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

I seek leave to move a motion to vary the resolution of 15 March 2016 relating to the hours of meeting and routine of business.

Leave not granted.

Pursuant to contingent notice, I move:

That so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me moving a motion relating to the consideration of a matter, namely a motion to vary the resolution of 15 March 2016 relating to hours of meeting and routine of business.

The motion for variation that I seek to move will ensure a vote in the Senate on same-sex marriage this week. The Greens may seek to put their Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013 to a vote in private senators' time, but, if they do not, or cannot, then my motion comes into play. My motion will require that the bill be finally considered before we adjourn this sitting. My amendment does not limit the government's ability to require the final consideration of the bills on its list; it just requires that the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill be finally considered before we adjourn. The Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2013 is a Greens bill. I support this bill, even though it differs from the Liberal Democrats bill on this issue—the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014—because I support allowing same-sex marriage regardless of which party's bill finally comes into play and finally becomes reality.

The Greens are a swing vote on this issue. The Greens have said that parliament should deal with same-sex marriage and that there is no case for delay. They have repeated this position recently at Mardi Gras and in the wake of the Safe Schools debate, which has foreshadowed the kind of debate that we would see in the lead-up to a plebiscite. I do not look forward to an expensive and divisive plebiscite where people would be asked to vote on other people's rights. The potential for coalition parliamentarians to vote as a block against allowing same-sex marriage is not a reason to put off a parliamentary vote; it is a reason to proceed. Each voter should know before an election whether their coalition parliamentarian is committed to allowing same-sex marriage. It would be perverse and undemocratic for the Greens to avoid parliamentary consideration of their own bill just to provide coalition parliamentarians with cover on this issue.

I call on all senators to support this amendment, including senators who do not support change to the Marriage Act. Supporting this amendment simply means that you do not fear voting on the issue of same-sex marriage and you accept it as part of your job.

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

The Australian Greens do not support this motion.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh!

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

Here we go again—the Labor Party interjecting. They were the party which had six years to deliver this reform and did everything they could to try and avoid a debate. Then today, when we have an opportunity to do one, they start using this issue once again as a cheap political wedge. Let us be absolutely clear about what is happening here: after six years of inaction, after voting against marriage equality at every opportunity, every vote, every time, they then come into this place on Tuesday and say, 'Hey presto, let's deal with it; let's bring it on.' So the Greens said, 'We've got private members' time on Thursday; let's do it.'

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One hour! You want to do the whole debate in one hour.

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

And, of course, suddenly they then cannot bring themselves to do a vote during that period.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We are giving you the whole day to do it.

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

We have had so much debate within the community over this issue over many years—

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

One hour!

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

Senator Dastyari is screaming at me, 'One hour.' Does he actually genuinely think this issue has only been debated for one hour? We have seen discussion here in this chamber. We have seen this bill debated as recently as November. We have seen it debated in the previous parliament. We have seen it discussed and debated in our community for decades. Well, it is time for some action. The Greens support the Labor Party in wanting to see a resolution on it. We have private senators' time today. Let us bring it to a vote; let us bring it on and let us deal with it.

Can I just say to the ALP and to Senator Leyonhjelm, please stop using this issue as a cheap political wedge.

Honourable senators interjecting—

I am being heckled here, but, genuinely, please stop using this issue in such a cheap and cynical way. It is actually people's lives you are stuffing around with here. The community has a right to see this issue resolved and treated seriously. It should not be used as a wedge tactic to try to derail voting reform. And let's face it: that is what you are really about. If you genuinely cared about this issue, you would have approached it in a much more ethical way.

