Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I table the explanatory memorandum relating to the bill and move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am pleased to present the bill today that will provide for a range of additional safeguards to support the conduct of the Australian marriage law postal survey.

The government is honouring its commitment to deliver on its promise to give the Australian people a say on whether or not the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry.

As the government announced on 8 August 2017, the government is proceeding with a voluntary postal survey for all Australians who are on the Commonwealth electoral roll and eligible to vote, with a final result to be known no later than 15 November 2017.

There are a range of measures already in place in Commonwealth legislation to safeguard the public in their participation in the Australian marriage law postal survey. In particular, there are postal and telecommunications offences under the Criminal Code. There is also prohibited conduct under the Census and Statistics Act 1905.

These existing Commonwealth laws are supplemented by existing criminal and civil penalties under state and territory legislation. This includes strong protections already in place for the prevention of hate speech and incitement to violence.

The government is, however, proposing to complement these safeguards with the additional measures contained in this bill, which are broadly consistent with safeguards which would apply in the context of a federal election. This will help ensure the integrity of this process and that Australians can have complete confidence that the outcome of the survey reflects the freely given views of the respondents, and that those participating in the debate can do so in an appropriate environment.

Australians need to be assured there is appropriate transparency and accountability for those who communicate their messages as part of the debate on this issue.

The measures in the bill will support responsible conduct of public discussion by applying authorisation requirements similar to those that apply in the context of elections and referendums. This will promote the transparency and accountability of those making public comments in relation to the question in the marriage law survey.

These arrangements will apply to communications of all forms, including paid advertising, social media, bulk text messages and telephony, broadcast matter under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, and printed material.

There are a range of sensible exceptions provided to these requirements to ensure that people continue to be able to freely express their political views, including those engaged in personal communication.

The bill will also impose obligations on broadcasters, including the ABC and SBS, who broadcast matter in favour of one side of the issue about whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex marriage, to provide a reasonable opportunity for an organisation to broadcast matter in favour of the opposing view. Consistent with arrangements during an election, broadcasters will be able to utilise an extra minute of advertising to facilitate compliance with this requirement. Recognising that there are community broadcasters established to service specified community interests, these broadcasters will be exempt from the reasonable opportunity requirements.

Collecting statistical information is core business for the ABS, and the government has full confidence in their capacity to deliver this opportunity for Australians to have their say.

However, we need to be assured that the statistical information obtained has not been subject to influences such as bribery and threats or misleading information about how to complete the survey form, and ensure that those that engage in such influencing behaviour are held to account.

To address this, the bill will put in place a range of measures to ensure the integrity of the statistics that are collected as part of the process.

The bill includes penalties for receiving and giving bribes or making threats to influence or affect people's decisions on this matter, including whether to respond.

It also includes a civil penalty for printing, publishing and distributing matters or things that are likely to mislead or deceive a person in how they respond to the survey, for example, how the survey response is marked.

The bill also includes offences for officers who engage in conduct with the intention of influencing the content of a response provided to the statistician. Again, that is consistent with what would apply in the context of an election period.

The government believes that the Australian people are able to have this debate respectfully and courteously.

We also believe that Australians will judge anyone harshly, on either side of the debate, who pursues inappropriate and offensive arguments.

We certainly call on all Australians to participate in this debate with courtesy and respect.

However, the government acknowledges that we cannot guarantee that all Australians will at all times express their opinions on that basis.

For this reason, the bill will also establish an offence for grievous conduct against those participating in the debate, or against those who may hold strong views on the survey question.

The bill contains provisions against vilification, intimidation and threat to cause harm, as well as for hindering or interfering with a person in making a response, or discriminating against a person for making a donation relating to the marriage law survey.

Importantly, and I stress this point, merely expressing a view about the marriage law survey question does not trigger the offence provisions against vilification, intimidation or the threat of harm. The conduct would have to be vilification, intimidation or threat to cause harm.

While the government would like nothing more than for these provisions never to be used, their inclusion gives the parliament the opportunity to send a clear message that hateful and malicious conduct will not be tolerated.

I remind the parliament that the government's preference was to deliver on the commitment to give the Australian people a say on whether or not the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry through a compulsory attendance plebiscite.

Such an approach would have brought with it many existing safeguards and protections.

As we proceed with the survey as the new mechanism to give the Australian people their say, we need to separately provide those safeguards to ensure all Australians have the opportunity to participate in this process in the right environment.

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 Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards (Bill) Bill 2017. This bill cannot cure a flawed process. It cannot stop all the hurt, all the prejudice that is being expressed, all the lack of acceptance that is being communicated to LGBTI persons and to same-sex-couple families. But it provides limited protections, and on that basis the opposition will be supporting it. I want to acknowledge Senator Cormann's work with stakeholders, the opposition and others, the crossbench, to reach agreement on the matters contained in this bill. I also recognise the efforts of Mr Dreyfus and Ms Butler from the Labor Party.

Labor regrets that this bill is necessary. It wouldn't have been necessary if the Prime Minister had shown some leadership on this issue—if he had been prepared to grant a free vote and have this parliament do its job. We all remember the origins of the plebiscite, which Senator Cormann has extolled the virtues of. In August 2015 there was a very long party room meeting to discuss a public vote on marriage equality, and what did we get?

This policy of a plebiscite was dreamt up—another obstacle, another hurdle, another delay; an obstacle designed by hardline opponents, Mr Abbott and Senator Abetz, to make it more difficult for equality to be achieved.

A plebiscite is a pretty cruel and cynical tactic. It is a mechanism designed by those who will never agree with equality in this country on this issue. It's a policy that had its origins in the dying days of the Abbott prime ministership but it was taken on by Mr Turnbull almost as an article of faith. That, I think, has been to his detriment and to the great disappointment of many people in this country. I thank the Senate for its rejection of the plebiscite on no fewer than two occasions. It would have been good if that had led the government to recognise that it was time for parliament to do its job—to do what millions of Australians wanted, which was to get a vote done on an issue that has, regrettably, been unresolved for too many years. When this chamber did the right thing, did what the Australian people sought—to vote against a political tactic—the government turned to a non-legislative method, which is, of course, the flawed postal survey that we are now confronted with. We are having a $122 million survey because the Prime Minister doesn't want a vote in the parliament. There are very few times when you get a number on someone's weakness but we have one: $122 million. It is a waste of time and a waste of money. As I have said, we oppose this survey, but those of us who support marriage equality on all sides have to campaign to win it. We are where we are and we have to stand up for our values.

I do want to make clear that this bill doesn't in any way legitimise the survey process. It is a government trying to clear up a mess of its own creation. In fact, I suggest the bill is itself an admission by this government that there is harm already being inflicted by this survey process, a harm which creates a need for protections. We didn't want this process. We don't agree with it. But now we're in it we have to fight it. As part of that, Labor has negotiated in good faith with the government and we have secured important concessions from the government on this bill, including strong anti-vilification provisions. The aim is to stop LGBTI Australians and their families as well as Australians with religious convictions from facing attack. We thank the government for their work with us on this bill. It's a shame they couldn't have worked quite as hard with us on getting a free vote in the parliament. That would have been a better use of our time.

I won't go in detail to the content of the bill. I understand there is a desire for us to progress this quickly, given the time frame. But I do want to make a few points about hate speech, which has been raised by the Minister for Finance. At the outset we said that we would hold the Prime Minister and the government responsible for the hateful speech, the hateful arguments, which are already being seen in the Australian community on this issue. I want to make it clear: this bill does not absolve the Prime Minister of responsibility for that. This bill provides limited protections but it is the Prime Minister and the parliament that have to continue to set the tone in this debate.

