Scott Ryan (Victoria, Liberal Party, Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Given my extensive involvement in the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016, I plan to speak to it. When the Prime Minister introduced this bill into the other place, he noted that marriage is a much cherished institution in our society. It is an institution afforded significant respect and, at the same time, an institution about which many people hold different views. I know many people who strongly believe that access to marriage should be open to all adult couples in our community regardless of their sexual preference or gender. I know many others who believe equally strongly that marriage should only be entered into between a man and a woman. Indeed, there are many in this chamber who, at one time or another, have held to both of these views in the last several years. So it should come as no surprise to us that same-sex marriage is a matter of widespread public interest, with deeply held views on both sides of the debate. People on both sides of the debate have a right to express their views.

Accordingly, at the last election the coalition committed to holding a plebiscite so that all Australians could have their say and resolve this issue for themselves. This is the first occasion on which any Australian government has had the courage to address this complex issue. Indeed, Labor made no effort to resolve this issue during their six years in government. In returning the coalition to government this year, Australians endorsed the government's plan to hold a plebiscite. With this bill, we are honouring our commitment to voters to hold a plebiscite as soon as is practicable.

I now turn to the specifics of the bill. As Special Minister of State, I have worked with the Attorney-General to develop a plebiscite framework that is fair and transparent. The Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill is the result of consultation with stakeholders on both sides of the debate. The bill sets out a framework for a national plebiscite to ask the Australian people whether the Marriage Act 1961 should be amended to allow same-sex couples to marry.

The bill authorises and provides funding for the Australian Electoral Commission to conduct the plebiscite. This will be in the amount of $170 million. To ensure a voter experience consistent with federal referendums, the bill incorporates provisions contained in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918, the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984 and other relevant Commonwealth legislation.

The provisions in the bill provide for a compulsory attendance ballot on 11 February 2017, with normal access to pre-poll voting, postal voting and declaration voting. The result of the ballot will be determined by a simple national majority. The simple majority will be achieved when either the yes or no vote receives more than 50 per cent of the votes cast, disregarding informal ballot papers. Materials will need to be authorised, as is normal in elections, and these requirements will also be expanded to include new communications mechanisms such as robocalls and SMS messaging.

'Yes' and 'no' advertising committees will be established based on the precedent of the 1999 republic referendum. These committees will be composed of parliamentarians and citizens, appointed jointly by the Attorney-General and me. Each committee will include up to five Commonwealth parliamentarians and up to five members of the public. The opposition will be invited to nominate two of the five members, and the crossbench will be invited to nominate one member. The $15 million will be divided equally between the 'yes' and 'no' advertising committees. The bill enables me, as Special Minister of State, to issue, by notifiable instrument, guidelines to the committees' advertising to ensure that there is proper accountability for the use of public funds and that advertising meets appropriate standards. Again, this is based on the precedent and practice of the 1999 republic referendum.

The bill specifies the plebiscite question: 'Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?' It is a simple and fair question. It does not presuppose any particular view. Each side of the debate will be given reasonable opportunities to pay to broadcast material about the plebiscite. Broadcasting rules in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Special Broadcasting Service Act 1991 will be extended to apply to conduct relating to the plebiscite. This, too, is consistent with the framework for federal elections. These rules will also include a blackout period during which broadcasters will be prohibited from broadcasting advertisements about the plebiscite. If this bill is passed, and if Australians vote in support of same-sex marriage at the plebiscite, then the government will move quickly to respect the outcome and introduce into the parliament amendments to the Marriage Act. The government's bill provides the framework for a fair, transparent and democratic public vote so that all Australians can have their say and resolve this issue. It deserves the support of senators who want this issue to be resolved, including those—like me—who have changed their mind in recent years and think that it is now time to allow same-sex couples to marry.

Holding public votes to resolve contentious issues is not without precedent in Australia. The ABC's Antony Green has tallied some 35 such votes since Federation, at various levels of government. These include public votes on the payment of parliamentarians, hotel licensing, prohibition, trading hours, and religious instruction in schools. Voters in the ACT have been asked to vote on the question of self-government, and Northern Territorians have voted on statehood, while Queenslanders have voted on daylight saving. And of course, at the federal level, the very contentious and serious issue of conscription was the subject of two plebiscites. A plebiscite on the matter of same-sex marriage is consistent with this tradition. Indeed, this is perhaps an issue uniquely suited to resolution through a plebiscite. As I have said, marriage is an institution that is both held in high regard and about which many people hold different views. It plays an important and critical role in our society, as it has for thousands of years. It is an institution about which parliamentarians can claim no special knowledge or insight. Importantly, putting this issue to a vote would allow all Australians to conclusively resolve this issue for themselves. I have met with advocates of change who know the Irish example well. One of the architects of Ireland's yes campaign told The Australian in June that the vote in Ireland was 'an astounding and unifying moment for our country'. They also said that it 'brought people together instead of tearing them apart'. Contemporary newspaper reports at the time captured the same celebratory mood, as well as the validation and acceptance felt by many same-sex couples. I see no reason why an Australian plebiscite would be any different.

A plebiscite would deal with this matter in a uniquely conclusive way. All Australians would have the opportunity to have their say, respect the result, and move forward together. Allowing only parliamentarians to have a say in the matter will shut out many Australians who tell me that they would like the opportunity to participate directly in this debate. Of course, there may be a small minority of individuals who behave inappropriately—on any side of the debate. But as anyone involved in politics knows, this is true for debates on every contentious issue, and it is a feature of debate, regardless of whether that issue is resolved by a popular vote or a parliamentary vote. We on this side of the chamber believe these to be exceptions to the fundamental decency and civility of our fellow citizens, not the other way around.

In 2013, the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Shorten, expressed support for a plebiscite to allow the Australian people to make their views known on the issue. He said:

… personally speaking, I'm completely relaxed about having some form of plebiscite.

He also said:

But in terms of a plebiscite, I would rather that the people of Australia could make their view clear on this, than leaving this issue to 150 people.

Now Mr Shorten has an opportunity to do just that, by backing legislation for a national vote. In 2015, Senator Di Natale, too, supported a plebiscite, and just last year Senators Rice and Xenophon sponsored legislation for a plebiscite in this place. But now the Labor Party and the Greens say that the Australian people cannot be trusted to have their say. They say debate must be shut down due to the risks that a small minority may say very hurtful things. This argument is wrong, and it sets a dangerous precedent that is becoming—unfortunately—more prevalent on the left of politics.

Firstly, it is disingenuous to think that debate over same-sex marriage will cease if there is no plebiscite. Opponents of the government's plebiscite have cited examples of intemperate debate as a reason to deny all Australians their say. Yet the same examples they use have all taken place in the absence of a legislated plebiscite. Anyone who thinks that stopping a plebiscite means stopping discourteous speech is fooling themselves. Indeed, by delaying a resolution they are only ensuring that debate continues indefinitely. In the days since Mr Shorten announced he would no longer support a plebiscite, we have seen advocates of change launch a new campaign with new advertising advancing their position. And on the other side, advocates of the status quo have thanked Mr Shorten for playing a helpful role in stopping same-sex marriage, saying:

We now have more time to continue building our campaign, more time to build our coalition, and more time to win the hearts and minds of millions of Australians.

And on the same day he announced his opposition to the plebiscite, Mr Shorten sent an email to his supporters asking for donations to support continued advocacy on the issue. Clearly, this debate is not over. The advertisements and the arguments will continue in newspapers, on TV and online. Voting against a plebiscite does not stop this debate. It will only deny Australians the opportunity to bring a conclusive resolution to it themselves.

Secondly, Labor's argument sets a dangerous precedent, as it could logically be used to shut down any contentious debate in the future. In a free society, citizens have a right to express their views. How can we as a country resolve any controversial issue if parliamentarians can declare a topic out of bounds on the basis they do not trust their fellow citizens to have a civil conversation?

If Australians cannot be trusted to discuss same-sex marriage, how will Labor and the Greens trust them to discuss other contentious issues or other issues that may be put to a referendum? As the member for Goldstein said of Mr Shorten's argument, Australians are apparently capable of deliberations to elect him to the highest political office in the country but not to discuss one of his policies. Labor's argument betrays a dim view of one's fellow citizens. Those who represent Australians in this place should not hold such a view. Rather, we ought to respect their intelligence and civility.

Finally, it must be said that I find this argument a touch hypocritical. It seeks to restrict participation in a public debate out of fear that a small minority may behave disrespectfully. Yet, in the same breath, some of those advancing this argument call those they disagree with bigots and homophobes. I do not think Labor senators were being bigots or homophobes just a few short years ago when they supported their party's position that marriage remain between a man and a woman. But I do think those in Labor who would lecture others on civility ought to demonstrate just a little bit of it themselves towards people advancing the very same position the Labor Party held when they were in government.

I conclude by reminding senators that this plebiscite gives every voting Australian a say on the question of same-sex marriage. The bill provides for a fair, transparent and thoroughly democratic way to conclusively resolve this issue so Australians can move forward together. A number of senators are on the record supporting a plebiscite to determine this matter. The bill deserves their support and the support of all senators. I commend the bill to the Senate.

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

I rise to speak on the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016. Fourteen months ago Australians waited with bated breath. We all waited as the coalition gathered in their partyroom meeting to decide whether their members and their senators would be allowed a free vote on marriage equality. This debate, brought on by moderate Liberals, gave hope that marriage equality would finally become a reality in this country—hope that the party which prides itself on championing the freedom of the individual would finally and belatedly give expression to that principle on this issue in this parliament. But the Liberal moderates were scuttled, first by the ambush of a joint party meeting and then with the outcome of a marathon six-hour debate. What eventually emerged was the former Prime Minister Tony Abbott's latest delaying and blocking tactic: the plan to hold a plebiscite.

The outcome was met with immediate public disappointment. It was clear that the plebiscite was simply yet another hurdle, another obstacle, another delay—an obstacle designed by hardline opponents like Senators Abetz and Bernardi to make the path to marriage equality more difficult, more fraught and more contested. The Abbott-Abetz-Bernardi plebiscite was a cynical and cruel political tactic which was rightly opposed by the Liberal moderates and by the man who is now the Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull. How times change!

