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

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. I refer to his statement reported yesterday:

We want to keep the cost of the plebiscite as low as it can be kept …

Is the cabinet's decision to provide public funding to the 'yes' and the 'no' plebiscite campaigns what the Attorney-General had in mind, or was this yet another concession to ensure that the conservatives in his party would agree to a plebiscite?

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

What we said, and what we have delivered, is a fair process that treats both sides equally.

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator Wong, I wish you would stop playing politics with this question, because the cabinet has now decided, and this morning our party room endorsed, the introduction into the parliament tomorrow of a plebiscite bill which treats both sides of the case—the 'yes' case and the 'no' case—with complete equality.

This is a challenge for Mr Bill Shorten, because Mr Shorten has said that he believes in marriage equality but now Mr Shorten is the one person standing between Australia and the opportunity for Australia to move to marriage equality. It is time for Mr Shorten to stop playing politics with this issue. It is time for Mr Shorten to stop playing politics with gay people's lives. It is time for Mr Shorten to get out of the way, to respect the fact that the government was re-elected committed to this course. It was adopted by the Australian people. It has been supported by the Australian people time and again. If Mr Shorten gets out of the way, we can have marriage equality within less than five months. But, if Mr Shorten decides to continue to play politics with gay people's lives, then there will not be marriage equality. While Mr Shorten says, 'I want to play politics; you can wait for years,' we will put this issue off for years.

Senator Wong interjecting—

I can understand, Senator Wong, why you are feeling very uncomfortable about this, but the fact is that you are a member of a party that faces a choice: will you stay in the way of marriage equality or will you allow the frustrated people to have a vote?

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

Senator McAllister, a supplementary question.

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

I refer to the managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby, Lyle Shelton, who compared the children of same-sex couples to the stolen generations. Will there be restrictions on the use of public funding, or is this the so-called civil and respectful debate the Prime Minister is telling taxpayers to fund?

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

I am not familiar with Mr Shelton's remarks, but I can tell you, Senator McAllister, that I have enormous confidence that the Australian people will have a civil and respectful debate. I have enormous confidence in that. I know that there are some in the Labor Party who are pessimistic about the Australian people. There are some in the Labor Party who believe we cannot have a decent debate about an issue of this sensitivity—

Senator Wong interjecting—

and I can understand, Senator Wong, why you are so upset. I can understand, Senator Wong, why you are so upset. But the fact is that we have now provided an opportunity for there to be a great act of public choice, which in a democracy is only appropriate, and a clear path to marriage equality by 11 February next year. I call on you, Senator Wong, and I call on Mr Shorten, to get out of the way.

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

Senator McAllister, a final supplementary question.

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

I refer to Senator Paterson, who yesterday said in relation to public funding of the 'yes' and the 'no' campaigns:

… if we cannot think of a better way to spend taxpayers' money than in a political campaign, then I think we are not doing our jobs.

Does the Attorney-General agree the government is failing to do its job?

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

Senator McAllister, it will not surprise you to learn that I have enormous respect for Senator Paterson's views on fiscal matters and I have enormous respect for Senator Paterson's concern to ensure that taxpayers' money is spent as frugally and as economically as possible. That being said, when it comes to the plebiscite, what we have decided to do is to adopt, as closely as possible, the funding mechanism that was adopted in 1999 for the republic referendum, when $7½ million was provided to both the 'yes' case and the 'no' case.

Now, Senator McAllister, I believe you feel quite strongly about this issue, so let me just say this to you one more time: we can do this. We can achieve this. The only party that is standing in the way of us achieving this is the Labor Party. The only person who is standing in the way of us doing this is Mr Bill Shorten. Mr Shorten should stop playing politics with gay people's lives.