My father was a Colombo Plan scholar to Australia in the sixties, when the White Australia policy was still in place. He tells stories about being invited to the homes of very educated, very polite, eastern suburbs Adelaide people. He said, 'They were very polite to me and gave me cups of tea, but they didn't want me to take their daughters out.' I am often reminded of that in this debate. I will come to some of the more hateful things which have already been said, but I want to make this clear: sometimes prejudice comes in very polite forms. Sometimes a lack of acceptance and disrespect comes with a great deal of courtesy—but it lands, nevertheless.

I think I'm pretty used to this debate, but I didn't want to read John Howard on the front page of The Australian on the weekend, saying again what sorts of families were optimal, what sorts of families were good and why my family's not. I don't want to read that again. If I feel like that, how do you think it feels for the children in same-sex couple families or to LGBTI Australians everywhere to be told politely and courteously, 'Actually, you're not quite normal; your families aren't as good'?

It is so disappointing, but predictable, that those who are opposed to marriage equality in this debate want to debate everything but the actual issue. They want to talk about our children. They want to talk about—what's the phrase?—'radical gay sex education'. They want to talk about genderless societies. They want to talk about a whole range of quite odd, bizarre and unconnected things because they don't want to say what they actually mean, which is: 'We don't think gay people should be equal.' That's actually what they think. But they know that doesn't fly, they know that doesn't work, so they've got to find a whole range of extraneous arguments to utilise instead.

What I would say to the decent people on the other side—there are some, and I count Senator Cormann among them—and to the Prime Minister is: you need to stand up on this. You need to stop our children being the collateral damage of the war against equality. You need to stand up and say, when people tell you that this is about the benefit of the children, that it's not—that the value of parenting is not measured by gender or sexual orientation; it is in the love and care and stability and support and commitment that defines a family. So I would say to the Prime Minister: this bill does something, but it doesn't do enough, and you need to stand up for those Australians who don't have a voice. You need to stand up for our children. You need to tell them that their families are not lesser, are not abnormal, and you need to tell young, or all, LGBTI Australians that they, too, are accepted.

I do applaud the Prime Minister for being part of the I think it's 'Libs and Nats for yes' campaign which I saw on the weekend, but his responsibility does not end there; nor does all of our responsibility, because those of us in this parliament have an opportunity to set the tone of this debate. It is in part set by this bill, but it is in greater part set by the way in which leaders across this parliament, voices across this parliament, speak about this issue.

Senator Cormann said, when he last tried to introduce the plebiscite legislation, that this could be a unifying moment for Australians, and I responded. What I would say today is, if we win this survey, it will be a unifying moment for Australians not because of this government but despite this government. It will be unifying moment despite this government and because of the goodness of the Australian people.

This will be a very difficult campaign. I said I'd come back to some of the things which are being said. We've got robocalls saying that marriage equality will lead to radical gay sex education; pamphlets into the Chinese community saying that homosexuality is the curse of death, that this is about terminating the family bloodline; and a whole range of other, more obscene things. And I say to the Prime Minister: you know what you should do? You should be out there condemning this. You should be writing to the Chinese community in those areas in Sydney and Melbourne where this misleading information has been put out. You should be using the authority of your office to at least ensure you say to people, 'Whatever your views on marriage, the vote is not about these issues. It is not about a whole range of extraneous issues. It is about this one issue, which is whether or not we believe in equality for Australians when it comes to the civil institution of marriage.'

As I said I think in 2012, when I stood here—or I might have been there; I can't remember!—and voted for marriage equality, we've come a long way on this. The Australian community has come a long way. Let's remember it was my state of South Australia that first decriminalised homosexuality in 1975, and it took 22 years for that fight to be finalised across this country, when Tasmania finally did so in 1997. We made progress at a federal level with the election of the Rudd Labor government. We amended over 80 pieces of legislation to remove discrimination against LGBTI couples. Meanwhile, countries such as Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Argentina, Denmark, France, Brazil, England, Scotland, the US, Ireland and many others now recognise marriage between same-sex partners. But we are here, and I hope the next time I speak on this it will be after we have managed to win this fight and we can have a free vote in the parliament and get this matter dealt with.

But to return, in conclusion, to the campaign and its outcome, as I said, if this a unifying moment, it will be because of the good-heartedness of the Australian people. Amidst all of the hateful things that are said, politely and abusively, I take comfort from—I take faith from—the sort of open-heartedness and acceptance that I have experienced in my life: on the birth of our children, the generosity of so many strangers, sending gifts, sending cards, sending messages, sending flowers, sending lots of clothes; having people stop me and congratulate us; and the way in which, when we drop our daughter off at school, parents of other kids talk to us and ask us about the latest happenings, or, when they drop their kids off for playdates, sit down and have a cup of tea and talk about what the class is doing. In these simple acts there is an acceptance and a respect that I hope will win in a debate that, thus far, has been too much characterised by a lack of acceptance and a lack of respect. I encourage those on the other side to stand with us in providing that leadership about the nature of the debate to come.

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

I am rising to speak on the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017 to say that the Greens will be supporting this bill, given the circumstances that we're in. We've been negotiating with the government and are relatively happy with the outcomes—but, as I said, given the circumstances that we're in. We are on a long, winding, damaging path to marriage equality, but I know we're going to get there in the end. So we are taking stock of where we're at, we are moving forward, and we accept that this bill is going to make some improvements on what would be an even more damaging process.

As people know, the issue of marriage equality is a personal one for me as well as a political one. My relationship with my wife, Penny, is one that's shared by not very many couples in Australia. It's an interesting if not almost unique perspective. When my wife, Penny, and I were married 31 years ago, she was a bloke. So we fitted the stereotype of being the perfect couple. We married in a church. We bought a house. We had two kids. We fitted hand in glove with mainstream Australia. Then, of course, some 17 years later she transitioned and became the woman she truly was. We went from being the perfect couple, the ordinary couple, the mainstream Australian couple, to being weird, to being discriminated against because suddenly our marriage wasn't acceptable. Suddenly, we were weird; we were not normal. Suddenly, if Penny wanted to complete her affirmation as a woman by changing her gender on her birth certificate, we were going to have to divorce.

Of course, we didn't want to get divorced. We were still a happily married couple. We had two wonderful children. But that was what our law said that we needed to do. So Penny's birth certificate has sat in her bottom draw since then. She hasn't been able to use it as her identity document. She hasn't been able to complete that affirmation of herself as a woman. Basically it is because we, as a same-sex couple, are still in our society seen as not being normal. When we presented as a man and a woman, we used to hold hands in the street. We used to kiss in public. But over the last 13 years we have self-censored ourselves. We generally don't hold hands in public. We got used to the fact that, if we are holding hands in the street, we need to be ready for the possibility of having a car driving past wind down its window and hurl abuse at us. That's what the reality of being a same-sex couple in Australia still is.

So we are on a journey to changing that. Australian society has changed incredibly over the last decades in the time that I have been an adult. Achieving marriage equality is going to be an incredibly important marker on that journey. I am imagining that, once we achieve marriage equality, we will continue on that journey where we will be able to hold hands in the street, where we will not have to worry about abuse or violence. We will be able to be who we are all the time. I am imagining that other people who haven't had the privilege that Penny and I have had of being married will be able to have that privilege. They will be truly equal. This is what we are fighting for. We are creating that Australia.

