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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney-General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator McAllister today relating to the proposed marriage equality plebiscite.

It is another sitting week, it is another day and it is another example of a government without discipline, without diligence and without direction. We have gotten to the stage where it would be a front page news story if this government were not in chaos and disorder. After yesterday's debacle—a debacle where senior members of the government were forced to filibuster on the address-in-reply to the Governor-General because they had no legislation for us to discuss—we then had the pleasure of hearing the coalition endlessly debate a primary industries levy, a levy which was supported by almost everyone in this chamber, because they did not want the embarrassment of having to adjourn this chamber early.

I was blown away—I was surprised—by the ability of the government to debate non-controversial legislation amongst themselves. Then I thought, 'Well, they're in practice, aren't they?' They are in practice, because they have spent the last few months debating one another endlessly, not in this chamber, but actually out in the media. So let's just review that. Let's just hear some of the voices coming from the government, some of the things we have heard, when the government has been arguing against itself on a few issues.

Question 1: is Senator Brandis doing a good job in managing the plebiscite? Actually, we know what Senator Brandis would say. I think we all understand what Senator Brandis would think about his own role. But what did the member for Leichhardt think? He said, 'I want him to be more transparent, more open, more inclusive.' He said, 'Rather than having everyone second-guessing about what may or may not happen, I want him to reassure them and take them on the journey with him.' That was the view of the member for Leichhardt—very different, one imagines, to the view of Senator Brandis.

Question 2—another question of public discussion: should there be public funding for both sides of the plebiscite? Some of course say no. The reports are that Senator Brandis opposes it. Senator Brandis has said publicly that he wants to keep the cost as low as possible. Senator Paterson: 'If we can't think of a better way to spend taxpayers' money than this, we're not doing our jobs.' The member for Leichhardt vehemently opposed public funding. He says: 'We're giving the churches the plebiscite they want. Do not come asking for money.'

You would think that would all be pretty clear, wouldn't you? But with this government there is always another side to the story, another side to the story that is usually prosecuted in a very public way, not through their party room, not internally, but through the media. And so, on the yes side—because of course there are many people on the coalition side who do support funding for a plebiscite—we know that the member for Canning, the member for Menzies, Senator Bernardi and Senator Abetz are all in support of funding for the plebiscite.

What did Senator Bernardi say? He said, 'We don’t want the plebiscite to be dominated by money from wealthy individuals overseas.' What did Senator Abetz say? 'For a change as fundamental as changing society's basic institution'—not the parliament, incidentally—'there is an imperative that the arguments be able to be put, and that requires funding.' And, according to Senator Abetz, that would actually require $10 million for each side. We know who won that argument, don't we? We know who won that argument in the cabinet.

Question 3: has the Prime Minister been telling the truth about his approach to this question? On the yes side, the Archbishop of Sydney, Glenn Davies, has said that Mr Turnbull gave an unambiguous offer to provide taxpayer funding at a meeting in February, and that is a claim that is backed up by the Australian Christian Lobby director, Lyle Shelton.

The member for Menzies, when asked if he believed the Prime Minister had given this commitment to the public or to religious leaders, answered, 'Both.' Senator Bernardi said, 'People will make up their own minds about whether they believe the PM or the church leaders.' Senator Abetz said, 'I'm sure that nobody when we first discussed the plebiscite thought there would not be equal public funding for both sides.' On the no side, you have the Prime Minister, because the PM and his staff have both denied giving these commitments.

Question 4, which I think is the big question for this chamber and for the Australian public, is this one: is the Prime Minister losing his fight against the social conservatives in his party? There is really no need to hear from the government on this one. The answer is very clear. Every decision about this plebiscite has been made with the foot of the right wing of the Liberal Party pressed firmly against the Prime Minister's throat. After months of uncertainty, we are only now starting to get details of what this plebiscite will look like.

Senator Brandis in his answer to my question said that the coalition had landed on a structure that 'treats both sides equally', which probably marks the first and the only time that the social conservatives in his party have been committed to complete equality on any matter. (Time expired)

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I say that I am somewhat disappointed in the contribution that has been made by Senator McAllister in response to answers to questions during question time, mainly because I actually thought better of Senator McAllister. I have to say I was not overly surprised at the contribution of Senator Cameron; he is a bit of a regular at this sort of behaviour.

