair debate when you have a barrage of unfounded claims thrown at you the minute you open your mouth saying you support keeping the status quo, keeping the definition of 'marriage' as it is. You also have to ask how it will be a fair debate when you look at who is lining up on the yes case.

But the Greens do not want to wait for any of that to materialise. The Greens are just like chanting students and socialists. They chant: 'What do we want? Gay marriage. When do we want it? Now.' Name-calling, sloganeering and empty platitudes are unbecoming and facile. Take, for example, the phrase 'marriage equality' itself. By calling same-sex unions 'marriage', it is asserted by stealth that they already qualify as marriage. This is before any supporting arguments have even been offered. Saying it is a matter of equality evokes the struggle of the suffragettes or Martin Luther King.

If you dare oppose that, you do not have a difference of opinion; according to the gatekeepers of tolerance, you are just plain wrong—end of story. While this may be very effective rhetoric, it tells us nothing about what marriage actually is or why different treatment is automatically bigoted. It is ironic that those who cry bigot are guilty of bigotry themselves. When people advocating traditional marriage are dismissed out of hand or when their motives are treated with suspicion and malice, that is prejudice and that is bigotry. When, like Archbishop Porteous, they are subjected to complaints—complaints that cost the alleged victim nothing but merely completing a form, but cost the accused everything—bigotry gains an ally on its side: the gorilla of state apparatus to suppress dissent and the expression of millennial values.

A civil debate on marriage would focus on the key principles of what is marriage. Why does it matter what it is? What sort of relationship is marriage or is a marriage? Should the state define a marriage? If so, why? What role does the state have in this institution of marriage? Marriage is the foundation of society's most fundamental unit—the family. Marriage is itself a social good worthy of protection by law. Marriage provides the best environment for the family to flourish and for children to be raised and nurtured. It is this critical function of marriage in our society that allows the state to take an interest in its regulation. I will repeat that. Marriage provides the best environment for the family to flourish and for children to be raised and nurtured. It is that critical function that allows the state to take an interest in its regulation.

Normally the state would not regulate relationships between adults. It is only because marriage has a position as a foundational building block of society that marriage is an exception to that rule. Out of the 1,000-plus societies recorded in Murdock's Ethnographic Atlas marriage between one man and one woman is common in all, whilst the marriage of men to multiple wives is prevalent in over 800. By contrast, marriage between people of the same sex has never been widely accepted in any culture since the dawn of time.

Here are another set of questions a civil and measured debate should consider. If this bill seeks marriage equality, what is it trying to protect equally? What relationships then are not marriages? Why would redefining marriage stop at same-sex relationships? The bill talks about two people, but why not three? The 'throuple' concept—three people—advanced by polyamory advocates goes something like this. Three people of any gender can be married to one another. They will make all the claims of emotional union, romantic feelings, pledges to care for one another et cetera. How soon until we have marriage equality dusted off for the 'throuples'? I suggest that there will not even be enough time for the dust to settle, and it will be on again. If you do not believe me, I note that the Greens' cousins in the UK are right now advocating for consenting polyamorous relationships.

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

Really?

Bob Day (SA, Family First Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Absolutely. The goal of this push is to have, in a borrowed phrase, 'marriage equality'.

A recent Canadian court case has made the argument that three people in a loving relationship are not harming anyone so why not give them marriage too? Given the demographic rise in Australia of people from cultures like those in the Middle East where there is polygamy, you can safely assume there will be a marriage equality push for them sometime soon too. But why stop even there? In places where gay people, typically men, have been able to form recognised unions, they do not necessarily equate their commitment to monogamy. The term 'monogamish'—monogamy as a kind of 'monogamish'—has now been coined, a sort of 'open marriage'—a tautology if ever I heard one in this brave new world—as they feel a restriction to one partner is unrealistic and unnatural.

A three-year study of civil unions in Vermont found that 15 per cent of straight married men had sex outside their relationship, compared to 58 per cent of gay men in civil unions. Other studies have reported candid admissions from many gay couples about monogamy. Despite their intention to stay faithful, a survey found that only seven out of 156 same-sex couples had managed to do so. This 'monogamish' compromise is nothing short of surrender. As usual, all the guarantees about marriage staying the same have come to nought.

Speaking on a panel of homosexual authors at the 2012 Sydney Writers' Festival, Dennis Altman said:

Now I am going to speak as a gay man: one of the things about gay male culture is that it is not a monogamous culture. All the evidence we have suggests that monogamy is a myth. There are many longstanding gay relationships. There are virtually no longstanding monogamous gay relationships.

Now let me pause here for a minute. I am fortunate that I can say these things under parliamentary privilege. But could I say them outside? With the persecution of Archbishop Porteous, I am not so sure. But I digress.

Let us shift to the question of children. Children deserve a mother and a father. They need both. We are not talking here about only redefining marriage; we are talking about redefining the words 'mother' and 'father'. Already birth certificates around the country are being written to say 'parent 1' and 'parent 2'—or more—right here in the ACT. There is no such thing as parenting; there is only mothering and fathering. And children need both a mother and a father. Whenever a child is born, the mother will obviously be close by. And fathers should be close by as well. The two of them take responsibility to raise that child. When that does not happen, the social costs for the spouses and for the child and for society are very high.

Katy Faust, a recent visitor and speaker in Australia, told her own story of being raised by lesbian mothers. She spoke of the loving and caring nature of their parenting, but emphasised that neither were a substitute for the father she desperately needed in her life. This echoes the sentiments of another child of gay parents, Heather Barwick. In a speech delivered last year, she said:

Same-sex marriage and parenting withholds either a mother or father from a—

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

The time for this debate has now expired.