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

As I stated last night, this is a very important issue for Australians, and I understand it. We've just had a plebiscite with regard to the same-sex marriage survey and the bill that's before the parliament, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. What I want to put on record is my concerns and those of many Australians. Yes, we had 61 per cent that voted yes for the survey, yet 39 per cent voted no, and a further 21 per cent did not vote at all or didn't have the opportunity to vote. The whole survey, as I said from the very beginning, I believe should have been a referendum to the people so we defined in our Constitution what we, the people, agree to as being marriage between two people—whether Australians agreed with it being between a man and a woman or it being between those of the same sex.

My concern is that, in time to come, the parliament and its members could at any time change this to include multiple marriages or marriages of people under a certain age, and I don't believe that will be the will of the people. If it were a referendum, it would be enshrined in the Constitution and could not be changed by parliament but only by the people. We see the ever-changing face of our society, where we know that there are multiple marriages in our communities, and yet it is not being addressed.

What concerns me greatly is that the survey reminds me of the referendum that we had in 1967 to do with the Aboriginal people. In that referendum, people thought they were voting to bring the Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islanders into the census. They were saying 'equality for all Australians'. People voted in that referendum. About 97 per cent of Australians agreed that they should be, because the Aboriginal people were not included in the census, and for many years they were wrongly treated and there was no equality. What happened then was because the people agreed to it. Section 51 of the Constitution stated at the time prior to the referendum that the Commonwealth could make specific laws for any race other than the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of any state. Now it reads that the Commonwealth can make specific laws for 'any race'.

We put the cart before the horse then, and over the years we have seen our governments bring in laws that actually haven't brought equality for all Australians; we have now made laws that give Aboriginal people more rights than other Australians. I'd say in point of fact that there is a division in Australia; there is reverse racism, because they have special laws that, when their kids go to school, because they're Aboriginal, they can have their tours, their books and their lunches provided. There are special organisations purely for Aboriginals. They can advertise 'Aboriginals only need apply'. They are treated totally differently under the law. People did not vote for that, hence my concerns about this plebiscite.

People say they want equality; they want the right to marry. I have no problem with that and neither do most Australians. If it were to be called a civil ceremony, Australians would not worry about that. In the census in 2011, there were 33,700 gay couples, and I can tell you that not all these gay couples want to get married. We are actually now saying that a large majority of Australians are going to have to be tolerant and go against their beliefs and that our society may change because you pushed for equality in this area. That's all I heard—'love and equality' for people that I believe have a right to be happy and to live their own lives, but it's going to have an impact on the rest of society, and I think we have failed to look at that. We have failed by putting the cart before the horse.

People voted on something; it was an emotional standing—'Yes, people should get married.' But here we are discussing a bill in the parliament on the implications and ramifications it is going to have on our society. People had a right to know about the implications before they voted, but you never did that, and that's why I feel it's wrong. The bill before the parliament says that marriage celebrants can't refuse only on religious grounds. Whoever you are in our society, if you're a marriage celebrant, you should have the right to say no. You should have the right to say, 'No, I'm sorry, because of my beliefs I can't marry a same-sex couple.' Why is it that we have to change and turn around our opinions on this? Why are we being dictated to, again, by the minority? There are many other people out there who, I'm sure, want to marry these couples, but why is it that we could have litigation with people dragged before the courts because of their beliefs? Or maybe a lot of them will throw in their professions because they're in fear of being dragged before the courts.

Another part that I think people haven't thought about is the children. I'm going to have my say now, because I need to look at what impact it is going to have on our society. About 11 per cent of gay couples now have children. Whether they're from in-vitro fertilisation or former heterosexual marriages, the fact is there are children, and there will be an increasing number of children in these relationships. What will we do, as a society, when we get to the stage that these kids are starting to go to school? What will happen when you go to school, the teacher says, 'I want you to draw a picture of your mum and dad or grandma and grandad and your house' and all the rest of it? The kids will be saying, 'What do I do? I don't have a mum,' or 'I don't have a dad.' 'It's Peter and Sam,' or 'It's Elizabeth and Amanda.' They're not known as mum and dad. Are we then going to say, 'Oh well, we can't discriminate against these children, so we must call their parents by their real name?'