I might point out, though, that one of the things that really amazed me about the contribution we have just heard from Senator McAllister was that she refers to a number of contrary views. There is no doubt in the coalition that there are a number of differing views, and what we seek to do is to debate them, so everybody gets their say, so we can have a robust and open debate about many of the issues that face the Australian public.

The parliament of Australia is the greatest place in Australia for public debate, and it does seem a little strange for people to come in here and complain about the fact that there are differing views within the coalition.

There has been some comment about yesterday's so-called filibuster because of the lack of legislation coming through this place. Senator McAllister's contribution failed to mention that there was no legislation earlier in the day because of the fun and games that were being played downstairs by her colleagues in the Labor Party and their refusal to allow the legislation to pass the lower house and come up here for a respectful debate. I think it is somewhat ironical that this is the comment that we have been hearing. It seems a little bit rich for those opposite to complain about the fact that the government is seeking to deliver a respectful, fair and transparent process for the plebiscite. This is not about us telling you what we want to do—whether we want to vote for the plebiscite or vote for gay marriage or not vote for same-sex marriage. It is incumbent upon governments to provide a framework which enables both sides of the argument to put forward fair, balanced and equal debate so as not to prejudice or jeopardise either side's position. That is what a government is here for.

We in this place need to set the tone for this debate. The irony seems to be lost on those opposite that it is those opposite with their politicking and their loud and hysterical behaviour who are setting the tone. What we on this side of the house would like to do, what we in the government are seeking to do, is to have a respectful and mature debate about this issue—an issue which is very important to many, many Australians. It will be the opposition leader, Mr Shorten, who will have to accept and shoulder the consequences of his actions by beating this issue up into hysteria. It will be his actions that decide whether this plebiscite goes ahead or not, and it will be him that decides whether the people of Australia are able to have their say on an issue that they feel very, very strongly about.

It does strike me as an extraordinary waste of the time of this place that after an hour of question time we are debating issues that I would refer to as issues that play the player, not issues that play the game. I refer to Senator Gallagher's question to Senator Brandis about leaks out of cabinet and leaks out of some Liberal Party function or meeting, and I also refer to a question asked by Senator Collins once again of the Attorney-General representing the Prime Minister about comments of a previous employee of government. This is typical of the debate in this place: we are not hearing serious questions, we are just seeing stupid stunts that have no positive bearing whatsoever on the important issues that are facing this country. Did we hear anything today about budget repair? Did we hear anything about fiscal responsibility? Did we hear anything about national security? Did we hear anything about counterterrorism? Did we hear anything about border protection?

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

Point of order. My point is relevance: the motion goes to answers to questions asked by me to Senator Brandis.

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

There is a fair bit of latitude at this point of the day, but, Senator Ruston, I remind you the take note motion was on questions to Senator Brandis that Senator McAllister asked.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Agriculture and Water Resources) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I draw the attention of the house, through you, Madam Deputy President, to the fact that I was merely trying to suggest that the questions that were asked by Senator McAllister and her response to the answers to her questions really cut to the very point of what I was saying: the real issues facing this country are not being addressed in this place. Instead, we spend our time playing around with stupid, unnecessary, unimportant things and turning things into a debacle when we should be having respectful debate about things such as same sex marriage. (Time expired)

Deborah O'Neill (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just have to pick up on the words of Senator Ruston. She talks about 'stupid, unnecessary, unimportant'. That is exactly what we have seen on show from this government throughout the week: stupid stunts, unnecessary actions and failures by them in both the House and the Senate to govern. It is just another expression of what a divided and incompetent government we are having to suffer. What an absolute mess—12 months in and the whole show is more akin to a Marx Brothers comedy than it is to a competent and effective government. The fact that they came into this house yesterday with absolutely nothing worth talking about tells us everything we need to know about a government that has not lost its sense of direction, because the fact is it never had one.