We have some time available today in private senators' time. Let us deal with it then and let us have a vote. We can resolve the matter. We welcome the opportunity to do that. The Greens have a proud record on this reform. I want to say to anybody who is listening to this, and I want to say to those in the Labor Party in particular: we will not be lectured by you mob on standing up for equality. I hear that you have been doing phone banking in my state, saying that we have been voting against marriage equality. That is a complete and utter lie and it demonstrates what this tactic is about. What you are trying to do here is to use this issue as a wedge. You are playing with the lives of people in my community. I think it is reprehensible and I think you should be ashamed of yourselves. We have an opportunity in private senators' time. Let us end the delay and have a vote. Let us not see this being used as an opportunity to try to derail voting reform. It is so obvious you are desperate to do whatever it takes to prevent this reform. If is not marriage equality, it is coal seam gas or an issue of workers' rights. There is nothing you will not do to try to stop this reform. You even voted to bring on the ABCC. You are utterly shameless and hypocritical, so give us a break and let us have a vote.

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I first say I do not actually need a lecture from anybody about this being about people's lives. I know that. It is about my life. Can I also say that the Greens are wrong to say that this was never brought to a vote. It was brought to a vote in the previous parliament, and I and many people on my side voted for marriage equality.

I want to say this about Senator Simms—and I have said previously that I do respect the fact that he advocates for this issue with genuine conviction. He says here, 'Don't use this as a political wedge.' The Greens on social media and in the media have been going on about, 'Bring it on for a vote today,' but they now stand up and say, when we are trying to bring it on for a vote today, 'That's a political wedge.' We have the Greens tweeting and on other social media, saying: 'It's time. Marriage equality's been discussed for decades and debated for decades. Let's bring it to a vote and get it done.' Then Senator Simms stands up and says, 'But not this vote; just maybe a vote later if we can get a gag up in private senators' bills.

Let no-one misunderstand what Senator Leyonhjelm's motion would enable. I commend him for his commitment to this issue. We may not agree on everything, but I commend him for his commitment on this issue. His motion would ensure a vote on marriage equality before we go home, and we would have a full debate. It would be treated as the Senate voting changes would be treated. Every senator who wants to make a contribution would be able to make a contribution, and we would vote on marriage equality before we went home. That is what is being offered up today to the Australian Greens. But what we have is their spokesperson on this saying, 'Every Green, every vote, every time, but not today'—again—'because we want it to be a vote on a gag,' after two or three senators in private senators' business have had the opportunity to make a contribution. Now who wants to talk about political wedging and a lack of commitment on this issue?

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

Boring!

Penny Wong (SA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Di Natale says, 'Boring'. Yes, the facts are boring, aren't they? 'Every Green, every vote, every time,' but not today, again. Twice in three days the Australian Greens will vote to ensure that there is not a vote on marriage equality. Twice in three days the Australian Greens will vote to prevent a vote on marriage equality. So don't you ever come in here and tell us how committed you are to this issue. We will be supporting Senator Leyonhjelm's suspension of standing orders in order to ensure that there is a vote on marriage equality. Twice in three days, on the basis of Senator Simms's contribution, we will see the Australian Greens vote with Senator Bernardi to prevent a vote on marriage equality before the Senate leaves today.

The Australian Greens care more about eliminating the minor parties in this place than they do about eliminating discrimination against same-sex couples. And twice in three days they will demonstrate that, when they walk—on the walk of shame—and vote to prevent a vote on marriage equality before the Senate rises. I say to Senator Simms: if you are seriously telling the Australian people and the LGBTI community that somehow a gag in a private senators' debate for an hour is a better option than a full debate in the Senate, when every single senator who wants to make a contribution can make a contribution and the debate can be brought to conclusion before we leave, I think really you are wrong and your base politics on this will be demonstrated. The truth is: the only vote you are going to propose is one that the Liberals will let you have. The only vote you are going to propose is the one that Senator Abetz and Senator Bernardi and the Liberals will let you have, and that is a gag vote in private senators' business. The only vote the Australian Greens want on marriage equality is the one that the Liberal government will let them have. Their contribution later today will be a demonstration of their hypocrisy on this matter.

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

I move:

That the question be now put.

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

The question is that the motion moved by Senator Brandis, that the question now be put, be agreed to.

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

The question now is that the motion moved by Senator Leyonhjelm be agreed to.