This postal survey is not the way that we wanted to achieve this equality. People's rights should not be put to a public vote. We should have had a free vote in the parliament and got it done and dusted, easily, straightforwardly, without putting LGBTIQ Australians—lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and queer Australians—through the pitfalls of a public vote. The debate over the last month just shows how huge those pitfalls are and the difficulty of achieving the Prime Minister's respectful debate. We have seen those horrible posters. My social media pages have been filled with the most appalling homophobic and transphobic comments. I have spoken to so many LGBTIQ people over the last couple of weeks who feel that the world isn't as welcoming and safe as it felt a month ago. They feel not as sure of themselves in getting out of bed in the morning and facing what they see can be quite a hurtful and not protective environment. I have talked to mental health providers who have told us of the uptick in the number of people seeking support because of their sexuality or their gender identity.

Basically, this level of debate comes down to a base level that is still there in Australian society of homophobia, of transphobia, of not accepting that lesbian, gay, transgender, intersex and queer people exist and of believing that they should not have the rights of other people. People are feeling justified in passing judgement on others. That judgement has been very hurtful and very damaging to many people. Fundamentally, the reason this postal survey has not been the appropriate way to go is: why should they feel that they're able to pass that judgement? Why should they feel they're able to pass judgement on my marriage, on my relationship with Penny, on whether our kids have been well cared for? They didn't get that chance to pass judgement when Penny and I were the perfect heterosexual couple, but that's where we're at given the determination of this government, despite us here in the Senate rejecting the compulsory plebiscite for all the reasons I have been outlining, to put our rights, to put marriage equality, to a public vote. That is where we're now at.

We have picked ourselves up and are putting our best foot forward. We Greens, along with many others in this parliament now, are campaigning positively and loudly for love, with love. We are supporting this bill today as something that's patching up a damaged parcel. This bill is the string and sticky tape that's holding the parcel together. It's going to enable us to reach our destination of achieving equality. It's a journey that's bumpier than we would have liked, but I know we're going to get there. We will, at the end of this bumpy, quite damaging journey, achieve marriage equality. The provisions in this bill, the sticky tape and string holding the parcel together, that are of particular value—and I thank the government for putting them forward—are the authorisation provisions. At least we will know, when there are damaging, hurtful things being said, when there is discrimination and vilification as part of this public debate, that if the material is authorised there will be comeback against it. And, very importantly, we have negotiated vilification provisions to guard against such hurtful, hateful speech and public debate. I'm hoping that in fact there won't be any legal action as a result of this legislation. I'm hoping that having it will be a deterrent to such vilification and will mean there is a more respectful debate; that people will maybe take a step backwards; that having the threat of legal action hanging over them will make them hold off a bit from what they have been saying over the last four weeks. I'm hopeful—I'm always the optimist—that's going to be the case and that at the end of it we will achieve a resounding yes vote.

I know the level of support in the community. I know that—as long as we can get people out to vote—Australians are fair, are considerate and do want to achieve equality. Above all, Australians want this to be over and done with. Australians want to see equality reached. So many people I talk to about it say, 'Just get on and do it!' That's why we should have had a free vote in this parliament—because that would have been simplest, most straightforward and least damaging, and it would have been a celebratory moment in this parliament. We know that at the end of this non-binding postal survey we will still have to have that free vote, and we would not have had to go through this damaging, tortuous, arduous journey we've been put on. But I know that at the end of it, when we have achieved that free vote, when we have got legislation through this parliament, we will finally have achieved equality and two people who love each other, who are in a committed relationship, will be able to marry. I know that Penny and I will be able to stay married and she will be able to affirm her gender identity. The question we're being asked in this survey is about same-sex couples, but we know it's not just about same-sex couples. People across the rainbow spectrum, not just same-sex couples but transgender people, people who are gender fluid, people of intersex status—these are the people, all of these people, who will be treated as equal under the law in terms of being able to commit to the person that they love.

I'm so looking forward to the weddings that we're going to have at the end of this process, and I'm expecting to be invited to quite a lot of them. I'm thinking of so many of my friends who have been in loving, committed relationships over the years—sometimes decades—that I've known them. There are Felicity and Sarah. Felicity was one of the plaintiffs in the High Court. I look at their wonderful relationship and their wonderful children. I don't know whether they want to get married, but they are the people you should be thinking of; they are going to benefit from marriage equality. There are Mark and Tony; Sean and Jay, who have been engaged and are now just waiting; Kathleen and Helena—I could go on and on and on. These are the people, and their rainbow families, who exist and are waiting to achieve equality under the law.

Achieving marriage equality is a straightforward question of fairness and equality. Every Australian should be able to be treated equally under the law, and that includes being able to marry the person that they love. This legislation is an important part of reducing the damage of the journey that we're going on to achieve that equality. It's fixing up a flawed process, but this is the journey we are now on. I'm hopeful that, at the end of this process, when we achieve marriage equality, it will be a unifying moment for our nation. We will finally be able to include all Australians in our marriage laws. So I am really looking forward to just getting on with it. Let's get this done and we can all move forward and be celebrating love in our society.

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

I rise today principally to express solidarity with the gay and lesbian people in my own state and also around the country who are subjected to this process, which Labor has argued against consistently because of its divisive nature and its wasteful characteristics. I'm going to keep my remarks brief in the interest of expediting the debate, but people in this place will know that the Senate has referred the conduct of the postal survey to the committee that I chair for examination. In the course of our committee hearings, much of the material that's been circulating has been drawn to my attention. In drawing it to my attention, people speak to me of their hurt and distress at being exposed to material which incites violence, is untruthful, is deeply personal and generally seeks to demean gay and lesbian people, their families and the people who love them.

In our discussions with the agencies that are running this postal survey, in particular the AEC, we have talked to them about the kind of legislation that might be put in place that would protect against public comment of this kind, and they've been very clear with us about the limits of regulatory activity during elections and processes that are a little bit like elections, whatever they're actually called. There are real limitations in the regulatory response. When material is circulated anonymously, it's very difficult to prosecute people or hold them to account for circulating it anonymously. I understand that the bill before us would prohibit that, but I make the observation that some of the actors in this process to date have indicated their willingness already to flout the law with the kind of material that they have circulated. There have been reports that some of the actors circulating the most hateful material have been associated with neo-fascist groups in this country. I raise these issues because I think that we all ought to be clear that, whilst this is an important step forward, we have been advised by the AEC that there are real limits in what you can legislate for in a process of this kind.

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody on the other side of the chamber. In contemplating first the plebiscite and then the postal survey the government was repeatedly warned by a range of experts that if they went down this path it would unleash a range of hateful speech that would be extremely damaging to gay and lesbian people and particularly to the children in gay and lesbian families. The government was warned and they proceeded anyway. The blame for the campaign materials that have already been distributed lies squarely at the feet of those who proceeded in the face of such a warning.

I want to conclude by acknowledging my friends in this place and in the other place, gay and lesbian parliamentarians, who have shown enormous courage in recent years as their own choices have been placed under enormous scrutiny. They've shown great courage in this place in speaking about their own stories and presenting their own stories to the parliament in their efforts to speak on behalf of so many others who have less of a voice than we have here. I also want to acknowledge gay and lesbian friends, gay and lesbian people in my community, who go about their everyday lives with a quiet dignity. I want to say to these people that we will stand by you through this process. We will seek to win. But we will play our part also in setting the tone of the debate so that it is respectful and I would call on everybody in this place to do the same.

Skye Kakoschke-Moore (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017. Imagine being a same-sex couple, whose ability to marry one another is being determined by a mass mail-out—by a survey. I say 'imagine' because for well over the majority of people in this place that is all we can do. We can't truly understand what it feels like to have our equal right to marry the person we want to spend the rest of our life with questioned and subjected to a process like this. Yet here we are having to vote on a piece of legislation that will try to afford some protection to those people whose very rights are being questioned, to try to implement a law to stop people from spewing venom over a question of love. How sad this debate, the state of our nation, has become. This bill is necessary because of the government's refusal to allow a free vote in the parliament to change the Marriage Act. It has arisen because, instead, the government is proceeding with its proposal to hold a national optional survey on whether the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry.

