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

A letter has been received from Senator Wong:

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

The failure of the Turnbull Government to clearly outline its position on public funding of campaigns in the proposed plebiscite in marriage equality.

Is the proposal supported?

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

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

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for the Environment, Climate Change and Water) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to debate the MPI put forward to the chamber today by Senator Wong and object to what I feel is the abhorrent way in which those opposite are dealing with the question of marriage equality in this place, in their party room and in the community. The very idea that the civil rights of Australians should be subject to a plebiscite at all is abhorrent. What those on the other side are setting out is not a path to marriage equality. It is simply an attempt to paper over the divisions in the coalition on this critical issue—and divided you are, a mess you are. As a result of that division, Labor and LGBTI Australians can have no confidence that what you are putting forward is any kind of path towards marriage equality. Indeed, you have pretty much said as much.

In the last couple of days we have learned that one of Australia's most senior Anglican leaders has said that the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, made an 'unambiguous' offer to provide public funding for opposing sides in the same-sex marriage plebiscite. As we have seen reported:

A spokesman for the Archbishop of Sydney Glenn Davies said Mr Turnbull made the remarks at a meeting of church leaders earlier this year.

"It is the Archbishop's clear recollection that the Prime Minister, in words that were unambiguous, stated that funding would be available to both sides on a similar basis to the republic referendum, thought the exact amount was not discussed," the spokesman said in a statement.

"The promise was later raised at a smaller meeting with [Attorney-General George] Brandis in March, who then asked what funding was appropriate, to which the Archbishop replied: the same amount as in 1999, CPI adjusted."

We know that the 'no' camp is pushing for about $10 million to be provided to both sides of the plebiscite campaign. We have been told that the government has made those commitments, even though we have also been told that the position Senator Brandis wants to take forward is for no public funding.

On this side, we have been listening to the LGBTI community, and we are not in favour of a plebiscite at all, and we are certainly not in favour of public funding for a plebiscite, in what would amount to public funding for hate speech, public funding for a divisive and costly referendum. Those preparing for a plebiscite in favour of marriage equality have pretty much said, 'If a plebiscite is forced upon us by the government, then it should have no public funding.' Let us be clear: this is not a condition of support for a plebiscite, as there is no such support. Those in favour of marriage equality are getting ready for a plebiscite but have said there are good reasons not to support one. I certainly do not support one.

What we have before us is a Prime Minister and indeed an Attorney-General who say they support marriage equality. We have on one side an anti-marriage-equality camp, who represent a minority of the Australian community, who want a plebiscite and public funding for such a plebiscite in a last-ditch attempt to stop marriage equality, and a pro-marriage-equality camp, who support a parliamentary vote, who do not support a plebiscite and who certainly do not support public funding for a plebiscite. As many opinion polls show, this is the majority of the Australian community.

The simple fact is: the very idea of a plebiscite is one that has been put forward by those opposed to marriage equality. What is especially galling to me and those opposed to public funding for a plebiscite is the fact that church groups opposed to marriage equality already have access to tax deductible donations through which they can channel funds for such a campaign. However, those in favour of marriage equality, LGBTI groups and rights groups, do not. We have no such access to tax deductible donations.

What do we know about the history of this issue? We know that the Prime Minister has been forced to adopt a position in support of a plebiscite as a condition on his leadership. How then, even though he purports to support marriage equality, are we supposed to have any confidence that such a plebiscite is a meaningful path to equality, especially when there is no detail? Right on the cusp of this question being put to cabinet, there has been no plan championed by our Prime Minister to make marriage equality real. That is because there are too many on the other side who simply do not want it to be. Even Warren Entsch MP has said as much. We have heard reports that when Mr Entsch was asked if Senator Brandis was doing a good job on the plebiscite, he said:

I want him to be more transparent, more open, more inclusive. I have no doubt the Attorney-General is committed to making it happen but I want to see him work with everyone. I want to see him talking to the other side about their views.