Is this the impact it is going to have on our educational system and in our school rooms? What about grandma and grandad? It's all right for this generation but what about the next generation? No longer will you be able to call them grandma or grandad. These kids won't have them.

Have you thought beyond this? These people are pushing for what they want—equality and love. I've got no problems with people being in love and doing what they want to, but why do you have to push this on the majority of the population? A lot of the people voted in the census because they believe in love and they believe that people should be happy together—no problem with it. A lot of these people are parents who have gay children and they only wish to see them happy. But have we really stopped to think about the ramifications this is going to have on our society as a whole?

I will be moving an amendment with regard to celebrants. I believe that everyone has a right to deny service—if they don't want to marry a couple, bake a cake or whatever it is they don't want to do. We cannot restrict people from having an opinion in this country. We have laws in place. We have human rights. We have the Racial Discrimination Act. We have the Sex Discrimination Act. We have those in place. But this is something very important: we cannot shut people down from having an opinion and having a say in this country. If they don't want to do something, they have the right not to, because that is their business and they have a right to say that. There are plenty of other people who will do it. I see this is going to open up a can of worms. You are going to have people who will chase these people down to see what their reaction will be—just purely to litigate and take them through the court system. We are going to have a lot of lawyers and solicitors rubbing their hands together over this.

Another concern that has been raised by people in Australia is about the Safe Schools Program. Why are we pushing this in parts of this country in the school educational program? It is teaching kids about their body parts and everything. They are kids. Let them be children. I have no problem with teaching sexual education, but do it when they are reaching puberty at around 14 or 15. Don't start messing around with the minds of young children in our educational system by pushing your own agenda. I think it's disgraceful. As long as I'm a senator for Queensland I will fight against this happening in our educational system in Queensland, because I believe that people are pushing their own agenda. I think there are many selfish people who are not looking at the overall effect that it's going to have on our society.

I hope that people think clearly about this. I voted no, and I make that quite clear. In this survey, I voted no. I'm very divided about this whole issue and about how I'm going to vote on this bill. But the fact is that I know that 61 per cent of Queenslanders voted yes in this plebiscite. What I'm divided about are the ramifications this is going to have on our society, because I don't believe it has been debated well enough and I don't believe people are well informed about what impact it is going to have. I warn everyone: it will have an impact on our society. When you make your decisions in this parliament it's all right to feel emotional, and everyone wants to embrace and feel good. It's wonderful. But you're asking the rest of society to be tolerant of something that may have such an impact on them and our future generations. I want people to think wisely about the impact this is going to have on our society.

Like I said, I'm very divided about how I'm going to vote on this. Under One Nation—under our principles and objectives—we will have a conscience vote on this, and it is up to every member of the party how they will vote. It is a conscience vote for them. I'm yet to make up my mind on how I'm going to vote. I will listen to the debate, but my view is that I don't believe that we are fully aware of the ramifications this is going to have on our society. I've been getting so many calls through my office from people who are totally against this, although the vote showed differently. But can we truly believe that the vote was conducted fairly? It should have been done as a referendum at the next election. They didn't do that. It was a huge cost of about $100 million to the Australian taxpayer. What I find disgraceful about this whole thing is we have people in this country living on the streets, kids on ice and the problem of not enough jobs—and we're having a debate about the issue of a couple of people being able to get married. There are more important things in this country than worrying about and pushing for this. It's disgraceful.

I don't think you realise that we have farmers and others suiciding in our country. One in 10 people are depressed—and you are worried about same sex and people getting married, about giving a vow to each other. Most members of this place have lost the plot and don't understand what is really important to the Australian people. The people are so sick and tired of hearing about this. Just pass an act and make it a civil ceremony. Deal with the issues that are important to the people. Anyway, that's the choice of the parliament. I've made myself clear and I will be moving an amendment.