The legal challenge to this postal survey was dismissed by the High Court last week. While the Nick Xenophon Team respects the decision of the High Court, we do not believe that this survey is necessary. We oppose the proposal to hold a plebiscite on the issue, and while the cost of the survey comes in at slightly less than a plebiscite we maintain that this, too, is a waste of money.

In the August sitting period I identified an opportunity to amend the Marriage Act through the Civil Law and Justice Amendment Bill. This entire survey could have been averted, yet it seems there are some in this place who refuse to declare their hand so that the numbers can be counted and a marriage equality bill can be brought on. That opportunity has passed, just like those that came before it. The fact that marriage equality has not occurred under previous Labor governments or under the coalition government says more about the vagaries of navigating a minority government during the Gillard years and conducting the slim majority under the current Turnbull government than it does about the very issue Australians are now being asked to determine via the optional survey, the result of which is non-binding.

The bill before us should be a bill for marriage equality. Instead, we have before us a bill that aims to ensure that a postal survey has a suite of safeguards in place to allow the expression of free and informed views, while protecting people from being vilified for expressing those views. That the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017 is even before us speaks volumes about the nature of the debate already, and the need for added protections.

I'm deeply disturbed by the examples of malicious material that seek to pass judgement on LGBTIQ families which have already been circulated in the community and are designed to mislead and misinform, creating fear, doubt and mistrust. I can only imagine the hurt, humiliation and despair that this material is causing the LGBTIQ community, their children and their families. Indeed, even members of the Australian parliament have contributed to the very low standard of the debate. When suggesting we stop being delicate little flowers and have a proper debate, one wonders if any consideration was given to the distressing mental health statistics for many LGBTIQ people.

The examples I have seen since the survey was announced only serve to drag the debate about marriage equality into the gutter and are less about free speech and more about hate speech. This bill requires authorisations on advertisements and a reasonable opportunity to have opposing views broadcast. It creates offences against bribery and threats, and it prohibits misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to the completion of survey forms. So-called safeguards against vilification, intimidation and threats to cause harm because of the views expressed or believed to be held in relation to the survey, religious conviction, sexual orientation or gender identity of a person or group are also included.

Will these measures be enough to truly safeguard some of the most vulnerable members of our community? The Nick Xenophon Team hopes so. We want there to be a balance between free speech and protecting vulnerable people from vilification, but the law is not the only answer. In fact, these laws will only apply up until the survey result is declared. Attorney-General George Brandis is also the gatekeeper for complaints before they make it to the court. Once the words leave the mouth of the offender, the harm is done. What we need is for Australians to not only respect each other but also respect that what we are voting on here is a matter of equality.

For Australians who are concerned and not sure about voting yes, I ask you to please take the time to be fully informed on the issue and try to understand it from the perspective of the LGBTIQ community. Antoun Issa, a political commentator and journalist, said:

To be gay is to accept an imposed identity, forever seen in the eyes of society as a "gay" man or woman, regardless of your attempts to minimise it or highlight other attributes of your personality. To be gay is to pursue a lonely road, beginning at that moment you discover as a child that you're an outcast and will never truly fit in. The battle is exhausting; the constant need to explain and defend your very being is exhausting. Marriage equality is not simply a matter of allowing same-sex couples to wed. It's to achieve full equality so the battle—the conversations, the debates, the questions, the taunts, the explanations—will finally end, and we can live in peace.

I have met children of LGBTIQ parents who have told me that they do not want to be weaponised in this debate. These articulate children spoke freely about wanting their parents to have the right to marry. They spoke with more clarity, compassion and insight than many adults in this debate.

Sixteen million survey forms will soon be mailed out. I beg you: please do not vote no to protest this survey because you disagree with it being held. Instead, for those children, their parents, their families and their friends and for the young people who are watching this survey with their fingers crossed, vote yes and vote for equality.

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

I want to say at the outset that there's nothing in the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill that legitimates this postal survey or the fact that LGBTI Australians like me are asked to go literally door to door to ask for our partner's hand in marriage. The protections in this bill, while important to preventing extreme attacks, do not protect lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex and questioning people from the hurtful nature of this debate. This parliament could have and should have legislated for marriage equality a long time ago with a free vote, because Australia is ready for it.

While I'm glad that the Labor Party has been able to negotiate some important concessions in this legislation that prohibit vilification and hate speech, I wish we didn't have to. I'm pleased that my party remains steadfastly opposed to this wasteful and hurtful process, because we know it's unfair. This is a survey that we in the LGBTI community should not have to suffer through. It's causing great harm in our community and we're already hearing debates about everything except marriage—calling homosexuality the curse of death, saying offensive things about families that don't fit a narrow mould, saying that there's something wrong with our families, wrong with being trans—things that are hurtful not only to LGBTI families but to blended families, single families and step families.

I'm sad to have to put on record today that I know from firsthand experience that the government should not be putting our community through this process. Something very upsetting happened to my own rainbow family this week. My three-year-old son was down at the local shop with members of my own rainbow family, just doing the shopping for the evening meal, when they were handed an anti-marriage equality pamphlet. The pamphlet is too hurtful to repeat here, but it wasn't even about marriage, the quality of my relationship with my partner or the quality of my son's dad's relationship. The 'no' side isn't debating that, because they know that in the eyes of the community they have already lost that debate. This should not be happening and the government should not be allowing it to happen. Sadly, here we are, nonetheless.

These debates are hurtful to LGBTI people and our families. We shouldn't have to listen to this debate about the status of our families and our children. My child should not be subject to debates about the status of his family and his parents. Sadly, this legislation can only go so far in protecting us, because pamphlets like the one my family received will continue to be distributed through the course of this debate within the rules that it allows for. So while I want to acknowledge the importance of this legislation, I want to talk to you about what is most important—that is, to the LGBTI community, to stay strong, as strong as you can; to acknowledge your feelings; to look out for each other; to take care of yourselves and each other. But most of all, we are going to be dealing with this by getting busy to win this debate. We will be getting to work. We will be going door to door, making hundreds of thousands of phone calls. We will be knocking on doors right around the country. It is my plea to all Australians who support marriage equality to please keep an eye out for your ballot paper, which is being sent out this week. Fill it out, post it back, stand up for equality and make your vote count.

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

From the outset I have to express my concern that this bill has been presented here and is expected to pass by tomorrow whilst we are already in the midst of a debate about redefining marriage. I think it shows a shameful lack of planning from the government's perspective. They've known that this postal vote and survey has been forthcoming for a period of time, yet we're expected to make substantive changes to matters of law and disclosure within 24 hours to prevent a bunch of people complaining about having their feelings hurt—and that's on both sides of the debate. I think it's wrong, because this is essentially 18C on steroids, on a temporary course of steroids to protect people from being upset.

There are elements of this bill which I've managed to read this morning. There are elements of this bill which are wise and prudent, such as the disclosure regime, because this is a political campaign, make no mistake about that. The authorisation is appropriate. I also believe that the demanding of equal rights, particularly through the media outlets, is a wise and prudent thing because, as I said, this is a political campaign, and to dress it up as anything else would be foolish.