How are those of us in favour of marriage equality supposed to have any confidence that what you are setting out is any kind of path to marriage equality when even those on your own side do not see it that way? I am extremely concerned that a plebiscite, and public funding for it, will turn into a platform for people to attack, abuse and demean Australians on the basis of who they love and who they are—their gender identity and their love for their partner. The fact is that casual, unthinking discrimination and deliberate, malicious homophobia are still too common in Australian society.

I am not concerned here about Australians who have traditional notions of marriage. I am concerned here about people on the fringes who will use this plebiscite to say hurtful and extreme things about the LGBTI community. This is certainly what happened in Ireland, to the great detriment of the community there. Sadly, today, we know that two out of five Australians who are gay have thought about self-harm or suicide. A young Australian who identifies as gay is six times more likely to consider taking their own life compared to a sibling, a classmate, a teammate or a colleague. I find it deeply disturbing that we should have a plebiscite that will give a taxpayer-funded platform and a megaphone to the very worst forms of hateful abuse. It will add too greatly to the burden of what too many Australians already have to bear.

In my view, it is fine for me as a senator to make a plea to the parliament about equality. It is my job. I have heard a minority of extremists in the parliament—in this place—make just about every homophobic spray possible. It is horrible and it hurts. Frankly, this is not something I want young, same-sex attracted people to be exposed to—the need to go door to door to plead for their civil rights. This negative campaigning is not likely to defeat a plebiscite, in my view, because people will be repelled rather than persuaded. However, its impact will be lasting and damaging to some of the most vulnerable people in our community.

Christopher Back (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In 2012, I had the privilege of hosting the Hon. John Howard at a wide-ranging seminar in Perth. One of the questions he was asked was why, when Paul Keating won government in 1991, did the then opposition, led by Mr Howard, not object to legislation that the Keating government introduced in the House and in the Senate. His response was relevant to this debate, because he said this: 'The people of Australia decided that the Keating government should be allowed to govern. They won the majority.' Howard then said: 'It was not incumbent on us in our opposition to oppose the will of the Australian people.'

Why is that relevant to this discussion? Because, on 2 July this year, the Australian people decided that the Turnbull-led coalition would continue to govern for the next three years, at least, in this country. Nobody can argue that the coalition took to the 2016 election a commitment that there would be a plebiscite on same-sex marriage should the coalition win government. We did win, and it is a commitment that, unlike our political opponents, we will hold true to. That is the critically important point.

When that plebiscite will be held is to be determined by others. We have had advice from the Australian Electoral Commission that it would not be practical to have such a plebiscite this year, it now being mid-September. As you and I well know, Madam Acting Deputy President, there is a state government election in early March in Western Australia, and I for one would not want the distraction of a plebiscite prior to then. If I had my say, I would be urging that the plebiscite be held after that date, but that is my own personal opinion.

I want to make this point to everybody in this place: we went to an election giving an undertaking that there would be a plebiscite on same-sex marriage so that the people of Australia could make their decision on how this issue should go. There are not many plebiscites. They say that during the First World War there was a referendum on whether or not we should have conscription. There was no referendum; there were two plebiscites. The difference—the young people in the gallery should take notes on this—is that a referendum is held if there is a potential change to the Constitution, but a plebiscite is held to ascertain the will of the Australian people. That is what the Australian people knew when they went to the polls prior to and on 2 July.

If people want to get this matter resolved, the quickest way would be to get Mr Bill Shorten, the Leader of the Opposition, to go along with the Prime Minister's mood and support a plebiscite. Unfortunately Mr Shorten is not going down that path, but I can say that the Labor Party has no high moral ground in this space. It is the case that the Labor Party is actually bound to a certain position, and that position is to oppose the situation we now have in this country—that marriage is between a man and a woman.

You will hear people say, 'No, that's not the case; Labor isn't bound until about 2019.' But I would simply ask you to put that point to now Mr Joe Bullock, then Senator Joe Bullock, the then Labor Party senator representing Western Australia. Senator Pratt is now here, because she replaced him. As you and I both know, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, then Senator Bullock said he could not accept the position of the Labor Party on this issue and so he did the honourable thing and he resigned as a senator for Western Australia. So the Labor Party has a fixed position on this. We cannot have a debate and a vote in this parliament, because one of the two major parties has already told us how they are going to vote. The Greens party, and perhaps others, might also say whether they are bound to their position. We in the coalition are not bound. We had this discussion in our joint party room and we took a decision that the best thing to do would be to seek the confidence of the Australian people on a matter as important as this and go to a plebiscite.