Australians overwhelmingly support marriage equality. Yet now Mr Turnbull is asking them to do as opponents of that equality demand—to take a path he did not support. This Prime Minister is asking all of us to deliver on the Faustian pact he made with those who will never support equality. That he struck such an agreement against principle and against his own judgement diminishes him. That he is demanding that we deliver it disrespects all of us.

This parliamentary debate ought not to have been about process; it ought to have been about progress. LGBTIQ Australians have been fighting for social and legal equality for decades. Our fight for equality has come a long way. Only 41 years ago, consensual sexual acts between two male adults were illegal in all Australian states. In 1975, my home state of South Australia became the first to decriminalise homosexuality. The fight for decriminalisation in all Australian states continued for a further 22 years—another generation—when your state, Mr President, Tasmania, finally decriminalised homosexuality in 1997.

From those first wins, the community has continued to fight for reform to laws in states and territories across the country. Of course, at the federal level, substantial progress was made in 2008 when the Labor government amended over 80 pieces of legislation to remove discrimination against same-sex couples. This provided overdue relief from discrimination in the areas of taxation, superannuation, health insurance, social security, aged care and immigration.

But whilst our nation once led the world on social reform, today we are laggards. Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Argentina, Denmark, France, Brazil, England, Scotland, the United States and Ireland, amongst others, recognise marriage between same-sex partners.

Opponents of reform use a number of refrains to suggest that discrimination in the Marriage Act should be preserved. The immutability of marriage is a favourite argument but, as we know, whilst marriage has been around a long time, it is constantly evolving. Marriage laws have changed over time. Different classes of people have been excluded from the institution of marriage based on their social or their legal status—for example, slaves, prisoners, and women and men of different races. In Australia, many Aboriginal Australians were not allowed to marry without permission from the state—in fact, a policy that persisted into the 1950s in some parts of Australia. Today, gay and lesbian Australians are excluded from the institution. It is true that marriage is an enduring institution, but it has never been frozen in time. Earlier generations have sought greater equality, and often with each change came warnings that the institution would be irreparably damaged and that the fabric of our society would unravel. It is the case that these dire warnings were unfounded. In fact, marriage has endured precisely because it has evolved, adapted and embraced change.

Opposition to marriage equality is often expressed using the language of religion. I respect people of faith, but I do not support the proposition that the state—the secular state—should impose the theology embraced by some on all. In any event, the argument that all people of faith do not or cannot support marriage equality does not reflect reality. Speaking personally, I do not think the God of my faith would be affronted by who I am, my relationship or my family.

The change in sentiment on this issue in our community over recent years is obvious. I can see it in the changes in attitudes since I was first elected to this place; the easygoing acceptance of our neighbours; the generosity of members of the public from all walks of life, who stop me in the street or at the airport and who tell me to press on; and in the good wishes received when our daughters were born, not only from friends but also from strangers. I see it in those who have joined the campaign for equality: activists, business leaders, unionists, sporting heroes and parents of gay and lesbian children, and so many more who have voiced their support for equality. And I see it in my own party and in my own caucus room, and I thank my colleagues for their movement on this issue over the years.

The fact is that now most Australians no longer ask, 'Why?' They ask, 'Why not?' Polls consistently show that the majority of Australians now support marriage equality. Most people recognise what our laws do not: that gay and lesbian Australians are just like everybody else. Our relationships are like other relationships and our desire to make a commitment to our life partner is no different either. The children that my partner and I run around after are no different from the children of opposite-sex partners, and the joy we feel as our children discover the world around them is no different from the joy felt by opposite-sex partners. I would hazard to say that the challenge of negotiating with a determined four-year-old is probably no different either! Our relationship is not different from the relationships of opposite-sex partners, but our legal status is not the same. We cannot get married in this country, no matter how much we love each other and no matter how committed we are to one another.

But the momentum for change continues to build. Support for marriage equality does not actually require political courage, nor is it an act of partisanship. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and a majority of the elected representatives in this parliament support marriage equality. Our debate has shifted from the merits of equality to the method of achieving it. We cannot underestimate the significance of that shift, but nor can we underestimate the impact that choosing the wrong method may have. This bill represents precisely that: the wrong method—one that is divisive, expensive, non-binding and unnecessary. Instead of a free vote in this parliament on marriage equality, this bill offers us Tony Abbott's fig leaf. It is a $200 million plebiscite and an expensive opinion poll to tell us what we already know: that a majority of Australians support marriage equality. It is a mechanism dreamed up by those in the coalition who oppose equality, a mechanism which would cause division and damage, and a mechanism whose outcome the Liberal hardliners have said they would ignore.

My opposition to a plebiscite is not a decision I came to lightly. In June, I delivered the 28th Annual Lionel Murphy Memorial Lecture at the Australian National University in Canberra. In that speech I set out my personal reasons for opposing a plebiscite—and it came after much thought and much soul-searching. The conclusion I reached was that a plebiscite is not the right pathway to equality. A plebiscite is unnecessary. As I have said, we already know that around two-thirds of Australians support marriage equality. Recall, this nation did not hold plebiscites on the abolition of the death penalty, on the ending of the White Australia policy or on creating native title rights for First Australians. The Racial Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act were enacted without plebiscites. State and federal parliaments have legislated on abortion, voluntary euthanasia, stem cell research and many other controversial issues, without plebiscites.

We also know that a plebiscite is costly. It will cost taxpayers around $200 million. Importantly, we know that a plebiscite is divisive, because it will give those who oppose equality a multi-million dollar taxpayer-funded megaphone to spread a message of intolerance. This bill has not even passed the parliament, yet already opponents of marriage equality are resorting to what can only be described as hate speech. The minister called it 'discourtesy'. It is far more than that. There is hate speech in leaflets, posters and online materials. I want to say this to those in this chamber: for gay and lesbian Australians, this hate speech is not abstract. It is real. It is part of our daily life. And its impact can be very harmful. We know that the rate of suicide for LGBT people is between 3.5 and 14 times higher than the general population. LGBTIQ Australians are at a higher risk for a range of mental diagnoses and are significantly more likely to have depression or anxiety. The tactics that those who oppose equality will employ and are employing will, in a plebiscite campaign, do further damage to vulnerable people. As mental health expert Professor Patrick McGorry said when he called on this government to abandon its plebiscite:

Things will be said which will hurt people. Many of them are already vulnerable. There's definitely risk involved.

In September, 196 healthcare professionals wrote to the Prime Minister, warning that a plebiscite campaign could be damaging for vulnerable people in the community.

Advocates of the plebiscite often point to the Irish experience, where the public overwhelmingly voted to change their constitution to allow marriage equality, remarking upon it as a moment of celebration—as Senator Ryan said before. But what lies behind the TV pictures? In a recent study conducted by researchers at the University of Queensland and Victoria University, it was found that during the Irish referendum campaign LGBTIQ people in Ireland were upset, angry and anxious. And younger LGBTI Irish people were particularly affected, scoring lower on psychological wellbeing, and being the group most likely to report negative psychological impacts of the campaign. Only 23 per cent of those surveyed would be happy to have a referendum again, if they could go back in time. That is one in five after a referendum that was successful. But, of course, a referendum was necessary in Ireland. Here, a plebiscite is entirely unnecessary. We do not need a plebiscite, because we can achieve marriage equality in Australia by parliament voting to rewrite a few words in the Marriage Act—and that is what it should do. It should amend the act to remove discrimination against same-sex couples who want to commit to each other for life.

My personal journey in opposing the plebiscite is not unique. It is mirrored in the experience of many Australians. While the plebiscite initially enjoyed public support, a clear majority of Australians now oppose one and want the parliament—those of us elected—to do our job and vote on marriage equality. A recent survey found that support for the government's proposed plebiscite had fallen to 38 per cent. In fact, support dropped further, to 20 per cent, when people were informed of its cost and the fact that government members would be free to ignore its outcome. LGBTIQ Australians overwhelmingly oppose a plebiscite. A survey conducted by Galaxy for Parents and Friends of Lesbian and Gay Australians found that 85 per cent of the LGBTIQ community oppose a plebiscite. And we are hearing this message directly from the Australian people. Thousands have written and called my office, expressing concerns. I know there are some who have dismissed these concerns, who have described our opposition as naive. Self-styled political hardheads claim we should toughen up or, alternatively, they suggest that if we could grit our teeth we could get through a short, sharp debate, even if it were uncomfortable.

I wish that, instead of rushing to judgement, people saying those things could instead have been curious—curious as to why the overwhelming majority of the LGBTI community in this country opposes this bill; curious as to why those most affected by the current discrimination in our laws were prepared to say no. I cannot speak for all, but I will say this: I and many others oppose this bill because we already know what hate speech feels like. We oppose this bill because we do not want our families and our children publicly denigrated; because we know that those opposed will stoop to any argument to prevent change; because we do not trust this Prime Minister and his government to stand up for us, our children and our community; because we have seen their silence when their own backbench speak; because we know their weakness in the face of prejudice; and because we know what damage can be caused in the light and heat of a national campaign.

As Dr Grainne Healy has said, the Irish marriage equality vote was 'brutal' for LGBTIQ people. Well, we have listened to the community. We have listened to LGBTIQ Australians and we have listened to the broader Australian community. That is why Labor will oppose this bill.

But that is not the end of the matter, and that cannot be the end of the matter. Despite the febrile rhetoric of the Attorney-General, there is a clear way forward—a clear way for the parliament to do what Australians want it to do: to resolve this issue, once and for all, by voting on a bill for marriage equality. All we need for that to happen is a free vote by members of the Liberal Party. All we need is for the Liberal Party to live up to its principles of individual liberty and choice. And all we need is for the Prime Minister to exercise leadership. I know there are some in this government, even some who support marriage equality, who are saying this bill's defeat closes the issue for years. So I say to all in this country who support marriage equality: we cannot allow this to be so. We cannot allow this government to continue to force its members to vote to not have a vote—to vote to stop a vote.

The LGBTIQ community has been fighting for equality for decades. We have done so with our friends and allies. We have won many advances, and we will win marriage equality; we will win this debate. Momentum continues to build, and the forces of change will not go away. Marriage equality supporters will fight for a vote in the parliament. We will do so because we know this: prejudice and discrimination can be overcome. We know that what Australians have in common matters more than the division and difference some wish to cultivate. And we know that understanding and acceptance will prevail, which is why we will keep working, we will keep campaigning and we will keep fighting until this parliament does what the community wants, and legislates for marriage equality.