In essence, this is the government redefining the states' and territories' discrimination bills. It is trying to override them for the purposes of this campaign and, importantly, it sets some new precedents that are most unwise. We know that 18C has been widely discredited and has been misused and abused in recent times. It is reasonable to presume that we will face the same sorts of misuse and abuse during this postal vote survey process, because people will be complaining and trying to use lawfare as a mechanism in which to silence their opponents. The spurious claims are going to be: 'My feelings were hurt,' 'I feel vilified,' 'I feel alienated,' or 'I'm upset.' And alarmingly, from my understanding, the person who will sit in initial judgement about the merits or worthiness of that case will be the Attorney-General. They will be the person who can interfere and direct things to the Federal Court or appeal against them in the Federal Court.

I don't mean this disrespectfully to the Attorney, but do we really want anyone who is a partisan cheerleader for a side in a campaign to be sitting or rendering any form of judgement about a complaint of the conduct of one side or the other? If that is what this bill does—and I look forward to hearing what the minister has to say—I think it is wholly inappropriate. It's not a reflection on Senator Brandis; it's a reflection on any minister, of any political persuasion or stripe, being able to interfere in a judicial process. We understand this is only a temporary action, but one of the things it hasn't done is include a provision to say, 'The spurious assessments under state and territory laws for antidiscrimination or bullying or the hurt-feelings test haven't been temporarily suspended in favour of this.' This is designed to deal with the postal survey vote, but it will not address the misuse and abuse of state and territory laws.

I would make the point that Archbishop Porteous in Tasmania has already been hauled before a tribunal—merely for upholding and trying to teach and instruct students in a Catholic school about the Catholic position on marriage, which is the legally endorsed position of the land. It is the law of the land and finds itself, by some rabid green activist, hauled before a tribunal. That is the shape of things to come and this bill extends it even further. It doesn't stop that from happening. It extends it even further. That is a legitimate grievance for people who are concerned about freedom of speech in this country, who are concerned about the encroaching offence mentality whereby everyone has to be protected from being upset by something that someone else says. It is a growing trend. It is a growing precedent.

We have seen, without these laws, this bill being enacted. We have seen public disclosure, public discourse. We have seen the media actually do its job in recent times. When there's been fake news out there about allegedly homophobic posters being misrepresented by people on Twitter, it has been picked up by the media—misrepresented entirely by outlets like Channel 10—and found to be completely false. The media did its job by exposing how false that was. When a doctor put a position on same-sex marriage and had a campaign of hate waged against her, calling for her to be deregistered, we ultimately saw common sense come to the fore. Even the activist group GetUp! eventually pulled the petition from one of their satellite sites because they recognised how stupid it was. This is practical, realistic action having the intended consequence. The court of public opinion will render its verdict. It doesn't need 'Judge George' in the chamber of outrage to determine whether things are offensive or not. If you have a minister interfering with a legal action—and that's what this bill does—it is entirely inappropriate.

So, whilst I think some of the measures in this bill are reasonable, the haste with which it has been brought on and the precedent that it sets are very dangerous for our country. If people are upset by the fact that changing the definition of marriage has consequences, they will highlight some of those consequences that are being lived out around the world. Some from the other side of the debate to myself will say, 'It's got nothing to do with the consequences; there are no consequences,' while others, like Tim Wilson, will say, 'Yes, there are significant consequences, and safeguards need to be brought in.' How are we going to protect from that? Who is telling the truth in that? Will Senator Brandis sit as judge and jury on whether those things are hate speech or misrepresentations? Where do we end up with this? There's always going to be someone who will complain that their feelings have been hurt. We need to teach people respect and we need to make sure that people are resilient—and that starts in this chamber. That these are intensely personal decisions is one thing, but there is a precedent here and there is a principle at stake here. If we are trying to protect everyone in this country from having their feelings hurt by someone else, we are on the path to I don't know where, but I can tell you it won't be a very healthy path to take.

Opposition Senators:

Opposition senators interjecting—

Cory Bernardi (SA, Australian Conservatives) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to hear the mirth from those on the other side who have never seen a law or regulation which they don't want imposed and, might I say, which their activist supporters are very happy to abuse. I'm yet to hear one of them denounce the Fairfax journalist who wants to hate rape everyone who disagrees with him—I haven't heard him say that; it is just revolting. They are the ones who are pretending they are the persecuted. That is a problem. This is a matter of principle: if you are legislating to protect everyone from having hurt feelings, you will never stop legislating because there will always be someone complaining about being upset by someone else. I'm not one of them. I regret that my vote won't make any difference in this, and for that reason alone I do not support this bill.

Richard Di Natale (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017. I wish that I was standing here right now speaking in support of marriage equality and that this wasn't a vote about safeguards but rather a vote about ending discrimination in marriage. If it were, we know that love would win and we know that we would have marriage equality by this weekend. But this government has consistently rejected the calls for a free vote in the Australian parliament for marriage equality. It has chosen a different course; it has decided to take the question of human rights to a postal survey. The Greens position on the postal survey is on the record and is very clear. We now find ourselves on this course the government has set and we are now discussing the details of how to provide safeguards to ensure that the public debate and the survey itself are conducted in a respectful and safe way.

Let me say from the outset that my thoughts and the thoughts of the Australian Greens are with you, the many hundreds of thousands of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex Australians and their families, who over the coming weeks will have the essentially loving nature of their relationships under intense scrutiny. They will feel they're being questioned and being treated as though they have fewer rights than other Australians. We stand with you. We will do everything we can to ensure that this debate is conducted respectfully and, most importantly, that we win and ensure marriage equality and fairness within the Marriage Act is achieved once and for all.

We have to win. We have to win because it is a basic question of fairness and equality. The message that today's law sends to people right across the community is that it is hurting people and their families. This is a campaign about love and inclusion. We make this change and, in doing so, go that bit further to creating a society which does not treat an entire community as though they deserve fewer rights. That's what this campaign is about.

The terrible statistics about mental health and suicide amongst LGBTI people are a direct result of a society that endorses laws that say: 'You're not normal. You're not equal.' But we know that the majority of Australians don't agree. They want the love of their LGBTI colleagues, friends and families recognised as equal. They know that, for them, this change means the world and that the vast majority of Australians lose nothing. How can we stand in the way of that? Our laws are a relic of a bygone era and, no matter how much some people in this chamber try to cling onto them, they won't endure, because they are holding us all back.

This bill will facilitate the conduct of the postal survey. It sets some basic ground rules to protect people from vilification, intimidation and harm. Importantly, state, territory and Commonwealth antidiscrimination laws and protections that are currently in place will continue through the process of the survey. This bill goes some way to protecting the public from misleading or deceptive material being circulated. The bill requires individuals and entities to authorise material that is produced for the 'yes' and 'no' campaigns, to ensure that there is some accountability for the content and messages that will be circulating during the postal survey. We know that there will be deception and misinformation circulated, but at the very least we will now know the sources from which that comes.

I welcome the spirit of cooperation that some within the government have demonstrated in working with the Greens and the Labor Party to ensure that this bill provides those important protections. These protections are so critical because we've already seen the nature of the campaign that some on the 'no' side have run, and the harm that it has done. They will, no doubt, conflate a whole range of issues that have nothing to do with the question of marriage. They'll do it to try to confuse people, to shift the terms of the debate. They will cite dodgy research that tries to denigrate LGBTI people. They will start to challenge the very notion of the separation between church and state. We know that that's what they'll do. But we Greens will support this bill, not because it's perfect and not because it will prevent all of that from happening, but because it offers us a better chance of encouraging a more respectful and a more honest debate—a debate where there is some accountability.

Today we find ourselves at the beginning of what I believe is the end of a long fight to achieve equality in marriage. I am very confident that, with hard work, we can get a resounding 'yes' vote that this government will no longer be able to resist. But it will only happen if people who care for each other, in communities right across the country, are active and mobilised and are talking to their friends, families and neighbours and letting them know why it is just so important to say yes—to say yes for love, to say yes for fairness, to say yes for equality.