People change their opinions and they are entitled to change their opinions, but I just want to make a point, if I may. In 2010, in the time since I have been in this parliament, the now Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, whose motion it is we are discussing here today, made this statement on 26 June 2010:

On the issue of marriage I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we have to respect. The party's position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman.

Current frontbench members of the Labor opposition in the other place, Mr Bowen, Mr Husic, Mr Burke, Ms Rowland and Mr Fitzgibbon, all voted against same-sex marriage in 2012, as was their entitlement and as is their entitlement now because, as Australian citizens, they will be entitled to a vote in the plebiscite.

I have been asked what my position would be if, in a plebiscite, the result of the plebiscite is a favouring of same-sex marriage—changing what is now the law of the land in which marriage is between a man and a woman. I have said publicly and I will state it again in this place that, if the majority of the people of Western Australia, voting in a plebiscite, say that they want same-sex marriage, I will change my position and I will support same-sex marriage, because it is the democratic position of the people in my state. And I challenge the other 225 people in the other place and this one to agree to do the same—that, if the majority vote in a plebiscite in their state, in the case of senators, or in their electorate, in the case of members is one way or the other, they will commit in the coming days to do as I am committing to do and that is to change, if necessary, my situation.

A plebiscite, unlike a referendum, will not require the majority of people in the majority of states and territories; it will simply be a straight majority of the population of Australia. So I know very well that the population-dominant cities of Melbourne and Sydney will have a skewed opportunity and weighting in this debate. But I object vehemently to statements that have been made by leaders of parties that, for some reason or other, the people of Australia cannot be allowed to have their say on what is such an important issue. I also think it is disgraceful to speculate, postulate or hypothesise on how different people in the Australian community might react to the views of others. That is not the Australia I know. I object vehemently to party political leaders giving some sort of prediction as to what the mood, the behaviour and the performance of people might be. We have laws in this country—very, very strong laws—that protect people against discrimination or any other form that might be offensive to them. Those laws exist in this place.

I say very strongly that I have very little faith in those who are not prepared to allow the Australian people to have their say in a plebiscite. I hear all these predictions: 'The vote is so overwhelmingly in favour of same-sex marriage, that we needn't even bother having the vote.' Well, is that case? I do not know, Madam Acting Deputy President Reynolds, and, with deep respect, neither do you. But what I can say is that this is an issue upon which the people of Australia should have their right to have a say.

It has been put to me that the cost of something like $150 million is a lot of money. Yes, it is, but let me put that into perspective. At the moment, this country is borrowing $1.2 billion a month overseas, not to repay any Labor debt built up between 2007 and 2013 but just to pay the interest. We are borrowing $40 million a day, when we were debt free in this country in 2007. So, yes, $150 million is a lot of money—it is 3½ days interest on the debt that we are paying now—to give the people of Australia their opportunity to make their decision on whether or not they want to see a change to the Marriage Act.

I do have to say that I have little confidence in the integrity of people on the other side who are likely to put the cases for which they so eloquently speak. Why do I have little confidence? It is because I have long believed that the best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. The recent past behaviour of those opposite is that of the scandalous Mediscare campaign leading up to the 2 July election, when it took an ABC journalist to call out the Leader of the Opposition and the national president of the Australian Medical Association to call them out. But did they stop? No. On the evening of 29 June an elderly lady in a nursing home in Perth received a phone call—not a robocall; a phone call—asking her what she was going to do beyond 30 June when the coalition government, if they won the election, would remove all funding for aged care and health care. That is the level of integrity we see and, if it flowed through to this other exercise, I have no faith in Mr Shorten's position. (Time expired)

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

I rise to speak today on the MPI and the latest example of the extreme right dictating the agenda of the Turnbull government. Not only is the government trying to impose its harebrained plebiscite on the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer community but now we have to put up with the 'he said, she said' game about whether the government is going to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars to advertise these well-worn arguments.

