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

I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Attorney General (Senator Brandis) to a question without notice asked by Senator Pratt today relating to a proposed postal survey concerning marriage equality.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pratt, could you resume your seat. Could we have order in the chamber, please? If you are not participating in this current session, please resume your seat or leave the chamber. Thank you, Senator Pratt.

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

This Monday, the Liberal party room came to a decision that broke the hearts of hundreds and thousands of LGBTI Australians. Those in the coalition have decided to denigrate the LGBTIQ community by attempting to pass the plebiscite through this place yet again, and I thank my Labor colleagues and those on the crossbenches for again voting this ridiculous plebiscite plan down. Yet, in another slap to the face of our community and, indeed, all Australians, this government has decided that it's appropriate to spend some $122 million on a divisive, hateful and, frankly, illegitimate postal survey. This illegitimate postal survey is simply a result of the compromising position that this weak Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Turnbull, finds himself in. What we have here is a situation where the government has needed to satisfy the extreme right wing of the coalition in a search for stability. Prime Minister Turnbull has decided to spend this ridiculous amount of taxpayer money on an illegitimate postal survey that members of his own government have not even gone to the extent of honouring the outcome of, in terms of how they will then vote in this place.

As my question highlighted, there are a great many things that $122 million of taxpayer money could be better spent on, and I'm particularly moved by the Facebook post of one Jackie Hodson, who has cystic fibrosis. When the previous version of the plebiscite was being considered, she posted the following on her Facebook page: 'It's going to cost roughly $160 million for the government to run the plebiscite to confirm what we already know—that the Australian society supports same-sex marriage. Here I am, 25 years old and fighting to breathe. I have battled cystic fibrosis since infancy, and now I'm facing a big, fat fight to stay alive on revolutionary medicine that is saving my life.' She says she's been lucky to be on the medicine Orkambi through a compassionate scheme. However, there are thousands of other children and young adults who need this drug now, and some will die while they wait. She goes on to say: 'I can't understand how we can justify letting innocent people die unnecessarily. How can we justify breaking the hearts of all our mums and dads, brothers, sisters, partners? How can the comparable cost of this plebiscite, a vote, be justified while denying me a lifeline—my only chance to marry the love of my life, have a family of my own and grow old? Both injustices need to end, and they need to end now. Love is love, and please let me breathe easy.' And she has asked people to share her Facebook post.

So there are a great many other priorities that this government could spend that money on. I would love to see that $122 million given to the PBS so that they can weigh up the decision of funding medicines like Orkambi or other important life-saving drugs. It is a ridiculous waste of priorities on the part of this nation to save the Prime Minister's skin, to gloss over their internal division—to spend this money on a wasteful postal plebiscite. That $122 million could go to a great many other worthwhile causes in our nation.

As Senator Brandis highlighted in his answer to my question, why has Mr Bill Shorten put up a plebiscite on the republican question? The simple fact is: to change that problem requires a change in our constitution, whereas marriage equality can be determined by this place and the other place by a simple vote. And you will not even bind your members to uphold its findings. (Time expired)

Senator Brandis interjecting—

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

Sorry, Senator Brandis, this is hard. I quite like Senator Pratt but I cannot believe she is running this argument today. A plebiscite done by the government is bad for her friend who needs medicines, but two plebiscites run by the Labor Party are, apparently, okay. Senator Pratt, you certainly can't really seriously believe that argument. If you are right—and I don't think you are—on the argument about the cost, then it's doubly wrong for Mr Shorten to promise that twice. I can't believe that you have the gall, the front, the hard skin to get up in this chamber and make such a contradictory argument. As I say, I quite like you but I just can't believe you are putting this position.

Gavin Marshall (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Macdonald, may I remind you to address your remarks to the chair, thank you.