We are very pleased that we have managed to get so many people, many of them young people, onto the electoral roll. For 'yes' to win, we now need all of those people, and the many millions of Australians right across the country who are good, decent people, who believe in those fundamental values of equality and justice and fairness, to ensure that, when they get that paper, they mark 'yes', and they do it proudly. In doing so, we can consign these discriminatory laws to the dustbin of history. We can get on with building a more inclusive Australia. We can say yes to equality and we can say yes to love.

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

I rise today with mixed feelings. The Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017 will pass, with the majority of the government and Labor, but I think some points have to be made. I'm uncomfortable sometimes standing on the same side as Senator Bernardi on this issue. Senator Di Natale is right when he said that, if the government had let us do our job, this protection during the argument would not be necessary. Back in 2004, John Howard brought in amendments to the Marriage Act in which he said that marriage is only between a man and a woman, and he brought in amendments to block any legal overseas marriage between people of the same sex being recognised in Australia or tested in the courts here in Australia. He said it was not a job for the courts and it was not for the people to make that decision; it was for the politicians who had been elected and the government of the day. The Labor opposition voted in favour of that change. We should do the same thing. I proudly voted against the plebiscite last year. It was going to cost $150 million, $250 million, $400 million, or whatever, to have the plebiscite. I'm also not in favour of what started as a postal plebiscite and then a postal ballot, and now it's a postal survey costing $122 million. Senator Di Natale is also right in that, if we were allowed to do our job, we could have marriage equality here in Australia by next weekend.

I know that 18C—and I campaigned for change to 18C, which the government blocked—doesn't cover it all. It doesn't cover religion and it doesn't cover sexual persuasion, but it does cover offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin. We also have laws of defamation, which could be used if people are offensive, and there are other laws in the various states and territories which could be used if people threaten to cause physical injury to somebody. There are also laws to cover a threat to kill. And there is the huge issue of freedom of speech. I loathe some of the stuff that has come out already on this and will be appalled by the stuff that comes up in the weeks ahead. Just the other day, on Jon Faine's program on the ABC, some cretin said that Hitler was right when he exterminated homosexuals, and that went to air here in Australia in 2017. That is appalling and shocking stuff.

What worries me is that there is a fine. You're liable to a fine of $12,000 if the Attorney-General goes ahead and finds that what you've done breaches the new law. I can see the radicals on the far-right wing of the 'no' vote saying, 'See what they're doing! They're shutting down our argument. They're shutting down our freedom of speech. They're shutting down our right to have an opinion. If you say something that they don't like, they'll fine you $12,000. It's all a conspiracy.' That's where it'll come from. We saw it already with what John Howard and Tony Abbott did, very effectively, during the republic referendum debate. They dragged in every red herring they could—'Don't have the politicians' republic;' don't have this, don't have that—adding all the little extra bits everywhere they could because they knew in their hearts that a lot of Australians—probably told by their mum and dad—would say, 'When in doubt, say no.' They will use that argument. They will try to use it very effectively: 'When in doubt, say no.'

I'm a strong supporter of the 'yes' vote. I only wore this scarf today because I'm cold. I'm a strong supporter of the 'yes' vote and I hope it gets through by a massive number. But it's still only a survey and you still have politicians in this House who say that, no matter what the vote is, they'll ignore it; they'll vote against it. Senator Di Natale also said, 'This is going to happen; eventually, it will happen.' I mentioned the republic. It reminded me that Gough Whitlam once told me this about a republic: 'A republic is evolutionary, not revolutionary.' That's what marriage equality is: evolutionary—but it's just taking too bloody long. Gough Whitlam was right about one thing. He said, 'A republic won't happen in my lifetime, but it'll happen in my son's lifetime.' His son, Tony, is getting on in years himself now, so I don't know whether a republic will happen in his son's lifetime.

As I said, one of the worries with laws like this, where you suppress freedom of speech, and that's how it will be interpreted, is that you end up with what I call the 'David Irving situation'. Holocaust denier David Irving was banned from coming to Australia years ago and it made a martyr out of him. I interviewed him by satellite and tore him to shreds. But you don't want to make martyrs out of these people. I don't want to make a martyr out of Lyle Shelton from the ACL and people like that. They'll come after us. The yes voter will be attacked.

To be fair, some of the stuff coming out of the 'yes' side is putrid. I agree with Senator Bernardi when he talked about one of the 'yes' supporters talking about hate-rape—and in more offensive terms than that. It was a person who appears in the media a lot. That sort of argument is just madness. And, to be fair to them, I know that the people who are driving the marriage equality campaign hate that idea of extremism on either side. The idea of Dr Lai—that petition only lasted for a day, thank goodness—trying to have her credentials re-examined, if not revoked, is bad. That plays into the hands of the extremists on the 'no' side. I know that some of the details that came out were wrong about that Queensland rally, but it was played by the 'no' voters as saying, 'We couldn't even have our meeting et cetera, because all the SSM people blocked us from having it.' That plays into their hands, too.

I understand why the government wants to have this legislation as some form of protection. I don't think it will be as effective as they hope it will be. But I worry about the fact that freedom of speech is a major issue in our lives and freedom of speech is paramount to a good democracy. I just fear that the people on the 'no' side will use this and exploit it and it will hurt the cause that should have come in years and years ago.

Glenn Sterle (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Hinch. But, on the scarf, I will let you know that today is the warmest day we've had in Canberra for six months.

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

It is, too. I made the point that Senator Kakoschke-Moore yesterday wore a shawl. There was no complaint about it, so I figured it was okay.

Pauline Hanson (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017. I do have concerns about this bill that has been introduced into the parliament, basically on freedom of speech. Why are we having to introduce this? I think people will actually have their say on whether they accept something or not. I think this will shut down debate on the issue—a case in point just recently: fathers wanting to put an ad on TV, but it was shut down because it was seen to be politically incorrect. These are fathers that have been putting out these commercials and ads for over 16 years. But, due to case at the moment about same-sex marriage, it was shut down so they couldn't say anything about it. We are going to have the 'no' vote out there being shut down—and I believe that is the case—and I think the 'yes' vote will actually continue with calling people homophobic and they will still keep their campaign going.

I think it is very important that I make it very clear where I stand on this. I personally will be voting no, and I will explain my case. Pauline Hanson's One Nation, in our objective and principles, do believe there should be a referendum with regards to this. People say that it is not to do with a constitutional matter. Under section 51, item 21 in the Australian Constitution you find the word 'marriage'. The marriage then was defined by the parliament as between a man and a woman. Why I say it should go to a referendum is to let the people decide what they define as marriage. Two questions should be put to the people: Do you believe in marriage between a man and a woman? Or do you believe marriage is between a man and woman or someone of the same sex? Let the people decide that. Then, if it is enshrined in our Constitution, as it was in the Irish Constitution when they had the vote, at no further time in this parliament can any members of parliament—and we're talking about 226 at this moment—change the Constitution to whichever way it suits them, where they may, in the future, want to have multiple marriages or reduce the marriage age. I think that needs to be enshrined in our Constitution so that then, if it is to be changed, it goes back to the people. Apart from a referendum, we have called for a plebiscite. Apart from that, we actually believe it is an individual choice, and every member of Pauline Hanson's One Nation will vote in a conscience vote on this matter.