Senator Back, in his contribution, made no mention of not only the harm of the plebiscite but adding to the harm of spending millions of dollars to amplify the hatred and the homophobic hate speech that will come from this plebiscite. Many in favour of the plebiscite tell us: 'No, this won't be the case. The plebiscite will be okay. Don't automatically assume the worst.' Let me tell you: we do not automatically assume the worst; we have seen the worst. Sadly, the strong anti-discrimination laws that Senator Back talked of will not protect us and will not protect, particularly, young LGBTIQ people struggling with their sexuality and their gender identity. It will not protect us from the worst of that hate speech and homophobia.

Politicians are often the target of social media trolls, and, late last week, I was. I want to share this experience with you to give you an example of what we can expect—what will be amplified and what will be broadcast through the megaphone—if this plebiscite goes ahead. Late last week, a person called Jeff contacted me. Jeff is a troll. I ask you all to not be like Jeff. Jeff said to me, 'How dare you stupid, ugly, ultra-corrupt scum', and accused marriage equality advocates of advocating the creation of a whole new stolen generation. He prefaced a sentence with, 'As much as I hate being rude to a woman', and then launched into some of the most appalling misogynist language imaginable. He finished up, threateningly, by saying:

You and your kind will not be allowed, nor tolerated to brainwash our kids and sexually groom them. We will never forget. Be sure about it.

Jeff, who is friends on Facebook with the Australian Christian Lobby's Lyle Shelton, is not representative of all who oppose marriage equality, but his contribution to social discourse is not isolated either. I have a growing collection of hateful correspondence to my office. On this occasion, Jeff needed to be called out. It would have been very easy to just delete his comments, but he needed to be called out because not only what he was saying was wrong but the community needs to know the sorts of comments that will be given a megaphone in a plebiscite.

So I told Jeff about the many same-sex couples and their children; they are wonderful parents with loved, loving and well-adjusted kids. And the response was overwhelming. Today, I want to share just a few of their comments with you. Liz said: 'So many same-sex couples have children. And while these attitudes make me angry, I worry about the hurt they will cause any of my future kids.' Another person, Real, said:

Gay couples are not asking anything but equal rights, no idea what he is talking about. My children grew up with 3 parents, their mother and me when they were between their birth and pre- school and then they came living with me and my gay partner as their mother was unable at the time to have them…We love our children and they always have frequent contact with their mother, there was never a conflict or disagreement and my children have grown up into balanced and happy adults. All I am saying is when love guides your hearts and actions, there is no problem.

Sarah asked:

And what about the millions of children who have lost 1 or both "natural parents". Sure makes them feel great to be told they should have "natural parents".

And Mathieu said:

THIS is a perfect example of why a plebiscite might be "civil" in—

the Prime Minister's—

eyes and in the Parliament where people's jobs hinge on their choices of words, but in the eyes of any LGBT person or their families, on the level of the talk on the street and social media it will be anything but.

So do not be like Jeff. But also do not encourage Jeff. Encouraging Jeff and the others like him is exactly what a plebiscite would do. Even worse would be to give the people opposed to marriage equality $10 million, on top of the $160 million plus that we have already been spending, to amplify their attacks. For politicians, we are used to it. Some would even say we are paid to cop it. But the others do not need this. A plebiscite would give a megaphone to the haters. And a plebiscite would tell us what we already know—that the vast majority of Australians are ready for marriage equality; they are way past ready.

Parliament should protect the rights of minorities not subject them to a harmful, hateful, non-binding poll. Why would you want to set such a dangerous precedent? The real reason is a sad reflection on this current government. We have a Prime Minister without the courage to stand up to a backbench that is stuck in the past. The plebiscite was a brainwave of the former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, to delay the inevitable and to keep us behind the rest of the world. Some of the most conservative countries in the world have already legalised marriage equality. Quite frankly, it is embarrassing how far we have fallen behind. Australia should not risk being on the wrong side of history when marriage equality becomes the standard across the world.