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

Yes, of course. Thank you very appropriately, Madam Deputy President. I am just indicating my concern for Senator Pratt, being forced to run what is quite clearly a ridiculous and so contradictory argument. Senator Pratt selectively quotes one email. I could quote 10,000 on each side of the argument. But I do want to, particularly at this time, acknowledge the University of Queensland LNC, who did a survey of young people clearly showing that young people wanted the people of Australia to decide this issue. So I thank them for that. Senator Pratt justifies Mr Shorten having a plebiscite on something that requires not a plebiscite but a referendum to change the constitution. Again, Senator Pratt, through you, Madam Deputy President, Senator Pratt should be aware of that.

This is an issue which has been debated to death. I simply say again—and repeating the leader's comment to Senator Pratt, through you, Madam Deputy President: if Senator Pratt had voted for this plebiscite last year, the whole issue would have been over and done with by now. It would have been resolved six months ago.

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

11 February.

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

On 11 February we would have had a resolution. Yet, it's Senator Pratt and her team, the Greens and Senator Xenophon—who should not be excused from this stupidity—who are determined to carry on this debate for political reasons, as Senator Brandis has mentioned. There is no policy purity at all in the Labor Party's position, or in the position of the Greens or Senator Xenophon, not that we ever expect any sort of decent policy from any of those people.

Senator Pratt, why do you object to the Australian people having a vote on this? Your leader wants the Australian people to have a vote on two particular issues, neither of which too many people are talking about. Here is something that so many Australians had so many different views about. It was an appropriate question to put to the people of Australia. Why don't you trust the people of Australia? Why didn't you allow this to go to a vote six months ago—and then we wouldn't be talking about this today. People who you say are concerned by the indecision wouldn't have been indecisive had you and your team—I say that through you, Madam Deputy President—agreed to have a plebiscite. It would have been resolved six months ago and we'd be moving onto the issues which are of real importance to the people of Australia—things like jobs; things like health, as you mention; things like education; and things like the economy generally—rather than wasting so much time on this, and now having to go through a postal plebiscite to get the views of the people of Australia.

It would have been much better to have a compulsory plebiscite. You people and your allies have chosen not to do that, so we will go to the postal plebiscite and we'll still get from that the views of the majority of Australian people, and I can't understand why that frightens you. I indicate, and I've indicated publicly before, that I will be voting no in the plebiscite, but if the majority of Australians say yes I will be voting yes when the bill comes before the parliament. I can't understand, Senator Pratt. Again, I feel for you that you are running such a contradictory argument.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Unfortunately over the course of this week, we've seen yet another shambles from the Turnbull government, a government that is becoming very well known for the shambles that it creates every time it turns its hand to any form of policy. We're seeing it on energy policy, we're seeing it on housing affordability policy, we're seeing it on education—whether it be higher education or schools—policy and we're seeing it on employment policy. Everything it touches becomes a shambles. There is no difference with the marriage equality debate, where it's happening again, but, sadly, this is a debate in which the shambles the government is creating is going to see a lot of innocent people get very badly hurt.

Now, we know from opinion poll after opinion poll that the vast majority of Australians—I think it's in the order of 70 per cent—support marriage equality and just want to see it get done. We all know how polarised the political debate in our country has become about so many different issues over recent years, where we can't reach agreement and where the community is divided. This is an issue where the community has spoken loudly and clearly on over and over again. There are few issues you could find where you would get such a vast majority of community support as you could find with marriage equality. But rather than just get on with it, act and vote for it, as we do on every other issue—barring constitutional change—in this chamber, the government has chosen to use this as yet another opportunity to settle old scores, to turn on each other and knife each other, and to create yet another policy shambles.

The so-called solution that has come out of the coalition party room this week, headed by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, is an absolute joke. Step 1 was to send back to the Senate the request to have an in-person, voting plebiscite, knowing full well that the Senate would vote it down—and that is what we did again today. The government knew that that was an absolutely futile exercise, that nothing had changed and the Senate was still going to vote against a plebiscite where people would turn up and vote. But that was step 1—send it back in there with this forlorn hope that something might have changed. Inevitably, this morning it was voted down by the Senate. So, step 1: a complete failure.