I do believe that there are a lot of things that have not been spoken about here. I heard Senator Rice and Senator Pratt, and they made their comments about it and how they've been hard done by. Someone's feelings and lifestyle are by all means very important, and I do not deny anyone the right to live in happiness and peace whichever way they care to, but I have never heard them say anything about the other side. It's all about them—what they want. I've never heard anyone come out and say: 'What about the other side? What about the people who have grown up here or who are in this country where the majority of people live in a relationship between a man and woman? A marriage is between a man and a woman.' So why can't people look at it from the other side? Why is it all about them? Why can't they say: 'I respect your opinion. You are married. Our marriage laws are between a man and woman.' We have to actually look at it from their point of view.

My concern is: how far will this go? I see now that they want to put this into sexual education in the Safe Schools program. But, apart from all that, let's go a step further. We're talking about people's feelings. We're talking about grown-ups. We're talking about adults. They can make choices for themselves in their life, and so they should, but why take the word 'marriage', which is between a man and woman? Why won't you compromise? Why won't you say, 'We'll have a civil ceremony'? Why don't you try and compromise? You'd get the majority of Australians on your side. You want to take something that belongs to two people—a man and a woman. If it is the choice of the public, I will accept what the public say, as long as it's done fairly.

I want to touch on what is further on down the track for us—and I want Australians to consider this. Once you have marriage equality, you have the rights of any other couple who are married in Australia. What about the rights of the child? Have we considered the children? What may come of this is: kids might go to school and they say, 'I want you to draw a picture of Mum and Dad?' or 'What have Mum and Dad done?' or 'Have you had time with grandma and grandad?' Is someone going to say, 'Sorry. You can no longer call that parent Mum or Dad because it is going to offend the children who don't have a Mum and Dad'? Is it going to be: you must call that person by name—Peter, Anne or John? It is no longer Mum and Dad; it's no longer Gran or Granddad. This is the impact it's having in other places, or so I have been told.

Let's look beyond that and at the social impact this is going to have on Australians. Let's have a fair debate with regard to this issue. I don't think what is going to happen with children has been discussed enough. What are you going to ask? What about the kids? What if they come back and they say: 'You denied us a vote in the parliament. You've denied us the right to a Mum and Dad.' There are social problems with this, and I can see it happening.

When it comes to the plebiscite—what a joke it is. What an absolute waste of money—$122 million that's going to be spent on postal votes. They're being sold now. People are advertising and trying to sell their votes on eBay and other places. They're going be stolen out of letterboxes. People are saying to their friends, 'If you're overseas, then your friend can fill in your card for you.' This is not going to be reflective of what the Australian people want. Why have you pushed this through? Why didn't you save the money and put it to a referendum at the next election? Why didn't you do it in a way where there was going to be a positive outcome?

Whichever way this plebiscite goes, I won't be supporting it because I feel it's a sham. It's farcical. I think it's a waste of money. Actually, I would have liked to have seen the money—$122 million—being put into our family law courts so that we can address the issues of people who are devastated and people who are suiciding, because we can't get the system sorted out. That's where we need to put the money. You're worrying about marriage equality. I say: let's look at divorce and parental equality first and sort that out before you allow marriage equality.

Let's go to the numbers. The stats in Australia state that there are about 35,000 couples. Not all those same-sex couples want to get married. A lot of them aren't interested. That was evident in the 7.30 program, where two gay men said, 'We're not interested in getting married.' I know a lot of gay couples who are not interested. Here we have a few people pushing their own agenda and pushing feeling sorry for them, but it's just not reflective of Australians, who are fed up with this. They are so over hearing about it. I'm constantly speaking to them, and they just want to move on, because there are more important issues in this country—the deficit, suicides, farmers being forced off their land, banking issues; and the family law courts—and we should not be taking up time in this parliament discussing this issue. If we had a true leader, this would have gone to a referendum. The Prime Minister of this country should have had a referendum at the next federal election—a decision made by the public. But he was actually backed into a corner, because he was frightened to come out and make a difference. He was backed into a corner by the Greens and the Labor Party, and he didn't show leadership on this issue.

I would like to go back to something that's in the bill, and maybe the minister can answer this question. In section (4)(b) of the bill, it says:

This section also does not apply in relation to marriage law survey matter referred to in paragraph (1)(b)…

It states in (b) that:

a communication communicated solely for genuine satirical, academic or artistic purposes.—

I would like to know: what do you classify as 'genuine satirical'?

These are things that need to be clarified and answered. If we are actually going to bring this bill in and someone makes a complaint about it, what time frame are we talking about, because this bill is supposed to go until 15 November? What time frame are we talking about? By the time the commercials go to air and complaints are put in, who's going to shut them down? Who's going to make those decisions? You talk about vilify and intimidate—on who's point of view, if you have a difference of opinion? I've just raised a couple of issues about children—am I going to be seen to be intimidating or upsetting someone? Are we going to shut down the debate so we cannot have a say on this?

I think this is dangerous. More and more, I see a move creeping into our country to shut down debate and freedom of speech by the left-leaning side of this country, who are taking over not only our schools and our universities but pushing their agenda so that I'm in fear for our future generations. I won't be supporting this. I have grave concerns about it. I think that people have a right to be able to speak openly. Like I said, the people will have their say. The people will judge, if anyone is actually overstepping the mark. Therefore Pauline Hanson's One Nation will not be supporting this bill.

Malcolm Roberts (Queensland, Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to speak on the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017 to highlight one point—that is, we need to stop weakening people. Instead, we need to strengthen people. Singling out people, as the term 'LGBTIQ' does, becomes divisive and hurts people. It is the same as singling out people because they're Aboriginals or females or aged or teens. Instead, we need to include all people, and that is real equality of opportunity. We need to stop the division. We need, instead, to unify.

Hate speech, to confess, is not on people's minds because the incidence is low. Most people can understand the point I am going to make in a few minutes. We can deal with hate speech by showing that we don't accept it. That's the key: that we don't accept it. While I empathise with Senator Wong's pain, I do not sympathise with her. I can empathise with any hurt she feels, yet I'm not going to reinforce her pain because all pain in my experience comes from within.

Senator Wong says in her speech, 'decent people will agree with her.' But there she is, subtly vilifying everyone by calling them 'not decent'. That is what has crept into this parliament. To end hate speech, we need to stop separating people, stop singling people out, and stop singling groups out. We need to stop disempowering people, stop weakening people and stop crippling people. How ironic it is that the people proclaiming hurt are perpetuating, prolonging and deepening pain.

We support the people of Australia being heard, as Senator Hanson has just said. Unfortunately, this place—this chamber and the House of Representatives—is in a bubble, out of touch. We should not be taking the opportunity to decide on this important issue about marriage away from the people of our country. It is the people of Australia who are the sovereigns; it is the people who we are supposed to be serving. We need to unshackle Australians, the most wonderful of nationalities on this planet, and we need to unshackle all humans, by treating people with the dignity of being heard. That is fundamentally why we supported the plebiscite. And, listening to people across Queensland, I don't hear anyone raising same-sex marriage as urgent, nor do I hear about vilification, or even trembling about fear of vilification. I only hear these claims in the left-wing media and in this Canberra bubble.

I hear Senators Wong, Rice and others, and I empathise with them. I hear their pain from accepting what some may say to them, but there is a choice: we don't have to accept what others say to us, about us or against us. That people choose to take it personally is their choice. When people speak about another person, it tells me more about the speaker than about their subject. My choice is to treat Senators Wong, Rice and others, regardless of their views, with respect. My choice is to listen, and to do what I can to ensure that people are heard. But I ask, why do some senators let other people's value judgements push them around and control them? Offence can only be taken, never given. As Senator Hinch said earlier on: 'Some cretin said that Hitler was right.' Well, he made his defence right there by describing that person as a cretin. He said that person was a cretin. We don't need any more.