So what is the way forward?

It is easy. We can enrich the lives of so many Australians through a simple vote in the parliament. We could do it this week. We could hear wedding bells ringing before Christmas. There are a lot of bills floating around parliament at the moment, but the reality is that it will take cooperation from all of us to make this happen.

It was pleasing to hear, in the contribution from Senator Pratt, the Labor Party's opposition to a plebiscite. I urge the Labor Party to completely shut the door and to make the announcement that they will join the Greens and join and some on the crossbench to block this plebiscite legislation when it comes to us in the Senate, because it is so damaging and unnecessary. To the Liberals who will listen, I ask them to put their internal disputes aside and vote with their heart. I ask Prime Minister Turnbull to allow that to occur, because we could end this so quickly. I ask everyone in this chamber and in the other place to listen to the views of lesbian, gay, bi, trans, intersex and queer Australians and to consider the survey that was done by the Parents and Friends of Lesbian and Gays Australia. It surveyed 5,500 LGBTIQ Australians, and overwhelmingly they said they wanted marriage equality, absolutely, and they wanted it as soon as possible, but they did not want to achieve it through a damaging, divisive popular vote.

I think we do need to come together. We can come together. We can bring together the best of us. We can listen to the views of people who are hurting at the moment, who do not have the rights of other Australians and who are suffering because of this largest state sanctioned discrimination, which is being imposed upon LGBTIQ people. We can listen to them, and people can then vote with their heart. We can move forward. We could have a vote in this parliament next week, then this discrimination would end and then Australia would catch up with the rest of the world. Instead, we are stuck in this debate about having a plebiscite that we will know will cause harm, that we know will cause suffering and that we know is not the precedent that we should be setting for the human rights of people.

We are talking about subjecting the human rights of a minority, of LGBTIQ people, to a popular vote. There are no other minorities that we are saying that this should happen to. The rest of us do not have to ask the rest of the country whether we can get married. For the rest of us, it is just accepted. It is how it should be for LGBTIQ people as well, so that together we can support and embrace their rights and really come together, because we know that love is love. We know that they deserve to be able to get married and celebrate their love with the rest of us. Let us work together and put it into law. (Time expired)

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have to wonder why we are here still having this conversation about a plebiscite on marriage equality when a majority of Australians support marriage equality, as has been demonstrated many times in much polling, but, more importantly, when a majority of parliamentarians here and in the other place also support marriage equality. So knowing that that is the case, why is it that the Prime Minister is set on taking the nation back to the ballot box for a $160 million dollar opinion poll that will have no legal effect whatsoever? There is certainly nothing about marriage equality as an issue that demands that. Not constitutionally, not legally and not as a question of public policy do we need to have this plebiscite.

As the Leader of the Opposition put it so nicely this morning: in 115 years of our democracy, 44 parliaments before us have managed to declare war, negotiate peace, sign trade deals, break down the White Australia policy, open the economy, float the dollar, build universal superannuation, pass world-leading gun control and legislate several changes to the Marriage Act, all without recourse to a plebiscite. So why is this different? What is it about this issue that means that we have to go to this very special public vote? Everyone here knows the answer. We know the answer and the people on the other side of the chamber know the answer. The difference is not the issue. It is not that the marriage equality is so unique and so special. The thing that is different is the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister wants a plebiscite because he fears the social conservatives in his party more than he wants change. The plebiscite is a ploy. It was dreamed up by the former, and perhaps future, Prime Minister Abbott and his clique in the 'Monkey Pod'. It was designed to push marriage equality off into the never-never. It was a way to look like you were doing something whilst very deliberately doing absolutely nothing at all.