Let's move onto step 2: a $120 million postal survey conducted by the census-fail organisation, the Australian Bureau of Statistics. That is a postal survey which will not only be incredibly expensive; it will be optional, it will be divisive, it will be ignored by many members of the coalition party room, when we end up getting to a vote anyway, it will be non-binding—so you've really got to wonder what is the point in having it happen—and we all know from a range of legal opinions that there is actually a real legal cloud over whether this postal survey is even legally permissible to conduct. We will have to wait to see what the High Court says. What an absolute shambles. Step 1, send it to the Senate where it will be inevitably knocked over; and, step 2, send it off to a postal survey which is riddled with holes and which many coalition MPs have said they will ignore the result of no matter what the result is. What an absolute shambles.

Focusing for a moment on the cost of this postal survey: $120 million. In the electorates that I represent, I can think of a large number of things where that money would be better spent. In Rockhampton, in Central Queensland, many people in the community want to see a flood levee built to prevent the town from flooding into the future. This postal survey would pay for three flood levees in the city of Rockhampton. But, instead of doing that, this government is happy to spend money on a postal survey which its own members of parliament will actually ignore. On the Gold Coast, the $120 million amounts to three times the cuts that Minister Steven Ciobo, the federal Minister for Trade, Tourism and Investment, has made to tourism spending. I can think of a lot of tourism businesses on the Gold Coast that could really benefit from some of that tourism funding being restored. But, instead of that, we're going to waste this money on a postal survey which the members of parliament will actually end up ignoring.

In the short time that we’ve had available, I put out a request to Queenslanders to let me know their stories about what this postal survey will mean to them, and I have had quite a number of requests overnight from people. I will just read a couple of them in the time I have remaining. Angela, who has been with her partner, a female partner, for 20 years, said:

There's barely a cross word between us. We are still as madly in love today as we have ever been. We have two gorgeous children and two little grandchildren. We'd like to get married in front of our family and friends.

In the end she says:

We just want to feel equal. We just want to share that loving moment with those we love and who love us.

That's not a lot to ask, but, unfortunately, this government is making it harder and harder for them to experience that. From Audrey:

My story is like many others that struggle growing up. All through primary school and high school I wished and hoped that I wouldn't end up being gay. I hid my true self for so many years.

This government is getting in the way of these people having their relationships recognised. (Time expired)

Linda Reynolds (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to take note of the Attorney-General's answer to Senator Pratt's question. We've just heard from the last two speakers on the other side a lot about values, compassion and legal equality. There are other values here that I think are very important. They talk about all those values as if they are the only people in this chamber who have those values. I support same-sex marriage and, if the plebiscite comes back, yes, I will certainly be voting for it. However, like my colleagues on this side of the chamber, a value that we honour and respect greatly is that of keeping our promises. We went to the last election with an absolute commitment that we would put this issue to the Australian people so that they could have their say. It was a very clearly commitment—and one that we have reaffirmed again this week that we will work to honour. I respect that. I participated in the seven hours of debate and discussion two years ago, and I understood the reason that our party room took that decision and it is a reason I still support. It is a way of having this issue resolved once and for all.

I listened to the hypocrisy on a whole range of issues wafting over this chamber to this side from those opposite, and I would like to address each of those issues. First of all, I will address their sudden concern about having plebiscites. This sudden concern comes in the same week that their Leader of the Opposition has proposed at least two plebiscites on issues that they would like to address, including one that we have already in recent times had a referendum on. I cannot recall the last time that those on the other side of the chamber showed any concern about fiscal restraint—putting this nation on a trajectory of hundreds of billions of dollars worth of debt—and yet they fall to the depths in here in this debate today and say that this will cause people's deaths. It's tacky, it's sad and I think it sells all Australians short.

But the thing that upsets me most about what those opposite have been promoting—in what is really just playing politics with this issue—is their distrust of the Australian people. Our founding fathers, our own founders, didn't enshrine a bill of rights in our Constitution, because they had faith in the people in this chamber that we would move with the times and we would represent, in a representative government, the contemporary will of the Australian people. But, to do that, plebiscites are conducted when we want to actually make sure that we've got the will of the people right. There is absolutely nothing wrong with and there is nothing to fear from Australians having their say.

