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

My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Brandis. Yesterday, Prime Minister Turnbull and the Minister for Finance announced the $122 million non-binding postal survey on marriage equality—yet another compromise to emerge from a divided coalition party room designed to save the Prime Minister's skin. Given that $122 million could fully fund the tuition of 4,560 nursing students, can the minister please explain to the Senate why saving the Prime Minister's job is more important than caring for sick Australians?

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

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

Order! Senator Seselja and Senator Wong. Order! Senator Macdonald too.

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

I did observe in response to Senator Bilyk's question before that the biggest single difference between that side of the chamber and ours is that we are interested in policy and they are interested in playing politics. If ever that was even more obvious than it had been, it would be obvious to you from Senator Pratt's question, which was only about politics.

The government took to the 2016 election a clear, unambiguous promise that the issue of marriage equality would be resolved by the Australian people at a plebiscite. We made that commitment to the people and we were re-elected. We intend to keep that promise. So, last year, the government introduced into the Senate a bill for a plebiscite, which was defeated by the Labor Party and the Greens playing political games with gay people's lives. This morning the government sought to revive debate on that bill and we were defeated by the Labor Party and the Greens because they want to play political games with gay people's lives.

Because the government has been thwarted in its attempts to honour its election promise to engage and enable the Australian people to have their say through a personal attendance plebiscite, we are going to do the next best thing, and that is to have a postal plebiscite. What I would say to everyone on the Australian electoral roll—all 16 million of them—is: have your say; involve yourself in this important act of democratic choice.

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

Senator Pratt, a supplementary question.

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

Given that $122 million could pay for 1,906 new teaching positions, can the minister explain to the Senate why saving the Prime Minister's job is more important than improving the education outcomes for Australian children?

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

I find it very curious that Senator Pratt would attack the idea of a plebiscite when only a matter of weeks ago her own leader announced as Labor Party policy to have a plebiscite on another issue—and that is the old chestnut of whether Australia should become a republic. I actually don't hear people in the street saying that they are worried and that they lie awake at night worrying about whether Australia should become a republic, and yet Mr Shorten has decided that Australia should have a plebiscite about whether we become a republic—not a constitutional referendum, for which there is explicit provision under section 128 of the Constitution, but a plebiscite on an issue that is on nobody's mind, except a few ideologues around Mr Bill Shorten. So don't come in here condemning a plebiscite, Senator Pratt, when your own leader just announced one.

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

Senator Pratt, a final supplementary question.

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

Given that $122 million could fully fund a year of childcare rebates—

Government Senators:

Government senators interjecting—

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

Order on my right!

Senator Ian Macdonald interjecting—

Senator Macdonald! Senator Pratt, you have the call.

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

Given that $122 million could fully fund childcare rebates for more than 16,000 Australian families, can the minister explain to the Senate why saving the Prime Minister's job is more important than helping Australian families struggling with childcare costs?

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

Perhaps Mr Shorten can explain why the cost of the plebiscite that he is campaigning to have is worth the expenditure of money on an issue that is on nobody's mind at all. But, Senator Pratt, evidently, unlike you, I do regard the question of marriage equality as an important question. Not only do I regard it as an important question; I actually regard it as a deeply important social and cultural issue which is best resolved by making as many Australians as possible stakeholders in the outcome and making as many Australians as possible feel that they have had their say in the outcome. And I'm very sorry, Senator Pratt, that you were one of those on your side of this chamber who, rather than progress this issue, decided to play politics with gay people's lives.