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

I rise to speak on the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016. Defeating this plebiscite bill this week will be another step in the long journey towards equality.

Today, I am going to take you on that journey, which I am optimistic is going to have a happy ending, complete with wedding bells in the near future. This journey goes a long way back. I want to start by thanking everyone who has got us this far—those that have risked arrest and imprisonment in the decades leading up to the repeal of laws that outlawed male homosexuality. It is salient to remember that this occurred in such recent times: firstly with a repeal in South Australia in 1975, and in Tasmania not until 1997—such very recent times. I want to thank the Mardi Gras 79ers; the AIDS campaigners throughout the eighties; and people like Rodney Croome, who has been campaigning for equality for the LGBTIQ community for over 25 years. I want to thank people like Michael Kirby and Bob Brown, the first openly gay member of our parliament. I want to thank the pioneering same sex parents like the mums and dads of recently announced Tasmanian Rhodes scholar Bede Jones. I want to thank the huge number of people who have been part of the community campaign over the past year since this thought-bubble of former Prime Minister Tony Abbott was foisted on us and the campaigns run by Australian Marriage Equality, Australians for Equality, just.equal, Rainbow Families, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and the thousands of people, gay and straight alike, who have spoken out against a divisive, expensive, unnecessary plebiscite and who have said loud and clear that the plebiscite is wrong under any circumstances because people's human rights should not be subject to a popular vote. Thanks to the 92,000 people around the world who have signed All Out's petition against this plebiscite, which was described as 'the most pointless vote in the world'; the hundreds of LGBTI community leaders who have spoken out; and the 114 straight allies, from Noni Hazlehurst to Clover Moore, who signed a statement over the weekend calling on the government to ditch this plebiscite and to hold a free vote on marriage equality.

And I want to pay my respects and grieve for those who have not made it: those for whom the overwhelming guilt and self-hatred for their homosexuality or their gender identity led them to take their own lives; those who have lost their lives to hate crimes; who bore the ultimate price of the intolerance and hate of homophobia and transphobia. Such people have been in the front and centre in my thoughts during this plebiscite debate because they remind us starkly that it is people's lives and people's wellbeing which are at stake here. People stand to be harmed by a divisive and hateful debate.

We know this journey will have an end. We know it will. It has been hard, long and arduous, but the end is in sight. There have been massive legal and social changes over the last 30 years, removing most of the state-sanctioned discrimination and social opprobrium associated with being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or intersex. Achieving marriage equality is the last major leg of our journey that we have yet to travel—the biggest remaining state-sanctioned discrimination faced by LGBTIQ Australians and their families.

We have seen laws change all around the world: the Netherlands being the first in 2001; Canada, with such similar cultural background to us, in 2005; the US just last year; from strongly Catholic Argentina and Spain to Ireland just last year; and the UK, our mother country. For the royalists, the conservatives, those who champion our British history in this place, the fact that the UK achieved marriage equality in 2014 without a plebiscite surely means something. And New Zealand—ah, New Zealand!—three years ago, in 2013. How is it, when our two countries are so much alike and so similar historically, socially, geographically, that they can have achieved marriage equality and we have not? How is it that they get to have all the weddings and we are missing out on so much fun and celebration of people's love for each other?

You ask the average Australian and they say: 'Why are we still talking about this? Why haven't we achieved it long ago? Just let people marry the person they love and let's move on to the other issues we are facing in this country that are much trickier to resolve, like the inequality between rich and poor, like tackling global warming or like giving young people the chance of buying or renting an affordable place to live.' You will not be surprised to hear that we agree. The Greens have been advocating for marriage equality ever since John Howard, supported by the Labor Party, outlawed it in 2008, without a plebiscite and without any public consultation.

From our perspective it is a matter of human rights, of equality, of ending discrimination against people on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity. But we acknowledge that some people's religious beliefs mean they see it differently. That is fine. I am not bothered by people such as Senator Bernardi, Senator Abetz and Senator O'Sullivan having those beliefs, and no one is going to force them to marry someone of the same sex or force their religious practitioners to marry same-sex couples in their places of worship. All that we ask is that they do not impose their religious beliefs upon the rest of us. We live in a secular society. We do not have state-sanctioned religion. Legislating for marriage equality is a matter of live and let live.

Marriage, of course, has had many changes in our culture. It was not so long ago that racially mixed marriages were frowned upon—and outlawed in some cases—notably, those of Indigenous peoples under the control of the state with white settlers in our early years of settlement. It was not so long ago that it was quite unacceptable for Catholics to marry Protestants, let alone Jews, Muslims or Buddhists. It was not so long ago that a woman had to provide a dowry to her husband's family and that the wife was seen as one of the husband's goods and chattels, and where, once a woman was married, she was expected to not undertake any paid work—and, in fact, had to resign from the Public Service, for goodness sake—and settle into a life of having children and looking after her home and husband. But times change. We disrupted society. We worked hard to remove discrimination. And marriage has changed along with it.

When I got married 30 years ago, amongst my feminist friends and sisters marriage still had quite the taint of patriarchy about it. Most of my peer group were not getting married. But Penny and I loved each other and thought, 'Let's do it.' We walked down the aisle together, my father did not give me away and I kept my name. Of course, Penny and I confuse people because we are married, and we have been married for 30 years. The biggest personal touchstone for me in the whole marriage equality debate is that Penny and I would not have been able to get married if she had transitioned earlier in her life. We speak from personal experience when we say that gender identity and sexuality do not matter when it comes to love. We know that our same-sex marriage is just as important and valid and deep and wonderful and loving as our heterosexual one was. Our marriage highlights and underlines the ridiculousness of our current marriage laws in that, for us to stay married, Penny is not able to have a birth certificate that says she is female. If she did that, we would have to get divorced. That is crazy.

Equal marriage is the obvious evolution of marriage as an institution. At its most fundamental, allowing people to marry the person they love regardless of their sexuality or gender identity is affirming that people who are same-sex attracted or bi or trans or intersex have the same rights as the rest of society, that we are celebrated, that we are equal, that we are not second-class citizens. Fundamentally, people objecting to it are telling me that I do not have the same rights as others, that I am different, that I am not as worthy, that I should not be the way that I am, that Penny's and my relationship is not right, that our children should feel different, concerned and worried that they have two mothers. I have had many anti-equal-marriage people tell me that they do not discriminate against same-sex attracted people, rather it is just that marriage is different and sacred and not for them. Sorry, saying that one of society's most revered and established institutions is not appropriate for all my lesbian, gay, bi, trans and intersex friends—saying it is not for us—is discrimination. It is prejudice.

All loving and committed couples, regardless of sexuality, regardless of gender identity, should have the opportunity to express their love through marriage. Why not support this legislation, the argument goes, as a way to achieve such equality? Why don't we make the plebiscite the next step on our journey? The answer is easy. It is because we do not need to put our country through a damaging, divisive and expensive experience. It is unnecessary. And it is not even binding at the end of it. Although some may argue that it is a path to equality, they cannot deny that it is a diversion through difficult terrain, an unnecessary detour with the likelihood of considerable harm being done to people along the way.

If it were necessary, then the situation would be different. If it were the only path, then we would make the best of it. We would pull together and support each other through it, like they did in Ireland during their referendum campaign. But we are not like Ireland, because we do not need constitutional change. We do not need to put the LGBTI community and their families through the damage and harm and hate speech which would be unleashed by the plebiscite campaign. We can achieve marriage equality through a free vote in our parliament. We need to do that as a matter of urgency. We could achieve equality by Valentine's Day next year.

A stark summary of how damaging this plebiscite would be to LGBTIQ people and their families comes from the Irish experience. Yes, they won and they achieved marriage equality, but at a cost. Dr Grainne Healy, the co-director of the Irish Yes Equality campaign, wrote to all of us and told us this in no uncertain terms. It is worth quoting from her letter. She said:

The No side posters which declared that 'every child deserves a mother and a father' were deeply hurtful and upsetting for LGBT headed families—explaining to our children that they were ok and trying to hide the posters from them was awful for LGBT parenting families.

The nature of plebiscites is that they allow negative hurtful images and comments to be published in the name of 'fair canvassing'.

Likewise, listening to the untruths and ill informed hate speech on radio or tv during the campaign was damaging and unforgettable for some.

Dr Healy continued:

For our friends in Australia, I would ask that you do not underestimate how horrible and damaging an experience canvassing in such a campaign can be—even in a campaign like ours which was predicated on positive messaging and upbeat imagery and hugely successful social media campaign with national champions for marriage equality coming out—it was a gruelling experience—at least we knew that at the end of it, if we won, we would have full constitutional equality for LGBT marriage rights. To hold a non-binding plebiscite seems to be at the least insensitive to the LGBT community who will bear the brunt of the negative campaigning and at best will lead to an experience of divisive, hurtful campaigning, with no guarantee of progressing marriage equality.

Dr Healy has also been one of the researchers studying the harm that was done by the plebiscite, which has shown major psychological and social impacts on LGBTIQ people and their families. The two groups reported to be the most negatively impacted were the children of LGBTIQ parents and young LGBTIQ people themselves.

This totally unnecessary potential harm and division is the fundamental reason why the Greens oppose this plebiscite legislation, why we oppose a plebiscite under any circumstances. It is why we listen to the Prime Minister's claims that the debate will be respectful and shake our heads and wonder what utopian world he thinks he is living in. He is off with the fairies. It is why suggestions that maybe we could make the plebiscite cheaper through electronic voting, for example, do not sway us.

The answer is simple. We do not need a plebiscite to achieve equality, and a plebiscite will do our community considerable harm. The plebiscite was thought up by Tony Abbott as a mechanism to delay marriage equality and as a too-clever-by-half way of papering over deep divisions in the Liberal Party on this issue. It has not worked. It is about to get voted down, and then we can move on. The pathway ahead is clear. What is needed is simple: a free vote in our parliament. That would see us catching up with the rest of the world. A free vote accommodates people's religious beliefs. The Greens will all vote for marriage equality, of course, because it is about human rights. We have voted for equality in every parliament, every time, every member of parliament.