If the Prime Minister wanted marriage equality we could legislate for it tomorrow. So why is it that the Prime Minister, who dons a leather jacket from time to time and who was once the darling of Q&A, has stuck with this position? It cannot make him very popular in the electorate. I cannot imagine that he wanders down to the shops in Double Bay and people say, 'Good on you, Malcolm; I'm really so pleased by the position you've taken on marriage equality.' It cannot do much for his standing amongst the Australian public as a person who is prepared to stick to his convictions and prosecute them in the place he has been elected to. The answer to why he is sticking with this, I would submit, is that the plebiscite was part of the price he paid for the job. It is part of his Faustian pact, and that is a term that is particularly relevant here, because Dr Faustus was someone who was not as smart as he thought he was and who made a deal with forces that he could not understand that he could not control. The Prime Minister is too scared of the social conservatives to do the things that he once said he believed in. Senator Bernardi may be thousands of kilometres away in in New York, but one suspects that the Prime Minister sees his shadow everywhere he goes.

The plebiscite was a way to keep marriage equality from breaking what passes for peace in the coalition party room. This government is, in fact, so inept that it cannot even manage to drag its feet on marriage equality without falling into pieces!

The government was supposed to have the supporting legislation before parliament by now. Instead, we find out that the proposal has not even gone to cabinet. There has been an embarrassing public split in the party today on the question of whether there should be guaranteed public funding for the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigns. In today's newspapers, senior Liberals have all but accused the Prime Minister of lying. Senator Bernardi is reported in The Sydney Morning Herald as follows:

… "people will make up their own minds" about whether they believe Mr Turnbull or the church leaders.

It is unbelievable, and it is emblematic of the deep divisions in the Prime Minister's party room and his inability to control them and to pursue the agenda that he took to the election—as Senator Macdonald has so correctly pointed out.

If the plebiscite were simply a device to delay marriage equality it would be bad enough. The problem is that it is not just about delay; it is a wasteful, hurtful way to delay marriage equality. It is obviously unnecessary. As I pointed out before, the majority of people support marriage equality and the latest polling suggests that three-quarters of them do not think that a plebiscite is necessary. We also know that the Prime Minister and the opposition leader in this place support marriage equality. A plebiscite is a wasteful way of going about things—costing $160 million. That is $160 million that could be spent on so many other public services but instead will be spent on a vote which has no binding influence on any member of this chamber or any member in the other place.

It is likely that the plebiscite will be harmful. There is a real risk of hurtful, hateful speech—we know this because some truly awful things have already been said. Senator Rice gave us some examples. I have some examples. Most of us in this chamber who have in any way advocated for marriage equality have examples of incredibly nasty things that have been said about us on social media and that have been written to us—nasty things which, under the proposition of public funding for the 'no' case, could be advertised through television to LGBTI Australians in their own lounge rooms.

I question the impact that this will have on more vulnerable members of the LGBTI community and I question the impact it will have on their children. Senator Pratt pointed this out: two out of five young Australians who are gay have thought about self-harm or suicide. Think about that in the context of your own family. Think about your own children. Think about what it would mean for you to have a child who was exposed to so much community hatred that that was where they were at in their teenage years. A young Australian who identifies as gay is six times more likely to consider taking their own life when compared to their siblings, classmates, colleagues or teammates. The veteran gay rights campaigner Rodney Croome is reported today as having come to the conclusion:

… that it will be easier to achieve a cross-party free vote, or encourage Liberals to cross the floor, than it will be to conduct a plebiscite fairly and have a 'yes' vote implemented quickly.

What an indictment that is of the Prime Minister of this country—a Prime Minister who went to an election saying that he would conduct a plebiscite, a Prime Minister who went to an election—

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

He was elected by the people of Australia.

Jenny McAllister (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Prime Minister was elected on the grounds of conducting a plebiscite, and yet the very people that he sought to speak to in making that commitment do not believe him. They have concluded that this process is a joke, that it will not lead anywhere and that it will not produce the results that people have been looking for.