Everywhere I go and I meet younger Australians, they tell me: 'We want to be heard. We want to have our say.' This is something that is important, particularly to under 30s. They want to have their say on this issue. I would have thought those in this chamber would have embraced the opportunity for younger Australians to have their say on this issue, to influence government policy, to talk to their family members, to talk to their parents and to find a voice electorally. That is not something to be afraid of. Those opposite have so little confidence that the Australian people can engage in a robust but respectful debate on an issue on which there is great diversity of opinion in the Australian community. I have to say, 'Shame on you,' to those opposite for not having confidence in the Australian people that we can any more discuss issues of great importance to our country.

Our founders would be very disappointed in the fact that so many people in this chamber and in the other place do not have the confidence to go out, listen to what Australians have to say and then enact it. I remind all of us in this chamber that the only reason we are still discussing this here today—and not issues like electricity prices, jobs and all those other issues—is that the opposition played politics with it. At the last election, you did not have a position on this publicly. We did. We are delivering our commitment to the Australian people, and I am extremely proud of that. When you think about the implications of what you are doing—what you have done and what you did here again today—by denying Australians the opportunity to have their say in a proper plebiscite, in a full plebiscite, I think you should hang your heads in shame. You have done a great disservice to all Australians.

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will just pick up on what the previous speaker said about confidence. I would question that. It is more about competence. There has been no preparation in terms of what a postal plebiscite would look like in this country. If you look at the Northern Territory, for example—

Honourable Senator:

An honourable senator interjecting—

Malarndirri McCarthy (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And let me tell you, Senator, you will need to hear this—we have 43 town camps, 72 remote Indigenous communities and 500 homelands. What consideration have you given to the over 100 Aboriginal languages and the translations that should take place? Earlier this year we heard the sister girls on the Tiwi Islands speak very passionately about the fact that it has been enormously difficult for them to be able to talk about the issues and to stand strong as members of the lesbian and gay community across Australia. In the previous debate in this Senate, in November, we discussed and debated the mental health issues and expressed directly concerns about the effect that any plebiscite, postal or otherwise, would have on the health and wellbeing of those in the LGBTI community. I can speak about the people of the Northern Territory and what they have said to me consistently, over the last 12 months in particular, as we have discussed this.

Minister, you did not give a response at all about the cost of this. You played politics with this. One hundred and twenty-two million dollars is a considerable amount of money. This is where we look at, in terms of first nations peoples, the cuts to Aboriginal health and, in the LGBTIQ area specifically, the cuts of $800,000. The question that is coming forward is: where is your concern really, in all of this? We know for a fact, don't we, that this isn't about whether the Australian people should have a right to speak? This is about the Turnbull government's inability to lead this country in a comprehensive and confident way that lets the families of Australia know that this parliament cares—because you don't care. You do not care. You simply do not care. You have taken this parliament, and this country, down a path that is illogical and irresponsible, and basically you've wimped out on your role as government leaders of this country.

An online poll of more than 2,000 people, just in the Northern Territory, showed that 72 per cent—almost three in four respondents—supported change to the Marriage Act. That was the front page of the Northern Territory News today. We in the Northern Territory know for a fact that this parliament can vote today. This parliament should vote today. We have heard time and time again of the unnecessary impact that this will have on families in this country as a result of the cowardice of the Turnbull cabinet and the Turnbull government. It should allow this vote on the floor of both the Senate and the House of Reps. Putting families through extraordinarily torturous trauma, which you have heard of personally from members in this house, where you are wilfully deaf and wilfully blind for your own purposes is not a justification that brings the right way in leading this country. It is a justification only for your personal goals—to hold onto what little team you have in your very divisive cabinet.

The questions that are coming through from families across Australia—and certainly, to my email, from the Northern Territory—are: will Australians living overseas be able to vote; what will the government do to ensure people are on the electoral roll; what are you putting in place to ensure the ABS doesn't repeat the mistakes of the census operation; how will you ensure Aboriginal people living remotely and in town camps will have a vote in this, the 50th year since the referendum of 1967? (Time expired)

Question agreed to.