The Greens have laid out three steps to marriage equality that will get us to the end of this long and bumpy road. The first step is to break up with the plebiscite. I am very hopeful that that is what we are going to do today. Step 2 is to get engaged with cross-party legislation for marriage equality, and step 3 is a vote in our parliament saying 'I do' to marriage equality. A free vote in our parliament would reflect the fact that all three leaders—the leaders of the government, the opposition and the Greens—support marriage equality; that the majority of the members of our parliament support marriage equality; and that we, as members of parliament, represent a society where over 70 per cent of the population support marriage equality.

The best way of moving forward on this is co-sponsored, cross-party legislation that recognises this support across party lines in the parliament and in the community. I call again on my colleagues today to come together, to work together, to put aside party allegiances, turf wars, point-scoring and oppositionality and to make this a reality. This is something that we can achieve together that would make our communities proud of us—working together instead of fighting each other. We can introduce legislation here in the Senate, because it seems that, even with the government's position against equal marriage, the numbers are here in the Senate for such legislation to pass—and what a big milestone on our journey that will be once it does.

This is important because it is about love: the love of Australians for each other. Australians for Equality are currently asking Australians why marriage equality is important to them. Dan and Mike, who are farmers from New South Wales, have shared their thoughts. They said:

"… marriage equality would make a change in Australia in that LGBTQI people would feel that their love is as important as anyone else.

"We don't want anything more than anyone else, we just want the same. We have now found our voice and we're not going anywhere"

Can I ask my fellow senators, the members of the other place, our Prime Minister, our opposition leader—all of us—to listen to these voices and act. Forget the diversion of a plebiscite. Forget the harm that would occur with a plebiscite. Move forward on a free vote in our parliament, so that we can allow people to marry the person they love. It is going to be a beautiful thing. I so look forward to helping to make that happen, so that the celebrations can begin.

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

I rise to support the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 and I will explain why. As I recall, we went to a federal election on 2 July, and the coalition, led by the Prime Minister, indicated that should the coalition win the 2016 election there would be a plebiscite to determine the issue associated with same-sex marriage. The people of Australia, knowing that that was the circumstance and knowing that that was the position of the coalition—

Senator McKim interjecting—

Acting Deputy President, before I go any further, can I just make the point that I listened with respect and quietly to the contributions of Senator Rice and Senator Wong, and I for one will not appreciate any interjection from the Greens and Senator McKim in my contribution. Senator Rice sought respect, and I gave Senator Rice respect. I seek that same level of respect from Senator McKim.

I have spoken many times in this chamber supporting marriage as being between a man and a woman. Today's debate does not centre on that particular issue, but those who are interested in my views can go back to Hansard, and they can read them. Never once in the years that I have spoken on this issue have I mentioned the topic of religion—never once—and I do not propose to do so today.

I am probably going to disappoint Senator Wong when she speaks of Senator Abetz and Senator Bernardi—and perhaps I will break confidentiality about the coalition party room—because it was not Senator Abetz or Senator Bernardi who suggested a plebiscite in the first place; it was me. It was my contention that if we could not resolve this issue then we should go to the people of Australia, and that was the overwhelming view.

So it is terribly disappointing for Senator Wong on the one hand to criticise the Prime Minister and yet on the other hand deny herself and her colleagues the right of a free vote on this issue. The Prime Minister has simply honoured the commitment given in the coalition party room, and that was that we would go to the people of Australia on the topic of the intense interest that exists around this question of same-sex marriage.

We have heard from others—today, we have heard twice—about the overwhelming view, apparently, of the Australian people on this particular topic and their support for it. If that is the case then surely those who are so strongly of that view would be keen to see it tested in a plebiscite of the Australian people. Why do I say that Senator Wong has been duplicitous in her criticism of the coalition on the question of a free vote? It is simply because the Labor Party under the leadership of Mr Shorten have been committed to one particular situation, and that is to oppose the plebiscite. For anybody who says, 'Oh, no, the Labor Party have a free vote,' all they need do is go back and speak to my Western Australian colleague, the now recently ex-senator Joe Bullock. As we know, Joe Bullock made the statement that he could not support the position of the Labor Party, and so he resigned as a senator representing the state of Western Australia.

It is the case that the Greens political party have been consistent. Nevertheless, I would not determine it to be a free vote when the circumstances are that their leader has already said how they will vote. Indeed, in this 45th Parliament, Senator Xenophon has made the statement that those of the Xenophon team will vote a certain way. The last time I was involved in discussion and debate et cetera, I was of the view that people could come into a debate openly, wanting to consider the views of others, and vote accordingly. But that is not the circumstance in this parliament—either the House of Representatives or the Senate—because we already know that the Labor Party, the Greens party and the Xenophon party will commit their people to vote in a certain way.

I am disappointed. I listened very carefully and I certainly respect Senator Wong and Senator Rice for their advice in relation to how people are likely to behave. I have a lot more faith in the Australian people than our colleagues who spoke before me. As I reflect on these comments associated with intolerance and hate speech, I go to three instances which show the reverse. The first was the trashing of Senator Bernardi's office in Adelaide by those opposed to his view. The second was the incident at the Mercure Sydney International Airport Hotel recently when activists became aware that there was a Christian group planning to meet to discuss these issues. As we know, there were threats of violence, there were feral social media posts, there were questions of staff of the Mercure hotel such as, 'Are your children safe at Mercure?' and there were calls showing disdain. If there has been evidence of intolerance and hate speech, it has not come from those who would support marriage as it is currently defined. In Tasmania, when the Catholic Archbishop of Hobart apparently had the audacity to put to the Catholic community of Tasmania a position in relation to preserving marriage as that between a man and a woman, the man was dragged before the antidiscrimination commission in Tasmania, until such time as common sense prevailed and, after a long period of time, the charge was dropped.

I certainly hope that Australians would treat this issue seriously and courteously. Senator Wong is correct when she said that we passed antidiscrimination legislation in this parliament years ago. I am not aware of there having been an outburst of hate speech as a result of that legislation making it illegal to discriminate against same-sex couples in a whole range of areas, in the same way it made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race.

The comment has been made that those supporting marriage as being between a man and a woman will somehow have the financial advantage over others. I would say that the publicly funded broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, has taken one position—that of supporting same-sex marriage—unilaterally for the last period of time. Therefore, I would question whether or not that allegation or that charge is valid.

It is a question of cost. I accept that. But let me remind those in this chamber and inform those in the public gallery that, as a result of the debt incurred during the six years of the Labor government, taxpayers are paying $1.2 billion every month not to repay the debt but just to pay the interest on the debt—$40 million a day, seven days a week. You, Mr Acting Deputy President, and I, and others in this chamber who pay tax, are forking out 40 million bucks a day just to pay the interest. And interest rates at the moment are one and a half percent; imagine if they went to four. So, yes, it is a cost. It is four days interest on the national debt to give the people of Australia the opportunity to have their say on 11 February—four days interest on our debt. I do not reckon that is a bad debt for a population of people who went to the election on 2 July knowing that, should we win government, the Prime Minister would move towards a plebiscite. Where has it changed in this parliament that democracy gets thrown out because one group does not want to accede to the decision of the Australian people? That is what we went to the election on.

Although I support marriage as it is currently constructed—as being between a man and a woman—if in the plebiscite, if it is held on 11 February next year, the people of Western Australia vote to support same-sex marriage I will vote to support, in a subsequent debate on legislation, same-sex marriage, because I represent the people of Western Australia. I challenge everyone else in this parliament—all of those in the reps and all of us in the Senate—to do the same thing. I have heard there are people from our side saying, 'I don't care what the outcome of the plebiscite is, I will go my own way.' I am putting on the record again that if the people of WA, who I represent, support same-sex marriage I will support it. But if I do so, everyone else—every one of the 225 of us—should commit. That is why we are here—those in the House of Representatives by an electorate and those of us in the Senate by the state from which we come. If the people from that state in my case—or, in the House of Representatives, if the people of an electorate—vote 50 percent plus one, then that will be my position.

I do say this: 11 February is three months away. I would urge all of you who want to see this matter resolved more quickly to support the plebiscite to have confidence in the Australian people as to the common sense, integrity and decency of the Australian people. We should support the plebiscite. It is what the electors of Australia did when they voted the coalition into government. If indeed it is so overwhelming that same-sex marriage is the mood and the will of the Australian people, it will be determined on 11 February. If it is not, then I challenge everyone in this parliament to vote according to their constituency.

Sue Lines (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I too rise to speak on the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016. It is an honour for me to stand in the Australian parliament today and once again publicly reaffirm my absolute commitment to marriage equality. I do that proudly, and I do that as a Western Australian senator. In reaffirming my support for marriage equality, I further state: it is the role of the Australian parliament to deal with this issue; it is our role as elected representatives. However, sadly, distressingly and against the will of many parliamentarians from all sides of politics, we as a parliament have steadfastly refused to make marriage equality a reality. In the last parliament, there was a very public six-hour debate held behind closed doors by the government to work out their position. Unfortunately, the extreme right wing of the Liberal and National parties held the day and the ridiculous, unnecessarily expensive and divisive plebiscite won the day. Initially, it won the day because the former Prime Minister Mr Abbott wanted to delay a vote in this parliament. Mr Abbott has made his views on opposing marriage equality very clear. Now the current Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, is holding the line on a plebiscite simply to hold onto his own job.

I listened carefully to the arguments put by Senator Back. I have heard the government talk about a plebiscite and how respectful it will be. I can tell members of this place—and I am sure that, as a Labor senator, I am not alone in this—I have received many deeply offensive emails from people who are opposed to a change in the Marriage Act. So offensive are these emails that on my automatic reply I state that I am for marriage equality, and I further state that I will only respond to respectful emails. Unfortunately, many of these emails are deleted. If the government are trying to convince the Australian public that we can have a respectful debate, they either do not receive the emails that I receive or are completely denying the facts. I am more than happy to share these emails with the government. I am sure that many other Labor senators and, indeed, the Greens would get the same kinds of extremely hurtful emails that I get from people opposed to marriage equality. I know that if we were to proceed with this plebiscite we would give a strong voice to those people, because, at the end of the day, a plebiscite is an opinion poll where people give their opinion as to whether they are for or opposed to marriage equality. It is of course their right to have a view, but that divisive element, that hurtful element, that extremely offensive element in the emails that I get on this issue will be well and truly part of the discourse in the public arena. We know that that is extremely hurtful to the LGBTI community and their children, which is another reason why we do not want to go down the path of this divisive plebiscite. Senator Back would know, as I and other Western Australian senators know, that people in Western Australia largely support marriage equality. So Senator Back does not need the views of Western Australians expressed through an opinion poll, such as a very expensive plebiscite, to support marriage equality in this place. Labor has made its view on the plebiscite very clear. We are opposed to a plebiscite. We support a free vote in this parliament on the issue of marriage equality. We know from poll after poll that the majority of Australians support marriage equality. Young people, particularly our next leaders, the next generation, overwhelmingly support marriage equality.