This stands in very real contrast to the alternative pathway, the pathway that has served our democracy pretty well for more than 100 years, which is that the parliament takes its responsibilities seriously and takes seriously its responsibility to decide issues. That is why we are here. That is what we are elected to do. Labor takes that responsibility seriously. It is why we have introduced a bill into the House of Representatives today to legislate for marriage equality, as we have done so many times before. What does it say to LGBTI Australians that their issue is the only one that is so special that we need to have a special process to ask every Australian citizen about it specifically? What we want is a conscience vote in the parliament to let the majority of parliamentarians who support marriage equality have their say and get this done. But there is one thing you need to vote with your conscience, there is one thing you need to have a conscience vote, and that is the one thing that Prime Minister Turnbull seems to be lacking.

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

At the start of this debate I express my sympathy for and understanding of those members of the Labor Party who I know hold deeply religious convictions—not many of them, I concede, but there are some. I have some concern about and understanding of their conflict over this whole debate and the fact that they are being ramrodded by the Labor Party into promoting a particular view. Having said that, at the beginning of my contribution perhaps I should indicate my position. I, like most Australians, hold no discrimination against people—be they gay or whatever their agenda or situation in life is. In fact, over the years this parliament has legislated to remove all forms of discrimination against gay people or people who, because of their gender, would have otherwise, earlier in their lives, been disadvantaged economically or otherwise. There is no discrimination within Australia, and I have not seen the sort of harm that Labor speakers have spoken about. I suspect that they are issues far removed from the topic of this debate.

My own belief is that marriage is between a man and a woman. It is a Christian ceremony and it should stay that way. When the plebiscite occurs I will be voting 'no'. But I do indicate that if the majority of the Australian public vote yes then I will vote yes in this chamber when the bill comes before us, because that is what democracy is about—that is what we are having a plebiscite for. And I challenge every other senator to say the same thing: will they commit today to voting to legislate the decision of the Australian public in the plebiscite? So that is my position. It is pretty simple; I do not need a great campaign. I do not think most Australians have a view on this issue and I do not think their view is going to change between now and the time of the plebiscite. I simply say to those that are so much in its favour of it: if you are so convinced that it is going to be successful then why not have the plebiscite and get rid of the issue once and for all by the highest possible authority—that is, a plebiscite of the Australian people? Why not? I cannot understand the argument against it.

There has been, today in question time, raised the issue of whether either side should be funded. Labor speakers have made a big thing about the Bishop of Sydney saying one thing and the Prime Minister having a different version. What the heck is that all about? Quite frankly, my own personal view is we do not need to fund it. I think most people understand the issues and can vote without any major campaign. But if there is a greater decision to fund them then I am easy with that, providing it is equally funded.

I pause here to emphasise the difference between the Labor Party and the Liberal Party. You see, in the Liberal Party, we are allowed to have different views. We are allowed to have our own views. We are not regimented to have the view of the unions, who control the Labor Party. So I can say, quite frankly, today I have not heard the arguments, I must say, for having the 'no' and 'yes' cases funded so perhaps I am speaking a little bit out of turn. I will hear the arguments once cabinet has had its determinations and when the matter comes before the coalition party room tomorrow. In the coalition party room, we are entitled to say what we think and make our points and we will do that. At the end of the coalition party room process, the government will come to a conclusion. But whichever way it is, I am relatively relaxed about it.

What this whole point is about is that for years our side of politics, the coalition, has had a policy that marriage was between a man and a woman. In fact, the Marriage Act was changed a few years ago to provide for that and that has been the policy of our party. We went to the 2013 election with that policy and that commitment. Because we made that promise, I know, a lot of Australians voted for us. In fact—I do not like to admit too much family political discussion—I have a nephew who has never voted Liberal in this life. He says he always votes for me but I am not 'Liberal'; I am a 'relative'. But other than that, he always voted Labor. At the last election he voted Liberal because he has a very strong view on this particular issue.

The coalition went to the 2013 election with a commitment to the Australian people that marriage would be between a man and a woman. After the 2013 election, the coalition had a big discussion about it. There was a lot of comment, there were different arguments put forward, and the ABC ran its relentless campaign as it has done from day one on this—it is a pity the ABC did not run the same campaign on homelessness or help for our neighbours or whatever. But as a result of that and many other things, the coalition then decided that we would go to the next election and we would do the fairest thing that could be done; we would leave it to the Australian people to decide what it should be.