Chris Ketter (Queensland, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commence my brief contribution on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 by noting in passing that on this highly contentious issue, as has been stated many times, it is possible for well-meaning people of goodwill to disagree and to be found on both sides of the debate. Next, I wish to note that I did not support the government's approach of conducting a postal survey. I always believed that parliament was capable and competent to deal with the issue. My view is that parliamentarians should have a free or conscience vote on any proposed change to the marriage law. Nevertheless, we now know that a majority of Australians support the proposed change to the definition of marriage. I congratulate Australians for marriage equality, on the success of their long-running campaign, and Senator Wong and Senator Pratt for their advocacy. It is apparent that I now find myself in the minority on this issue of same-sex marriage.

In my home state of Queensland, roughly 60 per cent of those who participated in the postal survey support a change to the law. I am one of the 40 per cent. I cannot support a change to the definition of marriage. My reasons are very personal and are informed by my faith. They go to the fact that the family is the fundamental group unit in society and to the uniqueness of the relationship between men and women. However, the Australian people have spoken and I do not intend to take up the time of this chamber reprosecuting the relative merits of the arguments. As I have said, mine is a minority view and I respect the views of the majority. Having said that, let us not forget that this parliament exists to represent the views of all Australians. But just as I respect the right of those MPs who represent electorates which voted no to exercise a contrary vote in accordance with their conscience, I trust that my right to exercise a conscience vote will also be respected.

There will be people listening to my contribution this morning who will be disappointed that I cannot agree with same-sex marriage. Some may misconstrue, from what I've said, that I am dismissive of the views and aspirations of LGBTIQ people. My only response to that is, as those who know me would attest, I have always taken people as I find them. Over my long career as a union official and in my current role, I have always tried to treat people, regardless of their background, with due respect and consideration. Somewhat paradoxically, although I have reservations about the implications of the proposed change to the marriage law, at the same time, I welcome the fact that the result of the postal survey brought such joy and affirmation to those who have felt marginalised.

As we go further into the debate around this bill, it will be important for respect and consideration to continue on all sides if we are to achieve an outcome consistent with the views of the majority of Australians. In his very moving speech introducing this private member's bill, Senator Smith acknowledged the very genuine concerns of some Christians and religious people around Australia that have been expressed during the postal survey and he indicated that he wanted to give voice to them. He went on to state:

This vote is not about—

And must not be about—

replacing one persecuted minority with another or giving one hope to one group while inflicting fear on another group; it must be about advancing the hopes and dreams of all citizens, no matter their sexuality, ethnicity or religion.

This bill is about balancing the changes of the Marriage Act with religious freedom.

I congratulate Senator Smith on the gracious manner in which he commenced the debate on this bill. I trust that the remainder of the debate will be conducted in a manner that brings credit to this chamber and delivers a fair and just outcome.

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

I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. The Commonwealth of Australia came into existence on 1 January 1901 when Sir John Downer declared:

The Commonwealth of Australia will be, from its first stage, a Christian Commonwealth.

Like Downer, many other leading writers of the Constitution had strong views on the importance of Christianity to the Australian Commonwealth. For instance, Sir Henry Parkes, known as the father of Australia's Federation, believed that Christianity comprised an essential part of Australia's common law. In a column published in The Sydney Morning Herald on 26 August 1885, Sir Henry Parkes stated:

We are pre-eminently a Christian people—as our laws, our whole system of jurisprudence, our Constitution … are based upon and interwoven with our Christian belief.

Similar views were found among drafters of the Constitution bill in 1897. Among those was Edmond Barton, as well as leading federalist and statesman, Alfred Deakin. All of these statements are far from just rhetoric. Indeed, the Christian belief of the Australian framers made its way directly into the preamble of the Australian Constitution. When has it ever been justified under international law, or any other law for that matter, to permit legal disrespect for that which is embraced as being sacred to a considerable proportion of the population? It gives us understanding and conveys the stories of our evolution as a nation, our spirit, our resourcefulness and our unique living landscapes. It is an inheritance that helps define our future and who we are as a nation.