Young people I speak to—whether it is young people in my own family or young people who are friends of people—just cannot understand why we in this place remain unable to move on the issue of marriage equality. The polls tell us that something like 97 per cent of young people support marriage equality. When I speak to my granddaughter, who is 12, her view is: 'Love is love. If people want to marry, why are we standing in their way?' Some people might be surprised that a 12-year-old has an opinion, but that is her opinion and she cannot see why we as a parliament continue to not be able to deal with this issue.

So it is inevitable, with young people coming up and becoming leaders, that we will get to marriage equality in this country. But I do hope that we are not still standing here in another 10 years denying people who love one another the opportunity to marry. I stand here as a person who can make that choice. I can make a choice about whether or not I marry the person I love. I want all of my friends to be able to have the choice that I have to make the same decision and to do so with the support of the Australian community. Certainly, as I have said, when I talk about marriage equality with the people I have contact with, they just cannot understand why we cannot get it done.

When we look around the world now, conservative countries have marriage equality. Australia was once seen as a progressive country. We embraced an eight-hour day and we gave women the vote. We have done a whole range of things in our history to make us proud that we are a progressive country. But on the issue of marriage equality we are no longer seen as a progressive country. Indeed, we are trailing behind many conservative countries who have been able to embrace the concept of marriage equality. Many of us in here were proud when Ireland—a deeply religious country—moved to establish marriage equality. Australia does not have those strong religious traditions. Of course, there are people of the Christian faith in this country, but it is not as strong as it is in Ireland. Yet in Ireland they were able to embrace marriage equality.

What is really sad about this whole issue is that Australians support marriage equality. Young people overwhelmingly support marriage equality. Yet, as a country, we have not been able to deal with this issue in the parliament. Right now, Australia as a country is being held hostage by a handful of right wing conservative politicians in this parliament. Sadly, that is the truth of the matter. That is what it boils down to. A minority group—a rump, if you like—are holding to ransom not only their own party, whether it is the Liberal component or the National Party component of the government, but also the country. They are holding Australia back. Their continued refusal to move on this issue is very hurtful to LGBTI families, because it is saying to those families, to those couples and to those individuals: 'There is something not quite right about what you want.' Those who choose marriage equality simply want to have the rights that every other Australian has.

A plebiscite is absolutely unnecessary. We as a parliament have dealt with issues of greater complexity and issues far more contentious than the issue of enabling those who love one another to choose a married life. Labor knows that a plebiscite will be hurtful to the LGBTI community. As I said at the outset, as a Labor senator, I have received some very disturbing and unnecessary emails from constituents stating all sorts of things. I do not wish to go into the details of these emails in this parliament because I do not think they deserve to be aired publicly, but I can assure you that those emails are there.

We have also heard from our leading mental health specialists, respected professionals such as Professor Patrick McGorry. He has said publicly that a plebiscite will be harmful to the LGBTI community. Why are we not listening to those views? Why are we not listening to the views of respected mental health professionals? Why are we continuing to be held captive by a very small right-wing rump of the current government? Why are we not listening to the views of the two-thirds of Australians who support marriage equality? Why are we not now moving, as a parliament, on marriage equality? Let's have the debate. Let's give everybody a free vote. That is what Australians want to see.

This overwhelming support for marriage equality is higher in Australia than in many countries that currently have marriage equality. I think most Australians, even some people who oppose changing the Marriage Act, want the debate to be had in this place. As Senator Back alluded to, we have seen members of the government who have stated that, regardless of the views of Australians, even if we did have this unnecessary, expensive, divisive plebiscite, many in the government will still vote against marriage equality. Despite what we hear from the Prime Minister about a plebiscite and respecting the views of Australians, many in his own party and in the National Party will not support marriage equality, even after an expensive and unnecessary plebiscite. Surely, these public views by members of the government make a mockery of this facade of a plebiscite.

Ultimately, it is the job of the parliament, the job of politicians, as representatives of their electorates and states, to make this decision. Extraordinarily, at a time when, in the name of balancing the budget, the government is prepared to attack families, pensioners, the unemployed and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people by slashing programs and taking money out of programs, at a time when the government is taking funds out of our health and education systems, at a time when women in this country have been referred to as 'double dippers' on parental leave, the government wants to go ahead and throw money at a plebiscite. It is inconceivable to me that the government could go after vulnerable groups in our community in the name of balancing the budget and yet, at the same time, be quite prepared to throw at least $160 million away—some people say it would be more than that—on an unnecessary, non-binding, hurtful, divisive opinion poll, because that, at the end of the day, is what the plebiscite is. It is nothing more than a government-run opinion poll.

To me, it is immoral that the Prime Minister would waste millions of dollars just to save his own skin. He continues to be a captive of what we assume to be a rump of minority right-wing backbenchers—and I do respect their point of view that disagrees. I do not understand it, but I certainly respect their point of view. But I certainly do not support the wasting of at least $160 million of government money, particularly when we are told daily by the government that money is tight and we have to balance the budget. I certainly do not support the expenditure of such moneys in this way, and I certainly am very concerned about the impact of such a vote on the LGBTI community. The real truth behind the government's dogged plebiscite agenda is that it is really about the Prime Minister saving his own skin.

We already know the answer. We know that two-thirds of Australians support marriage equality. We know that the government's own research company, Crosby Textor, has found 72 per cent of the public already support marriage equality. We know that where referendums have been held in other countries it has been a hurtful experience. In the US, where there have been state referendums on marriage equality, there has been a 37 per cent increase in mood disorders in the LGBTI community; a 42 per cent increase in alcohol use disorders; and a massive increase in generalised anxiety disorders.

Personally, I am really uncomfortable with ticking a ballot that says, 'Do I give my permission for someone else to marry?' because marriage is a deeply personal commitment. It is a decision that couples take—those who love one another and who want to choose marriage. Who am I to stand in the way of that personal decision? Who am I? I do not believe I have the right to make that decision. I certainly believe, as a senator and as a member of the Labor Party, that it is absolutely my job to enable that choice to be made. It is not my job as an Australian citizen to tick 'yes' or 'no' on a public opinion about someone else's rights. That is a step too far for me. I am deeply uncomfortable with the concept of doing that. I am absolutely up to my responsibility as a Labor senator in this place to ensure that we enable people to make that deeply personal decision for themselves, regardless of who they are. If people want to make that public commitment, it is my job to enable that choice to be made.

Even if we look down at the political level, we know 80 per cent of Labor voters support marriage equality, 78 per cent of coalition voters support marriage equality, and 88 per cent of Greens voters support marriage equality. We know that of people of religious faith, 75 per cent of people who are religious but not Christian support marriage equality. We know that 67 per cent of Catholics support marriage equality, and almost 60 per cent—59 per cent—of Christians support marriage equality. So why is this parliament standing in the way of marriage equality? Why are we all being held captive to a minority rump of the right wing of the Liberal and National Parties? It is time that we stood up to those folk. It is time Mr Turnbull stood back and said, 'No, we are putting marriage equality forward in this parliament.'

We have certainly seen lots of changes to the Marriage Act, none of which have ever gone to a plebiscite; we have just made those amendments right throughout the recent history of this parliament. And yet, on this issue we are simply being held captive by the views of a very small minority.

In the last parliament I met with a range of LGBTI families and I heard from the children of those families, who were saying that they would find it extremely hurtful to have their families up in the public spotlight. We should respect the views of those children who spoke out about their families. They are their families. They are loving families, like most Australian families, and we should respect the views of those children and not allow them to be vilified.

I would urge us here in this place to get on with marriage equality, to not support this expensive, divisive and hurtful plebiscite the government wants to go through to save its own skin. The time for marriage equality is now. Let's respect the views of Australians, the majority of whom want marriage equality. Let's get on and let's just do it. Let's get marriage equality ticked off now.

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

I believe people who claim to support legalising same-sex marriage should support every opportunity to do so. If they do not then their support is pretty flimsy. Unfortunately, I am the only senator who has supported legalising same-sex marriage at every opportunity in this place. For all their waffle, this year Labor and the Greens have each blocked the Senate voting on same-sex marriage. I will maintain my unblemished record by supporting the government's Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016.

Those promising to block a plebiscite are lying when they suggest we will instead be able to legalise same-sex marriage through a parliamentary vote. The coalition has a policy to oppose a parliamentary vote and the coalition has the numbers. It is reality. Deal with it. Those who think they will force the government to change its position to support a free vote are dreaming. Half the Liberals are dead against it, as are the Nationals, and the coalition agreement obliges the government to hold a plebiscite. Furthermore, the chances of the coalition moving to a conscience vote were dealt a severe blow when Labor decided to commit to a binding vote after the next election. In the absence of a plebiscite, same-sex marriage has the potential to be a highly partisan issue for years to come.

To those LGBTI lobbyists who oppose the plebiscite because it gives a voice to homophobes, I say: 'Harden up. You may not want to accept it, but homophobes already have a voice and—guess what—they will continue to have a voice for the rest of time. It is called a free society.' Your suggestion that an acrimonious debate will prompt suicides and other mental health issues in the LGBTI community is obnoxious. These are normal people, not mentally fragile little daffodils affronted by name-calling. Those people who believe gay people are too weak or fragile to withstand a public discussion are just perpetuating a homophobic stereotype. If such a view had been accepted during the civil rights debates in the US last century, women would still be languishing in the kitchen and blacks would still be sitting at the back of the bus. They also constitute groups with high rates of mental illness and could therefore be considered more vulnerable. I wonder how Martin Luther King might have reacted if he were told to refrain from a too-passionate debate lest there be blowback against psychologically fragile Negroes. In fact, the people saying such things do not represent the LGBTI community. They are a front for the Greens. The jig was up when, more than a year after the government proposed a plebiscite, the Greens announced their opposition to the plebiscite and then, lo and behold, within a matter of days a slew of lobbyists purporting to represent the LGBTI community announced their opposition to the plebiscite. All Labor are concerned about is the Greens stealing more votes from them.