So prior to that 2016 election, we said to the Australian people: you elect us as a government and we will not have a conscience vote in parliament. What we will do is put it to you at a plebiscite to determine what you, the Australian public, think about this. There could not have been an Australian, who was interested in this subject—I might add that qualifier—that did not know where the coalition stood. I am not sure the Australian people, in a democracy, knew what the Labor Party stood for because that seemed to change as we approached the last election. First of all Labor had one view then they had another view, then they smelt the way the wind was blowing and then they consulted with the unions. But they did go to the election, I think, with a firm commitment to a parliamentary vote.

The Greens have always had that position and, whilst I do not have a great regard for any policy of the Greens, at least on this issue they have been consistent—consistently wrong, I think—so we knew where they stood. The Australian people knew that if you voted Labor or if you voted for the Greens, you would get perhaps a conscience vote in the parliament. But if you voted for the coalition, you knew what you would get: you would get a plebiscite where everybody, every single Australian could express their view. It does not need me to tell the chamber what the result of the election was. We are sitting on this side so clearly we won the election, which means the majority of Australians believed in most of our policies but this was one of them and they accepted our version that when or if we won the election, there would be a plebiscite.

Unlike the Labor Party, which makes promises before the election and completely disregards them afterwards, we are not of that ilk. We make a commitment, we make a promise prior to an election and we intend to stick by it. I do not need to remind too many listeners that there was an election where Labor promised 'there would be no carbon tax under the government I lead'—remember that? Hand on heart, hand on the Bible—well, I do not think it would have been the Bible—'there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'. Do you remember that? It was a firm promise just before the election. In fact, three days before the election, two days before the election and one day before the election there was this commitment that 'there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead'. And remember, as soon as the Labor Party leader did lead that government, what the first bit of legislation they brought in was? The introduction of a carbon tax.

For the Labor Party, you can make promises before the election and, afterwards, you can treat them with disdain, you can ignore them. It is like, as I often mention—not many people remember this, but I was around then—the L-A-W law tax cuts. Mr Keating, the Labor Prime Minister, not only promised but actually legislated for tax cuts, before the election he did not expect to win, and promised that they were there forever. When he unexpectedly won the election, what was the first thing he did? He reneged on that commitment for tax cuts for hardworking Australians. The Labor Party will make any promise they like. It does not really matter—'We're not going to honour it, should we win the election.' That is the real difference between the Liberal Party and the Labor Party. That is why we, on this side—even those who vocally support same-sex marriage and those who are committed to it—make a promise and stick by it.

Again, I raise the question: if, as Labor and Green speakers have said, everybody in Australia supports this, why not have the plebiscite? Why not go ahead and put it beyond doubt, once and for all? Let the Australian people have a say on this issue which, for many people, is very, very troubling. I do not feel, as an elected parliamentarian of some years now, that I can commit to the people who voted for me to a particular position on this. I can commit to them on an economic issue. I can commit to them on infrastructure issue. I can commit to them on a border protection issue. But I do not want to commit to my fellow Australians on an issue that, for many, is as sensitive as this.

For many, it is a matter of deep religious conviction—not for me, I might say, but for many it is. If the majority of the Australian people are so overwhelmingly in favour of this, what is wrong with the plebiscite? Let's have it. As I said, I commit myself and I again challenge people—there are a few more here now—to do as I will do and commit, to voting the way the Australian people will vote at the plebiscite. I do not know how they are going to vote. I am going to vote no in the plebiscite but I will vote yes in the parliament, if the Australian public say that that is their view.

For me, it is a pretty simple matter. It is a matter of trust, keeping your promises and keeping your commitments. The Labor Party find that foreign. I am proud as a Liberal to abide by this underlying principle: when you make commitments prior to an election, you honour them.

Senator Kim Carr interjecting—

Senator Carr, from the Mal Colston faction of the Labor Party, would not understand what that was about. Keeping your word and honouring your promises is something foreign to the Labor Party but something that I am proud, as a Liberal, my party always adheres to.