Our Australian cultural heritage is the legacy of physical artefacts and intangible attributes of a society that were inherited from past generations, maintained in the present and bestowed for the benefit of future generations. Safeguarding our intangible heritage includes the protection of our cultural identities—in this regard, the cultural identity of humanity. It is essential that we understand that intangible heritage comprises of, but is not limited to, traditional commemorations, customs, ways of life and beliefs. Heterosexual marriage shapes our cultural heritage, particularly as we see and experience it in the Christian tradition of Australia.

In Australia, heritage law exists at the national level and at each of the state and territory levels. Generally, there are separate laws governing Aboriginal cultural heritage and historical heritage. State laws also allow heritage to be protected through local government regulation such as planning schemes. In New South Wales, a legislative goal is to conserve the state's cultural heritage and promote public awareness of places, objects and features of significance to the state's Aboriginal peoples through the National Parks and Wildlife Act of 1974. The Heritage Act of 1977 in New South Wales also provides for the conservation of environmental heritage items. The principles underlying the acts' main objectives revolve around the recognition, protection and conservation of Aboriginal cultural heritage, in order to protect it from damage and desecration in Australia, which is particularly significant to Aboriginal people in accordance with Aboriginal traditions. The critical expression in this passage is 'to desecrate', which means to disregard a sacred place or treat a thing with disrespect.

To the Christians, same-sex marriage epitomises the desecration of a sacred right and, in many denominations, a sacrament. Marriage is a sacrament which is an outward symbol of fulfilling God's purpose for humanity: to form the building block of society and the family and to reproduce the species. It is also a symbol of the nature of Christ's relationship with his church—a sacred union where a man and a woman become one in the physical consummation of marriage. Why then do our parliaments pass one set of laws protecting intangible cultural heritage of one part of our society and then pass another law which disrespects the cultural beliefs and practices of many others across our nation?

Australia's political and legal systems owe so much to Christianity and it is evident the foundations of the Australian nation and its laws have discernible Christian philosophical roots. Most of the same-sex marriage debate occurs because there are two competing understandings of marriage fighting for dominance in our society—the conjugal view and the revisionist view. These two views of marriage have dramatically different implications for what marriage policy should look like. The view of marriage that informs policy development can have a dramatic impact on the legal and social norms surrounding families and children. Three months ago, when the postal vote process was announced, an Australian Marriage Forum spokesman stated that 'no public vote, no parliament, no court have the authority to repeal nature and change the meaning of marriage'. Marriage is based upon an unchangeable truth that only man and woman can create new life; only man and woman can give a child a mother and a father, a biological identity and ancestry. No other relationship outside of a heterosexual relationship should be legislated as marriage, because marriage is divine and not merely a human institution.

The demand to redefine marriage assumes that marriage is a matter of definition but this is not so, since marriage arises out of a description of a natural order—that is, the facts of human biology and evolution. If human beings were naturally inclined to form homosexual unions then, over time, they would have become extinct. The survival of the human race and hence of the state depends on men and women having children and forming families and not homosexual unions. Water is H2O and not CH3CH2OH, which is ethanol. They are both liquids. We cannot redefine CH3CH2OH as water, since it has a different structure. A union of female and male has a different structure from a homosexual union. The accepted meaning in the Oxford dictionary of the term 'marriage' is 'the legal union of a man and a woman in order to live together and often to have children'. This meaning reflects the historical, cultural and religious understanding of the concept of marriage which confines the relationship to persons of the opposite sex and its associated concern for the protection of children.