Like many others, I would prefer the question of same-sex marriage were put to a vote in parliament rather than a plebiscite. I do not like the cost of a plebiscite to taxpayers. But it is disingenuous for the opponents of a plebiscite in this place to claim they are concerned about the cost to taxpayers. They do not think twice about wasting taxpayers' money on every issue under the sun, and their waste is in the billions, not in the millions. Those who oppose spending $170 million on the same-sex marriage plebiscite support spending more than this on an Aboriginal recognition referendum when a statement of recognition would do nothing to improve the living standards of Aborigines. In fact, the cost of a plebiscite could be more than covered by the boost to the economy of additional weddings. The ANZ bank says that is likely to be at least $500 million a year and that the total economic benefit could be as much as $1 billion a year, including small businesses and the service sector.

Opponents of the plebiscite have also cited the fact that they do not know how same-sex marriage would be legislated if the plebiscite is passed. They need to see the legislation before deciding if it is the right legislation. This suggests they may not support the legalisation of same-sex marriage if it comes with protections for those civil celebrants, florists, cake makers and photographers who want nothing to do with same-sex marriages. This reflects a sadistic mindset. It reveals a desire to 'get back' at opponents of same-sex marriage and to rub their noses in it. It also reflects totalitarian thinking, based on a desire to make it obligatory to support same-sex marriage and impossible to hold a different view based on conscience.

I will support a plebiscite on same-sex marriage, because politics is about compromise. If you do not get things delivered to you just the way you like, you should not take your bat and ball and go home. This bill should pass and the plebiscite should occur, because it will lead to same-sex marriage within a matter of months. The obligation is on those who support same-sex marriage—and I am one of them—to ensure the plebiscite passes, not oppose the plebiscite in the first place. I am completely confident a substantial majority of Australians agree with me, and I commend this bill to the Senate.

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

It is always a pleasure to follow Senator Leyonhjelm, and that was a refreshingly direct and honest contribution to the debate on the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016. Before I deal with the matters at hand, I just want to mention a couple of personal issues. Firstly, I want to thank all of those from both sides of the argument who have approached me and had very rational and mature discussions with me. I do not think I have left anyone in any doubt as to my position, but I was very pleased to listen to all points of view. I thank those who made the effort to speak with me for their courtesy in the approaches they made.

The second comment I want to make is that I have not been in a fight. I look like I look today because I had a misspent youth in the sun. This is perhaps a lesson to young people: always wear a hat and your sunscreen. They cut something out of my forehead and the blood has fallen down into my eyes and I look like I have done a few rounds with some boxers—but I have not. I wanted to say that once, so that I do not have to keep repeating myself.

My position on this question is one of almost ambivalence. All I want is to get it over and done with. As a member of my branch, who is quite a strong Catholic lady, said the other day: 'For goodness sake, get it over and done with, because we're sick of hearing about it.' If you have listened to the ABC any time in the last five years, you could not have heard a news bulletin go by without this issue being raised by the ABC. I will be, as I have said publicly a number of times, voting against the question in the plebiscite. I do this for several reasons—although, as I say, I am fairly easy on the whole subject.

Clearly, there is no discrimination against same-sex couples, and there has not been discrimination in Australia for many, many years now. I do not see same-sex couples in any way discriminated against or disadvantaged. In fact, I say to some of my same-sex couple friends: 'How are you disadvantaged? If you want to have a celebration of your union, let me know and I will come along, bring you a nice present and drink your grog and you can tell the world that you are together, you are married—call it what you like.' I just cannot understand this five-year campaign by the ultra-left of society to waste the time of the parliament in this ongoing debate.

There are a number of people—I suspect more in my own constituency of the state of Queensland than elsewhere and certainly a lot of friends and people I have associated with—who have deeply religious feelings and understandings about what marriage means and how marriage is defined. I am conscious that there are many members of the Labor Party with the same view. Taking away a conscience vote for members of the Labor Party and forcing them to adopt the left-wing union line is going to be very difficult for the Labor Party following the next election. That aside, there are people who have very deeply held views on the religious significance of marriage, and they are people who, over time, we have listened to and have supported. I was part of the coalition that, over the last two elections, made a commitment to these groups of people that we would not deal with the matter in the parliament but would ask the people of Australia to make their decision.

For those reasons, I will obviously be voting in favour of this bill. I will be voting no at the plebiscite, but, whatever the result of the plebiscite is, that is how I will vote in parliament. I have made this known publicly a number of times. If the Australian people decide to vote yes to the question, then that is how I will be voting in the subsequent legislation. If they vote no, then that is how I will be voting when the bill is brought before the parliament.

In opening this debate, Senator Ryan again showed the hypocrisy of the Labor Party and the Greens. I will not repeat exactly what Senator Ryan said. In fact, he was quoting Mr Shorten, Dr Di Natale, Senator Rice and Senator Xenophon who themselves have called for a plebiscite. Only a short time ago, it was foremost in their minds that they must have a plebiscite. Why are they now taking a completely hypocritical approach and saying the exact opposite? Where were all the arguments they used today against this bill when Mr Shorten publicly called for a plebiscite? Where were all those arguments when Senator Di Natale and Senator Rice actually proposed a plebiscite? Where were they when Senator Xenophon joined them in proposing a plebiscite? Today, it is the worst thing, it is the devil incarnate, if you have a plebiscite, and yet only a short time ago those politicians were calling for it. It makes you wonder just how serious they are and what their underlying agenda is.

I hope that, by February next year, this decision will be taken and over and done with and that life will move on. The distraction that this issue has caused in this parliament and in certain sections of the community will be done once and for all. February is four months away. I cannot understand why anybody, unless they have ulterior motives, would not get on board and have the plebiscite. By March next year, it would be not an issue for the Australian public.

I also raise an issue which is foreign to the Labor Party and the Greens: we are a government made up of political parties who want the trust of the Australian people. When we promise something at an election, we ask the Australian people to trust us and to believe us. In the last election, we said there would be a plebiscite on this subject. The people of Australia said: 'Okay. We understand what you want. We're going to vote for you on the understanding that, as well as doing other good things, you will have a plebiscite.' We are unlike the Labor Party, who, as you might recall, Mr Acting Deputy President Gallacher, promised that there would be no carbon tax under a government led by the then Labor Prime Minister. When the election was won by the Labor Party, the first thing that happened was that they introduced a carbon tax. Why are politicians and political parties held in such low esteem?

It is simply that—political parties like the Labor Party get up and promise on their heart that there will be no carbon tax and, immediately, when they get there they do the exact opposite thing. We are not like that. We made a commitment to the Australian people. We said to the Australian people, 'Trust us; this is what we stand for in the election. If you vote for us, that is what you will get.' Well, people voted for us, and this is what they are going to get. It is what they asked us to do—that is, to have a plebiscite on same-sex marriage so that it will be over and done with once and for all by March next year.

The cost issue has been raised. It is an absolute furphy, particularly when it is raised by members of the Greens political party and the Labor Party. They were members of a government that ran up a debt which is currently about $400-odd billion. If there had not been a change in government, all of the things that are Labor Party and the Green said they would do with taxpayers money would have led to a debt of about $700 billion. And do you know, Mr Acting Deputy President, that in the time that I have been speaking the Australian taxpayers have probably paid $1 million in interest? Certainly, by the end of today the Australian taxpayers would have paid $44 million in interest on the debt that the Labor Party and the Greens ran up in their six awful years of government. By the end of the week there would have been $300 million of taxpayers money spent on paying interest—mainly to overseas lenders—on the debt run up bythe Labor Party and the Greens. So when the Labor Party says, 'Good heavens; we can't afford $180 million for a plebiscite,' you know the hypocrisy just flows out of their mouth.

I have to say—and not necessarily because of a funding issue—that I disagree with the government's position of providing funding for the yes and the no case. It seems to me to be a very complicated bureaucratic process of having five politicians and five people from the groups to run these cases and oversight by the government on the arguments. It is just, I think, the worst thing that could happen. Let me say to others who are thinking of moving an amendment along that line: do not bother. It is not something worth going to the wall over, but I was disappointed the government decided to do that. I do not usually say what happens in our party room but I spoke against it in the party room. I think that is $15 million that is not necessary and not needed.

As I said before, if you have listened to the ABC any time in the last five years you would have heard all of the arguments on one side. And, certainly, the other side have not been reticent and not been tardy in getting their view out to the parliamentarians and to everyone else on their side of the argument. So I do not think anyone in Australia needs a $15 million advertising campaign to make up their minds on how they will vote. I think most Australians are like me—thoroughly sick and tired of it. They know what they want to do, they are happy to go ahead and have the plebiscite tomorrow and have their say.

If the figures that Senator Lines quoted on how many people in all the parties support it, then why won't the Labor Party and the Greens have the plebiscite? With all those figures it is going to get passed and, come April, it will not be anything that anyone talks about. I suspect—it is my own view—that the Australian people, in the privacy of the ballot box, will probably vote against it. I have no particular reason for saying that. I have just seen the Australian public at plebiscites and referendums. I know there is throughout Australia a deep conservatism that will make them think twice about that. But if Senator Lines is right and all of those people—82 percent, 72 percent or 65 percent—support it, they why oppose the plebiscite?

Get on with it, and by March it will be all over and done with. It is an argument that I simply cannot understand.

Senator Lines said that young people in particular are in favour of same-sex marriage. I see quite a number of young people these days—mainly through the Young LNP—and I suspect Senator Lines is probably right. But I do not think there is anything deep and meaningful about it. I just think they say, 'Oh, well. If people want to do that, let's let them do it.' Maybe young people will vote 'yes'. But I will tell you what is more important for young people, Mr Acting Deputy President, and that is that they should have some trust in their government—some trust in the politicians they elect. They expect, and they should expect, politicians to do what they say. We promised to have a plebiscite, and we intend to do it. I hope young people will respect us for that and then will be very happy to have the vote, as will every other member of the Australian public in making their decision on how they should vote.