It is a completely unacceptable reality that we are saddled with a government that is swimming in treacle in the dark, with no sense of purpose or direction. We all know why that is happening. It is down to the fact that the Prime Minister cannot govern even his own party, let alone this nation. This morning, we hear that this government is planning to waste $160 million on the proposed plebiscite on marriage equality—and that is a conservative estimate; there are estimates of up to $250 million out there. It is nothing more than a glorified opinion poll that will not even be binding. More than that, an additional $15 million is to be wasted in order to fund hate speech out of the public purse. I bet that went down really well in a party room that is hopelessly divided on this issue. We have already had one senator from the other side saying that he wants absolutely nothing to do with a plebiscite that can only cause hurt and damage. Why is it remotely right that we should engage in a process that has all the potential to injure people in this manner?

What we are seeing with this government is a test of leadership, and the Prime Minister has failed it on this score absolutely miserably. What this mess of their own making illustrates is that we have a divided government and a Liberal Party at war with themselves. Let us face it: they could not even manage to keep their team in the building on Thursday of the last sitting week. Yesterday we had to watch them filibuster for four hours. Today, in the answers from Senator Brandis, we did not hear anything about flags—I suppose we can be thankful for that small mercy. We did not hear any talk about the Top of the Pops, or was it The Proms? We did not hear anything about that. We did not even hear anything about unknown or unnameable candidates in unknown or unnameable towns. So I suppose he stuck to the topic—at least that was something.

But the problem is that this is a government that is completely out of touch with the nation. What makes this fiasco even worse is when we put it in scale, when we understand that the government's mental health program that was recently announced has funding to the amount of $192 million—that is it. So let us get a sense of perspective. This is a government that wants to spend $192 million to support ways of improving the nation's mental health and $160 million on a plebiscite to provide non-binding answers to a question that the parliament could settle this week.

The government's definition of a plebiscite is a very interesting one. What is their definition of a plebiscite? It seems to be that it is a situation where a Prime Minister, following a near-death political experience, has been returned with a majority of one, then laughably demands that he has a mandate to push through a policy forced upon him by part of his party who put him where he is and who have publicly said they will defy the outcome and vote any way they like regardless. It seems that the Prime Minister thinks that this is leadership in action. If this PM had one ounce of leadership, he would let the parliament do its job and have a free vote, decide this matter, rather than the tactic of delay, delay, and appeasing those inside his own— (Time expired)

Barry O'Sullivan (Queensland, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I popped a couple of valium in the break—I hope they kick in before I get through to the end of my contribution here today. To have to sit here and endure listening to the absolute hypocrisy of an opposition that wants to raise issues in relation to this matter is regrettable. I take up Senator Ruston's comments about how you want to discuss this but you do not want to talk about budget repair; you do not want to talk about repairing the massive debt you left this nation, between yourselves and the Greens.

You do not want to consider what might be possible in this nation if we were not paying $1 billion a month on interest bills on the debt and the legacy left to following generations by the Labor government. You want to talk about $160 million wasted on free speech, as you have referred to it, in the plebiscite. You do not want to talk about the billions of dollars invested in pink batts in this nation. You do not want to talk about the billions of dollars incurred in this nation as a result of your policy failures in immigration and the 1,200 people who died on the high seas and the thousands of children that you had in custody at the time that there was a change of government. You do not want to talk about any of those issues. You want to talk about this government, which has now decided—and properly so—to go to the Australian people on what, in my view, is one of the most critical questions to have come before a modern society in the last four or five decades.

There are many of us who are very interested in this question of marriage equality, as it is loosely referred to. Marriage equality is not just about two people being able to marry. This potentially has impacts on defining who a mum is. It has impacts on defining who a dad is. We will have to change the definition of 'parenting' if we rely upon all the traditional definitions that have been available to society. I think, unlike anybody on that side, that the Australian people are entitled to be involved in this question and to express themselves, whatever that expression may be.

This particular question is too significant, too important, to be put before a parliament. Today the good people up in the gallery sat and watched, and I saw them hang their heads on many occasions during the performance. Some of the grubbiest contributions that I have seen in my time in this place came from the crossbench today in question time. These are the sorts of people that you want to be able to rely upon for your judgement and your contribution to this important decision. Well, I say to you: you are disqualified. You are historically disqualified from making a contribution. What the government has decided, under the leadership of Malcolm Turnbull, is that it will ask the people of Australia to address this significantly important question.

