Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis. Can the Attorney-General guarantee that taxpayer funded proponents of hate campaigns will be held responsible for the harm and possible suicides of vulnerable Australian targets, seeing that you personally and the Prime Minister in the past have opposed the plebiscite?

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

Thank you very much, Senator Hinch. I should congratulate you on your maiden question—a very punchy, sharp, direct and relevant question, if I may say so. As I said in answer to Senator McAllister, I am an optimist about the capacity for the Australian people to have a civil and respectful debate about a vexed social issue. And of course, Senator Hinch, you of all people, having had a very long career in broadcast journalism, would know that there are always outliers. There are always people who will say aggressive and regrettable things but they are outliers. I am sure this public discussion that we will have in the course of the plebiscite campaign about the meaning of marriage and whether the institution of marriage should be extended to include same-sex couples will be a respectful public debate.

The government, in order to ensure that that is the case, has designed to mechanism, has created an architecture. I want to pay particular tribute to my friend and colleague Senator Scott Ryan, whose knowledge of Australian electoral law is peerless, for devising an architecture through a publicly approved 'yes' committee and 'no' committee on which both sides of politics and the crossbench will have an opportunity to be represented, and on which prominent Australian citizens will also have the opportunity to be represented. I believe that those committees, from both the 'yes' point of view and the 'no' point of view, will set the tone of this debate.

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

Supplementary question, Senator Hinch?

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can the Attorney-General explain why churches that pay no tax should receive even one more dollar to campaign on a public opinion poll?

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

Senator Hinch, this is more than a public opinion poll. This is the engagement of the Australian people in a great democratic act. Senator Hinch, with all due respect to you, and with all due respect to every person in this chamber, I do not believe that politicians have any greater insight into the meaning of marriage than any other citizens. When it comes to a social institution as fundamental as marriage I believe that every single citizen is a stakeholder. I believe every single citizen is entitled to have their views taken into account and to participate directly in a great act of democratic choice in deciding what the definition of marriage ought to be. I do not walk away from that one iota.

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

A second supplementary question, Senator Hinch.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Attorney General, if you are so concerned about the stakeholders, how come in 2004 you did not ask the Australian public what they thought when you inserted the words 'man and woman' into the Marriage Act—and the High Court ruled it was your job to do it? How come you did not approach the Australian people when you said that official foreign marriages would not be recognised here in Australia? You talk about families, but you have damaged hundreds and thousands of families—wonderful families of same-sex couples. You have damaged them. (Time expired)

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

Senator Hinch, I completely reject the dystopia that you envisage. I think that we will see, in the course of this plebiscite discussion, a great embrace of gay Australians and gay families. Of course there will be outliers. Of course, as I said in answer to your primary question, there might be some people who say regrettable things. But I do not think that the Australian people are, by and large, homophobic. Nor do I think that people who have a conservative view and do not want to see the definition of marriage changed are homophobic either. They merely have a conservative—

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A point of order, Mr President. The Attorney-General was asked why the public was not consulted in 2004.

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

Thank you, Senator Hinch. I remind the Attorney-General of the question.

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

Senator Hinch, I did want to make that point. In relation to 2004, I voted for that legislation. So did Senator Wong, by the way. Senator Wong and I now both support the issue of marriage equality. There are a lot of people whose minds have changed and whose thoughts have evolved in the passage of the years.