Young people will look with disdain at Mr Shorten, Senator Di Natale and Senator Rice—I am not sure where Senator Xenophon is on this issue—three politicians who just a little while ago were advocating for a plebiscite and yet today are totally opposed to it because, as I said before, it will bring the devil incarnate into Australian society. That is what young people do not like, and it is little wonder that politicians and political parties are held in such poor regard.

Again, it is a matter of debate—it does not really add to the debate—but Senator Lines spoke about the plebiscite in Ireland. That is not a bad example to raise. She of course never raises—and neither does anyone else—that Austria, also a deeply religious country, had a plebiscite, and the Austrians decided the other way. Using Ireland as an example is, to me, a bit of political rhetoric, a one-sided political debate that really means nothing.

I say to Senator Lines and to other people from Labor and the Greens party: it is typical of the Left. They try to intimidate and bully people by attributing names to them. I will be called part of the right-wing rump because I support the plebiscite. Most people who know me know well know that I am anything but right wing and that my rump is not big—perhaps my stomach is, but not my rump! These accusations, this bullying and this name-calling in relation to people who do not happen to agree with them are another unfortunate part of the Australian political psyche that really leads to the poor regard in which we are all held. It is because of attributing names, making accusations, belittling people, demeaning people and intimidating people by calling them names. Most of the people from outside whom I have heard in this debate have a serious contribution to make, and they make it because that is what they believe, not because they are a part of any right-wing, left-wing, moderate or Callithumpian group on one side of politics.

Finally, I repeat that by March this question will be beyond us. For those who passionately believe in it—and I know there are many people who genuinely do—come March, the decision will be made in accordance with the opinion polls. For those who are opposed, they will have had their say. And we as a government will have discharged our commitment and our promise to hold a plebiscite, and allow the Australian public to make their decision. I cannot see a simpler and easier way—a more honest and straightforward way—of dealing with this subject that has very sensitive connotations for certain sections of our community on both sides. It can all be over and done with by March, and I look forward to that time.

Anne Urquhart (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Today, I rise to speak against the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016. This is the government's plan to put same sex couples' basic right to relationship equality to a popular opinion poll.

I have spoken many times in this place about the need for marriage equality and the onus on us in this place to deliver it. Most recently I shared the story of Lee Bransden and Sandra Yates from Devonport, who were forced to fly to New Zealand to get married. Lee and Sandra would love to have legally sealed their love in Australia among all their family and friends, but they could not because Lee suffers from an incurable lung disease and they simply could not afford to wait for us in this place to get our act together. The fact that the responsibility for this lies with us is nothing short of shameful.

There are many reasons why this plebiscite is wrong, just one of which is the multimillion dollar hit to the budget that it will levy. Just last week, it was revealed by the Parliamentary Budget Office that, under Mr Turnbull, the deficit from 2015-16 to 2018-19 has deteriorated by $14.9 billion. It also projected that net debt will grow to $356 billion in 2018-19. Already, the credit-rating agencies have put Australia on notice that, if the government does not get its books in order, our AAA credit rating could be at risk. But so deep, so entrenched and so intransigent is the fear that same sex couples may be joined in marriage that those opposite are willing to further threaten Australia's financial position to prevent it.

Mr Morrison likes to tell us that we have a spending problem, and yet he does not blink an eye at throwing over $160 million at a ridiculous, divisive public opinion poll. And that is just the direct implementation cost. PricewaterhouseCoopers has estimated that the full hit to the Australian economy could be over half a billion dollars. Not only that, but the rabid Right wanted to hand over another $7.5 million of precious taxpayers' dollars to give a publicly-funded voice to the vicious anti-marriage-equality lobby.

Gallingly, it was recently revealed by the Advertising Standards Board that these publicly-funded hate campaigns would be exempt from current advertising standards of truth and accuracy. The Prime Minister's suggestion that it would be a respectful, civilised debate shows that he is either ignorant or deliberately misrepresenting the situation. My money is on the latter. Let's be clear: Mr Turnbull's plebiscite would be an open invitation for the right-wing activists to launch into a vicious and damaging campaign.

Already, we have seen the Australian Christian Lobby appealing for the repeal of antidiscrimination laws for the plebiscite campaign period. To my mind, if you need to suspend antidiscrimination legislation in order to make your argument, there is a good chance that your argument is actually wrong.

But the real kicker is that, once all is said and done—once Australians have voted in good faith—the result will not even be binding on the conservatives in this place to vote in accordance with that vote. Already some in this place and in the other have refused to commit to vote in favour of marriage equality if this is what the country decides through the plebiscite, and yet they are willing to throw away millions of dollars in the process of denying the will of the Australian people.

But if the cost to the federal budget is enormous, the personal psychological toll on the LGBTI community would be immeasurable. In September, the co-director of the Yes Equality campaign in Ireland, Dr Grainne Healy, urged the Australian government to reverse its plans for a plebiscite, describing the Irish plebiscite experience as 'brutal' for gay and lesbian people and their families. Dr Healy explained how volunteers needed counselling after enduring abuse and hate speech from anti-marriage-equality campaigners.

Of course, children will be among the most vulnerable if this damaging plebiscite proceeds. No-one knows the hurt and pain of cruel words as much as a child who has experienced them firsthand—like 13-year-old Eddie Blewett, who visited Canberra last month with his parents, Claire and Neroli. Eddie has been ruthlessly bullied this year. It got so bad that his parents were forced to enrol him in a different school, a situation that Neroli believes was heavily influenced by the government's plan for a plebiscite that has legitimised cruel and heartless commentary on the issue.

Today I would like to share Eddie's words from his personal letter to the Prime Minister about the plebiscite. It reads:

Dear Prime Minister,

That really upset me!!! Please do your job. We want same sex marriage without hearing in the playground that I am not normal.

From Eddie.

Ps. Thank god for Tanya Plibersek.

I would like to acknowledge the courage it took for Eddie and his parents to come to Canberra as part of a Rainbow Families delegation and speak on this issue. And I truly hope that we in this place will take the time to reflect on their experience and the experience of thousands of people who would be subjected to cruel arguments about the worth of their relationships and the legitimacy of their families. In failing to deliver marriage equality, we are not just making a statement about marriage; we are making a statement about the value of individual relationships and families. For those who say they are opposed to marriage equality on the grounds of concern for children, I say that it is the cruel attitudes and words that are damaging, not the prospect of marriage between two people who love each other.

Of course, Mr Abbott's decision to hold an expensive, non-binding plebiscite begs the question: why is it that it did not require a popular vote for John Howard to restrict the Marriage Act in 2004 but suddenly the parliament is incapable of doing its job now? Former High Court Justice Michael Kirby hinted at this question when he urged a rethink. He said the plebiscite would create a dangerous political precedent where the parliament can avoid making decisions on difficult issues by running unnecessary and expensive popular votes.

Why is it that the parliament has been able to float the dollar, send Australia to war, legislate on immigration, enforce a goods and services tax and strike binding international trade deals but now we are suddenly incapable of holding a simple vote on whether two people who love each other have the right to get married? Of course, we all know why. It is because this whole thing was dreamed up by Mr Abbott and the conservatives as a means of avoiding marriage equality.

Sadly, Mr Turnbull has proven that he has absolutely no qualms with being the willing puppet of these right-wing masters and has submitted wholeheartedly to his predecessor's plan. Lacking the backbone to stand up to the Abbotts, Abetzs and Christensens of the world, Mr Turnbull has chosen his quest for power and position over his long-held beliefs and his personal integrity. In fact, only three years ago last week, Mr Turnbull called for exactly what Labor and the LGBTI community knows Australia needs to have—a free vote in the parliament. In 2013 the Prime Minister was clear about his opinion on the matter. He said:

But my view, as you know, is that we should have a free vote, and if we do agree to have a free vote, I will vote in favour of same-sex marriage …

Well, what a diminished man we see before us today, what a shadow of his former self. This is the man who fought so strongly for real action on climate change. He rightly pointed out that Mr Abbott's direct action plan was:

… a con, an environmental fig leaf to cover a determination to do nothing.

before mutating before our eyes into the government's chief attack dog on clean responsible renewable energy. This is the man who told us that the days of the three-word slogan were over—right before dragging us to an eight-week election campaign with little more than a $50 billion tax cut for big business and the endlessly repeated 'jobs and growth' mantra. And now this man, who rightly backed a free vote, may be personally responsible for holding off marriage equality for yet another term.

Mr Turnbull promised us he would be different from the man he replaced—right before morphing into Mr Abbott's ideological doppelganger. No wonder Australians are asking themselves: 'Who is this man who calls himself our Prime Minister and what on earth does he stand for?' What does he stand for? The bitter truth is that our Prime Minister stands only for his personal ambitions—never mind the needless damage that he has done to the federal budget and innocent members of the LGBTI community.

So here we are debating a marriage equality bill designed by the extreme right to try to stop marriage equality. You could not make this stuff up. But Labor will not leave the matter there. We understand that marriage equality is what the Australian people want. But they do not want to spend tens of millions of dollars on a damaging, divisive, non-binding opinion poll to get it. I can say this because I have received hundreds of pleas from Australians rejecting the plebiscite and calling for a free vote in this parliament. In fact, I have received thousands of emails and letters calling for exactly this. In contrast, I have only received 43 from people who want the plebiscite to proceed.

Unlike the Prime Minister, Labor will not sacrifice our values nor will we reject the clear message coming from the Australian people. And, unlike the Prime Minister, we will not submit to the will of the deeply unrepresentative hard-right conservatives. No, we will fight. We will continue to prosecute the case for a vote in the parliament and we will not give up until that happens.

Sarah Hanson-Young (SA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016, a bill to establish a plebiscite to test whether the Australian people want to see marriage equality achieved in our country. Of course, we do not need the plebiscite to understand that the majority of Australians, like the majority of parliamentarians in this place, want to see marriage equality achieved. They want to see Australia catch up with some of our other brothers and sisters around the world to embrace equality and to finally put behind us the nasty oppression of couples and individuals based on their sexuality and their ability to love and marry somebody of the same gender. This plebiscite is, of course, legally unnecessary. We are not faced with a need to put a question to the people to change our Constitution. Our Marriage Act in this country is overseen and governed by the parliament. We could have a free vote in this chamber and in the other place and we could achieve marriage equality here today.