Australia has an express provision in its Constitution granting federal parliament power to introduce legislation on the topic of marriage and correlating issues. In light of such provision, an amendment to the federal Marriage Act was enacted in 2004 which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. The High Court has repeatedly affirmed that the connotation or meaning of a given word must remain fixed as it was established at the time the law was originally enacted. Under orthodox rules of Australian legal interpretation, the meaning to be given to a term is that which it had at the date of the Constitution—1900. Traditionally speaking, the courts have adopted a method that concentrates primarily on the essential meaning the word had at the date when the law was enacted. John Quick and Robert Garran commented that the intention of the Australian framers was to prevent the federal parliament from expanding its limited and specified powers by simply changing the meaning of any word in the Constitution. At the time of the constitutional enactment, the word 'marriage' meant a union between a man and a woman. They say:

… this would almost certainly have been regarded as an essential part of the connotation, and not merely the denotation, of the word

Indeed, Quick and Garran provide the following meaning to the institution:

Marriage is a relationship originating in contract, but it is something more than a contract. It is what is technically called a status, involving a complex bundle of rights, privileges, obligations, and responsibilities which are determined and annexed to it by law independent of contract.

According to the law of England, a marriage is a union between a man and a woman on the same basis as that on which the institution is recognised throughout Christendom and its essence is that it is a voluntary union, it is for life, it is between one man and one woman and it is to the exclusion of all others. There are many Australians who have sought to retain the definition of traditional marriage as it has been understood for centuries and continue to view marriage as a special union between a man and a woman which allows for the creation and nurture of children. A change in civil law does not change the understanding of the nature of marriage as it is understood in the Christian tradition.

For the LGBTI activists, the same-sex marriage campaign has never been about marriage; it has always been about power—the legal power that comes when same-sex and transgender marriage is enshrined in law. The power that emanates from this can be used a weapon for two specific purposes—namely, to control the education of our children and, secondly, to silence any dissenters. There is absolutely no justification for homosexual marriage in any human rights instrument. It is a legal fancy designed by the decadent West, with no foundation in nature or human culture. The millions of Australians who voted no and who are aware of the consequences of redefining marriage will be vigilant to any attempts by radicals who would impose their views of marriage and sexuality on our children and faith communities.

While we continue to respect the dignity of LGBTI Australians, we must recognise and respect the concerns of more than 4.8 million Australians who oppose a change to the definition of marriage, by putting in place strong conscience and religious freedom protections. These protections must ensure that Australians can continue to express their view on marriage, that faith based schools can continue to teach the traditional understanding of marriage and that organisations can continue to operate in a manner that is consistent with those values.

The expansion of legal rights and protections afforded to same-sex couples in Australia is well developed at both federal and state levels, with the Civil Partnerships Act 2008 and the New South Wales Relationships Register. Legislation now exists in four states and the Australian Capital Territory that provides for the legal recognition of relationships that may include same-sex unions. At the federal level, in 2008 and 2009 there was a wide-ranging suite of reforms to provide equal entitlements and responsibilities for same-sex couples in areas such as social security, veterans entitlements, employment, taxation, superannuation, immigration and workers compensation.

However, despite millions of Australians receiving their postal votes in the mail, there were many who did not receive their forms and so were deprived of their right to participate in this survey. I was one of those deprived Australians, robbed and denied the opportunity to express my democratic right to participate in this survey. I'll further add that my vote would have been no.

The seven highest 'no' votes in New South Wales were all in Western Sydney: 74 per cent in Blaxland, 70 per cent in Watson, 65 per cent in McMahon, 64 per cent in Werriwa, 64 per cent in Fowler, 62 per cent in Parramatta and 59 per cent in Chifley.

It is evident that this government cannot extend the ambit of its own legislative powers by purporting to give marriage a wider meaning than that which the word bears in its constitutional context. Nor can the parliament manufacture legislative powers by the device of deeming something that is not marriage to be marriage, or by constructing a superficial connection between the operation of a law and a marriage which examination discloses to be contrived and illusory.

Perusal of some High Court dicta indicates that the constitutional meaning of 'marriage' in section 51(xxi) is confined to the definition found in Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee. Hyde v Hyde is a landmark case in the English Court of Probate and Divorce. The case was heard on 20 March 1866, before Lord Penzance, and established the common-law definition of marriage. Lord Penzance found that institutions in foreign countries, including marriage, cannot be considered as valid under English law unless they resemble the equivalent English institution. With respect to marriage, English law could therefore not recognise either polygamy or concubines as marriage. Similarly, he found that cultural traditions of which the court had no knowledge could not form the basis for a court decision. The court dismissed John Hyde's case. The case established the common-law definition of marriage. Lord Penzance pronounced:

I conceive that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.