My question to you is: what have you got against democracy? What have you got against going directly to the people of Australia and giving them an opportunity to express themselves on this significantly important question? No, you did not even want to spend time on that today, except for the loaded question at the beginning. You wanted to talk about grubby issues.

Senator McKim interjecting—

Listen, can I say through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, that Senator McKim should sit silently. You are new here, but I tell you that you are in close coalition with this mob opposite. Your party is responsible equally for these legacies, these massive debt legacies. When I arrived here we were hardly talking in the billions; we were still in hundreds of millions—until the end of the Labor contribution, where we now have—

Senator McKim interjecting—

Well, my personal wealth! Through you, Madam Acting Deputy President, this is what is happening in this place. When you do not like what is coming into your ears, you start to revert to personal attacks, just like we saw from Senator Cameron here today. It was a disgraceful performance. It really does diminish the reputation of this chamber right across the nation when we hear contributions like we did today. It was an absolute shocker. I withdrew my comments about Senator Cameron. I would still be standing here withdrawing them if I withdrew them on every occasion I called him by that name. So I say to you: this government is leading; it is showing leadership in the nation. The country is behind us. Let us have the plebiscite and put this question to rest. (Time expired)

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think that contribution by Senator O'Sullivan shows why there is concern about the debate that the government would like to see in terms of the plebiscite. It would be useful for Senator O'Sullivan, who talked about redefining parenting in his contribution today, to understand that the Marriage Act does not mention parenting. It would also be good for Senator O'Sullivan to realise that it was the former Prime Minister, Mr Abbott, who proposed this plebiscite, and this plebiscite has been foisted upon Mr Turnbull because he is a captive of the conservative wing of his party. He is at the mercy of the conservatives in his party.

I would also like to say in my contribution here today that I commend Liberal Senator Dean Smith for having the courage of his convictions and taking a stand against the leader who stands for nothing. Senator Smith has told Fairfax Media that he will not support a plebiscite on marriage equality, saying:

I cannot countenance a proposition that threatens to undermine the democratic compact that has seen Australia emerge as one of the most stable parliamentary democracies in the world …

I support Senator Smith's views that we are elected as parliamentarians to represent our communities and to make decisions on difficult and contentious issues. Truth be told, I am sure that many of Senator Smith's colleagues privately support his position. More than this, I am sure that many share Labor's concerns about the impact of the publicly funded, divisive campaign on same-sex attracted and gender diverse people. The proposed marriage equality plebiscite continues to split the Liberal Party, with Mr Turnbull constrained by the demands of the right wing of his own party.

In answer to my colleague Senator McAllister's question, the Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, said both sides of this argument would be treated equally. It is fine for Senator Brandis to speak about equality, because equality is at the heart of this debate, but he should not pretend that this is about the equality in funding for the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns. It is about the equality of all couples, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.

We have seen and heard terrible, horrendous comments from those who are opposed to marriage equality. They have made outlandish and dishonest claims that have caused real harm. They have compared homosexuality to bestiality and bigamy. We have seen, in this place and outside, the horrendous comments of ultra-conservative senators opposed to marriage equality. It is clear that Mr Turnbull cannot even ensure a respectful debate from his own party. How can same-sex attracted and gender diverse people believe Mr Turnbull when he insists that public funding will be used for a respectful campaign? They cannot.

Mr Turnbull's support for the plebiscite on marriage equality is nothing more than the outcome of a pact he had to make to secure the leadership of the Liberal Party. Mr Turnbull has shown again why people are so disappointed in him. The Prime Minister has once again caved into the ultra-conservative wing of his party on public funding for the plebiscite. Mr Turnbull has rolled over. He has rolled over by agreeing to the plebiscite in the first place. He has rolled over by agreeing to throw public money at those who oppose marriage equality. It is public funding for a debate about whether there is something wrong with a proportion of Australians because of their sexuality.

Who will decide who gets the $15 million, and for what purpose? It is clear that Mr Turnbull has put his leadership ahead of the welfare of same-sex attracted and gender diverse young people. (Time expired).

Question agreed to.