I have been thinking about this issue for a long time. It is worth noting that my first private member's bill in this place as a senator, when I first came into the parliament, was to achieve marriage equality and remove the discrimination that only allows a man and a woman to marry and not same-sex couples. I have been advocating for these changes in this place for a long time, as have many of my colleagues. I would like to acknowledge the former leaders of our party, Senator Bob Brown and Senator Christine Milne, for their dedication and their constant advocacy on the issue during their time in this place.

I have thought long and hard about the question of a plebiscite. On face value, when you have such staunch opposition in this place and in the other place to a free vote that would allow parliamentarians to vote with their hearts and their minds, not just on their parties' ideology, a way forward and an opportunity to break the deadlock seems welcome. But as this debate has continued it is clear to me that the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, has not got the commitment to follow this issue through. I do not believe for a second that the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, would ever put himself on the line to make sure marriage equality was achieved in this country, whether by a plebiscite or, indeed, an act of the parliament. It is that lack of conviction from our Prime Minister that casts huge doubt in my mind as to whether a plebiscite would be the best way forward.

I understand all of the arguments in relation to the negative campaigning that would be unleashed through a plebiscite, similar to the horrendous statements that we have heard from some of our colleagues in this place against people of the LGBTI community, simply because of their opposition to changes to the Marriage Act. This type of campaign happens already, and I can only concur with my colleagues that this would be turbocharged during a national public debate for a plebiscite. Without a conviction-led campaign from the Prime Minister of the day, it would be very hard to overcome the negativity and hate that would be spread. On reflection on this issue, the thing that strikes me most is how we got to a situation where in this place, despite the fact that I believe support is overwhelming in the Australian community and the numbers have grown significantly over the years to a majority of parliamentarians supporting these changes, we are today debating a piece of legislation that has been designed to derail the momentum towards marriage equality.

For far too long gay and lesbian Australians, members of the LGBTI community, have been forced to sit in silence and see the rest of us debate their fate and their dignity, and it is time that ended. For far too long this issue has been used as a political football. I would argue that no one side is immune from that criticism. But of course those who want to undermine this reform from happening have been the strongest in their opposition and their public commentary and most naked in their political tactics to undermine and overthrow the momentum to marriage equality. Sadly, blocking this plebiscite bill today will not achieve marriage equality. It definitely will not stop the nasty campaign that is run against equality by opponents. It will not stop people who continue with their hate. In saying that, we must confirm and ensure that neither will it stop the momentum and desire for this equality to finally be achieved. The people who do not want to see same-sex couples in this country being able to marry and have their love recognised will not stop hating today, whether this bill passes or fails. It is our job as supporters of equality to rise up, raise our voices and ensure that no longer are members of the LGBTI community in Australia left silent, sitting on the sidelines. It is our job to ensure that we use this as the turning point to achieve true equality in this nation before any more hate is unleashed.

The Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is on notice to stand up, advocate his support and put himself on the line to prove that he stands for something other than his title and other than his own political survival. This is the moment the bill goes down. It does not have support in this place. This is the moment for Malcolm Turnbull to prove that he can stand for something during this term of leadership. He should grant a free vote to his members and ensure that marriage equality can pass, as it should, in this term of the parliament.

He must not be afraid of the ideologues and the haters who sit in his party room. He must not be afraid of those doubting voices who sit on the sidelines outside this place and continue to put pressure on both his party and, indeed, the Labor Party to frustrate this reform happening. This is an opportunity for Malcolm Turnbull to actually stand for something. I will not hold my breath, but I hope for the sake of the future of our country, for a step forward in achieving equality and for getting us to a respectful place in the eyes of the rest of the world, that the Prime Minister reflects on this issue properly and decides to take on that argument and debate in his own party room. We know the majority of his own members support this reform happening—they just need a champion. Many people thought the Prime Minister was that champion, and, to date, he has failed dismally.

Sadly, over the last few years of watching this debate unfold in this place, while the number of supporters across both sides of the chamber for marriage equality to be achieved has grown, I have seen very little evidence of genuine cooperation across party lines. If we are to vote down this plebiscite today, we must ensure that this is the turning point to achieving marriage equality with a vote in this place. That means some of us are going to have to put down our own bows and arrows and our own political pride and start working together to achieve what we know the Australian community desperately wants to see happen and needs to see passed.

I want to be very clear in saying that it is not that I do not believe a plebiscite would be supported by the Australian people, because the Australian people overwhelmingly want to see this reform happen. But without a champion from the Prime Minister's office and down, with a system and the make-up of this plebiscite being nonbinding and with public funds going towards campaigns that we know will be designed to tell a particular section of the Australian community that they are second-class citizens, I cannot support this piece of legislation before us today. This bill going down will not achieve marriage equality, however. As I have said, it is now time to regroup, to cooperate and to band together to see this reform pass this place. It is time to end this sorry saga of politicking over marriage equality. It is time to put aside the idea that it is okay to use the love of other people and the respect of their relationships as political playthings. It is time for those of us who are supporters to stand up in our parliament, in the community and in our party rooms against those who are ideologically opposed because they believe it will impact on them and their religion.

We know that that is just simply not true. Australia is a secular society; we have a secular parliament. As somebody who subscribes to the Christian faith, I feel totally comfortable with the idea that two people who love each other, respect each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together should be able to do that. Their rights to have that love celebrated and respected in law does not diminish the rights of anybody else. We pass laws in this place all the time that allow some people a hand up when it is needed and support when it is needed to ensure that we have a society that bases itself on the notions of equality, justice and basic fairness, and that is what this issue is about. Yes, it is about love; yes, it is about respect in relationships and equality under the law. But, overarching all of that, it is a matter of human rights and ensuring that every Australian is treated equally. There are no second-class citizens in this country, and it is time that we amend the law to ensure that that is reflected in marriage, in law and in love.

Dean Smith (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am also grateful for the opportunity to place on the parliamentary record a few brief remarks regarding my own position on the proposition that is now before us—the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016.

I came to the Senate as a constitutional and a parliamentary conservative. I believe that our Constitution and our tradition of respecting parliamentary sovereignty have contributed to Australia's remarkable democratic stability since 1901. It is the protection of both our constitutional and parliamentary traditions in this country that leaves me unable to support the current proposal to hold a plebiscite on the question of same-sex marriage.

I do not think any of us in this place sought election to it because we wished to undermine this great institution. For all of its faults—and it is still imperfect—this parliament has time and again shown it is capable of dealing with the big questions of the day. Do we really want to be the first generation of modern parliamentarians who effectively say that we are not capable of resolving difficult issues? In contracting out our responsibility as legislators that is effectively what we would be doing. After doing that just once, how would we look our electors in the eye again and ask them to place their trust in our judgement on future issues? If we set a precedent of holding a public vote on a policy question then we will come under pressure to do so more and more frequently, particularly on issues which give rise to strong personal ethic or religious considerations. If this plebiscite proceeds, I fear it would not be the last. Indeed, I suspect plebiscites would be used more and more frequently and possibly for far less honourable ends.

There may be some in the community who find the prospect of frequent public votes on policy issues an exciting one. But as a parliamentary and constitutional conservative I would see it as an abdication of this parliament's responsibilities, one that would undermine parliament's authority, make our system of government less stable and, over time, contribute to its political paralysis.

Our Constitution establishes a parliamentary system of representative government. As the respected former High Court judge Michael Kirby has written:

A plebiscite, as a precondition to legislation, is a totally exceptional procedure with no foothold in the Constitution.

As a lifelong constitutional conservative, I see this as a clear line in the sand. In submitting this policy question—significant as it is—to a plebiscite, we would be doing something entirely foreign to our constitutional tradition. Once it is undermined, there is simply no telling where it will end up.

It is worth noting that last month marked the 100th anniversary of Australia's first plebiscite in 1916. In framing my position, I have been curious that when Australia's Constitution was being framed in the late 1890s plebiscites were not made part of its final design. Then, in the adolescence of our Federation, we experimented with plebiscites on two occasions: firstly in 1916 and then in 1917. But we have not experimented with them in any meaningful way since. For me, this speaks to the realisation that plebiscites are not and should not be a feature of our democratic culture in Australia.

Former Prime Minister John Howard, who, for me, is the greatest living conservative figure, said in February this year that when it comes to the question of same-sex marriage:

I would've preferred it being dealt with in the Parliament … on a completely non-partisan basis, I think those issues are always better dealt with in a free vote.

Likewise, the Premier of my own state, Colin Barnett, has said:

… it is my view that the matter should be decided by federal parliament, without the need for a plebiscite.

His views have been endorsed by other senior colleagues in the Western Australian government, including the education minister, Peter Collier, and the emergency services minister, Joe Francis.

Our federal parliament has dealt with issues pertaining to marriage, including its definition and its dissolution, on no fewer than 20 occasions since 1961, all without recourse to a plebiscite vote. I fully understand and accept that the question of same-sex marriage is an issue that gives rise to strong passions in the community, but those passions were no less strong in 1961 or, indeed, in the mid-1970s when no-fault divorce laws were introduced and yet our parliament was able to rise to those occasions. Likewise, in a contemporary context, both immigration and euthanasia raise strong passions. Yet I have heard no credible voice and certainly no-one in this place saying we should submit those issues to a people's vote, despite their relevance to contemporary political debate. I of course would not wish to see either of those issues dealt with via plebiscite.

However, I am not a clairvoyant. None of us can be. That is why the question of precedent is so important and why we have a duty to think more carefully about the long-term implications of what is being proposed in this case. I shudder to think that we may see a day in this country where determinations about our right to freedom of speech and freedom of worship or on whether or not Australia accepts immigrants from a particular nation are made by a popular vote of the people at the expense of our parliamentary system of government. It sounds like a ridiculous notion. Indeed, I hope it is a ridiculous notion. But I would prefer that we in this parliament do not expose future generations to that real risk. That is why I am passionate about protecting the foundational principle of parliamentary sovereignty. I believe we as parliamentarians have a responsibility to seek the best way to resolve difficult issues rather than the easy way to resolve them. I do not believe a plebiscite is the best means for resolving this question, and I believe it will forever and irretrievably undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty which has served our country so well.

Debate adjourned.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.