While people in this bubble are working around trying to prop up fragile egos, we see instead carbon dioxide being vilified, humans being vilified, and industry and progress being vilified—and everyone ignores it. But that is a vilification of the human race and human progress. We see energy costs exploding and people dying, yet we dodge the issue or we pretend that we have a solution to the issue. We see government taking control of people's lives, and what do we do, in this bubble? We increase control with more regulations. We see tax crippling our economy, businesses and jobs. And yet what do we do? We increase taxes and we complicate taxes. We see property rights being stolen without redress, and then we dress that up as an issue, to steal more land through the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and as other issues.

People's rights must be put to a vote, because non-LGBTIQ people deserve to be heard. Marriage is an institution that transcends this parliament. It is a part of being human. It is fundamental. All views should be respected and consulted—and heard. That's why we in Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party listen to people and always will listen to people. That is our first responsibility. I echo the words of Senator Hanson, who preceded me.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You get a lot of tough talk in the Senate from people with an incredible amount of opportunity, good fortune and privilege. There is this simple argument that offence is taken not given, but when you have the privileges that we have—parliamentary privilege, great incomes, staff, national media attention and soap boxes whenever you want—it's very, very easy to be tough.

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

All the privileges of a British citizen.

Sam Dastyari (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

All the privileges of a British citizen that Senator Roberts may have. But what you don't want when you are a 16-year-old kid or a 14-year-old kid is this whole idea of, 'Toughen up, snowflake.' That seems to be the message that's coming out: 'Toughen up.' It's very easy for us to say that from this position of privilege; it's a lot harder for the schoolkid in the schoolyard, for the young adult coming to terms with their own sexuality and for the young kid who may have two parents of the same gender having to cope with what is going to be, and has already been, a horrible national debate. But there you have it from Pauline Hanson's One Nation, who want to make debate on the Marriage Law Survey (Additional Safeguards) Bill 2017 about everything other than what it actually is about.

Let's be clear: this bill is not about schools; it's not about kids; it's not about whether you can use the term 'mum and dad' in schools—which is such a patently absurd example and it makes me wonder whether Senator Hanson actually thought it through or came up with it on the spot. This is a bill about marriage. It's a postal survey about marriage. It's about whether two people can or can't marry each other if they are of the same sex. That is all; let's get on with it.

Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank all senators who have contributed to this debate. At the outset, let me say that there are good people across Australia with strongly and sincerely held views on both sides of this argument. By giving Australians a voice on whether or not the law should be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry through the Australian marriage law postal survey, we give Australia the opportunity to more permanently resolve an issue which has been unresolved for some time.

The Australian people have clearly embraced this process:. If you look at the number of people who updated their details on the electoral roll and if you look at the conversation that is taking place right across Australia, overwhelmingly, in the respectful and courteous way that we would like to see this debate unfold. We believe that the parliament will respect the verdict of the Australian people as part of this process. I believe that bringing this issue to a resolution through this process will be a unifying moment. Whichever side is on the losing side of this argument will be better able to accept the outcome, given it is a decision of the Australian people, a decision that they were a part of.

I am disappointed that in parts of this debate today a number of speakers seem to be suggesting that offensive and inappropriate comments have come only from those in favour of the current definition of marriage. That is manifestly not true. Sadly, offensive and objectionable things have been said for many years by people on both sides of this argument, not because of this process, by the way, not because of our decision to give Australians a say and let them have a voice as part of this decision, but because some people will say offensive and objectionable things. What this survey does is draw some of these offensive and inappropriate comments from both sides of the argument out of the shadows and into the sunlight, where they will be subject to the scrutiny of the Australian people. We do trust that the Australian people can handle this debate. We do trust that Australians will judge harshly anyone from either side of the debate who puts forward inappropriate and offensive arguments.

May I say to those who are pushing for change: please empathise with those good Australians who do have sincerely and strongly held views that marriage is between a man and a woman. Please accept that they are entitled to their views. Please accept that, if there is a 'yes' outcome to this process, having gone through this exercise will help those Australians to accept that change.

This bill is not about protecting advocates or supporters of the 'yes' side from those arguing in favour of the current definition. This is about making sure this process is fair to both sides of the argument and ensuring that Australians can have their say in the right environment. This bill is not about protecting one side of the argument from the other. It is about making sure that the process is fair and has the usual protections that would be in place in the context of an election. Yes, there is one part of this bill, section 15, that goes somewhat further than we normally would in the context of an election campaign, in that we have put in place additional safeguards that seek to protect Australians from vilification, intimidation and the threat to cause harm. That is not just because of the comments or behaviours from one side of the argument but to be fair to both sides. It seeks to provide safeguards against vilification, intimidation and the threat to cause harm, not only based on the views that are held or believed to be held in relation to the marriage law survey but also based on religious conviction as well as on sexual orientation, gender identity and intersex status.

Let me say very strongly to Senator Bernardi and Senator Hanson that this bill will not shut down public debate. All this bill is seeking to do is to try to prevent vilification and intimidation, and threats to cause harm. I don't believe that either side has to vilify, intimidate or threaten to cause harm in order to make their point in this argument. Let me also point out, as I've just indicated, that section 15 of this bill has been drafted in a way that is fair to both sides of the argument. Senator Bernardi raised the question of the role of the Attorney-General, and it is true that, in this bill, the Attorney-General has been quite deliberately included in the process as a gatekeeper on what action under this section will ultimately be able to proceed through to court. It's not for him to make the final decision, so he won't be judge and jury the way Senator Bernardi has indicated but, as part of this process, he will be the gatekeeper. Senator Bernardi has reflected on the fact that the Attorney-General is a well-known proponent of the 'yes' case. I would argue that this fact doesn't prevent him from doing his job as the first law officer of the land, with statutory responsibilities—in the same way that I, as somebody who is a well-known supporter of the 'no' case, am not prevented from putting in place this survey process, which has to be fair to both sides. I would also say that it is well known that Senator Brandis is a defender of freedom of speech, and I think that he will be able to fulfil that responsibility as the first law officer of Australia perfectly well.

Senator Bernardi has also talked about the rush to put this safeguard bill through this process. In relation to that, I would just remind the chamber that it's a matter of public record that this wasn't our preferred process. Our preferred process was to give the Australian people the opportunity to have their say in the context of a compulsory attendance plebiscite, which would have had in place, under the auspices of our electoral laws and other relevant laws, all the usual safeguards that apply to an election. That was not to be the case, because the Senate decided otherwise, so we went for plan B. We believe, and we've always said, that this plan B is a constitutional and legal way to keep faith with our commitment to give the Australian people a say before the parliament next passes judgement on this issue, and that was confirmed by the High Court last week. We respected the fact that, pending the decision of the High Court about the constitutional and legal validity of the process, a number of important stakeholders in this debate were reluctant to meaningfully engage with the government in relation to this legislation. It was only after the High Court made its decision last week that we were in a position to meaningfully engage with all relevant stakeholders in this debate.

We have worked in good faith with both sides of the argument. We've worked in good faith with other parties in the parliament. I would also like to put on record here my appreciation for the way representatives of the 'no' campaign and the 'yes' campaign have engaged with the government. I would also particularly like to put on record the government's appreciation for the way the shadow Attorney-General, Mark Dreyfus, the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, and Senator Di Natale and the Greens have engaged with the government. We have had engagements with members and senators across the board and stakeholders from both sides of the argument, as I've indicated, but, in order to facilitate a consensus on this legislation through the parliament as efficiently as is desirable, it was obviously important that we were able to reach a level of understanding, in particular, with Labor and the Greens, which I'm pleased that we've been able to secure. So on that basis, and having made those few remarks, I commend the bill to the Senate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.