To this end, High Court judges, both past and present, have expressed their personal opinions on the matter. Justice Gerard Brennan, 10th Chief Justice of Australia, for example, relied on the history of the court to communicate that it is:

… beyond the powers of the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate for any other form of marriage besides that encompassed by its traditional definition.

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

This morning it is my absolute pleasure to rise and speak on this historic piece of legislation, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. This follows what I believe was a historic exercise in democracy—the first of its kind in Australia—when the Turnbull coalition government gave effect to the 2016 election promise to give the Australian people a say on changing the law to allow for marriage between adults regardless of gender. I think the Prime Minister deserves acknowledgement for meeting this promise despite an extraordinary effort and attempts to prevent him from doing so. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever before seen such forces arrayed against a government delivering a promise that it took to an election. But prevail we did, as did our trust in the Australian people and their response.

In a country noted, in a great many respects, for its political apathy or indifference, the response of Australians to a voluntary exercise was absolutely emphatic. Some 79.5 per cent—four in every five Australians—returned a response to this postal survey. That, in itself, is an absolutely stunning outcome, and I believe that it delivers a legitimacy to this survey that is absolutely unchallengeable. More than 12.7 million people made their voices heard.

In our home state of South Australia, Acting Deputy President Fawcett, nearly one million people, or 79.7 per cent of eligible people, participated in the Australian marriage survey. However, I think we need to acknowledge that, whilst over 60 per cent of Australians indicated their support for the change in the Marriage Act to enable marriage to be a union between two people and to no longer enforce the traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, across Australia and in our home state of South Australia there were a vast number of people who registered a 'no' vote. In fact, nearly five million people in Australia registered a 'no' vote.

Whilst we focus very heavily on those people who strongly advocated for a 'yes' vote or strongly advocated for a 'no' vote, there was a group of people in the middle who I believe were probably the overwhelming number of the population and who I'm sure all of us in this place heard from—the 'Just get on with it; it's inevitable' vote. So, I think we need to be very careful, when we proceed with this bill, to ensure that we actually take into account the concerns of the people who were ideologically, fundamentally and absolutely committed to the votes on either end of the spectrum, bearing in mind that the people who voted yes were overwhelmingly successful, by anybody's terms, in an electoral situation, with over 60 per cent of Australians expressing a desire for the Marriage Act to be changed.

As I said, 4.8 million people said no. They are a group of people whose concerns we would be very foolish not to listen to. For many of these people this is an absolutely fundamental issue. It's a fundamental issue of their religion. It's a fundamental issue of the underlying belief in the way that they live their lives. I think it is absolutely incumbent on those of us here, who over the next few days will have the opportunity to debate, in committee, the bill that's been put before this house by Senator Smith, to make sure that the strongest possible protections are put into this bill to enable those 4.8 million people who said no, who are a substantial number of our population, to feel that their voices have been heard and that we have listened to their concerns. At the end of the day, we went to the people and we asked them a very simple question: do you want us to change the Marriage Act to allow two people to be able to be married under the Marriage Act? I don't think anybody asked the public whether they wanted us to discriminate any further and cause any further damage or discrimination to people as a result of changing this particular act.

We have before us an opportunity to make sure that this is the strongest and best possible piece of legislation to deliver the outcome that the Australian people have asked us to deliver but, at the same time, to protect the interests of not only those 4.8 million people who voted no but, most particularly, the smaller proportion of those people who voted no for whom this is an absolutely fundamental issue of their very existence. So I can assure you, Mr Acting Deputy President Fawcett, that I will be paying very close attention to the amendments that are brought before this chamber and making sure that I try to work with my colleagues to convince them that the protections for those people who voted no are just as important as the protections for and the freedoms of those people who voted yes. To that end, I acknowledge that there has been a lot of work done by a number of people in relation to making sure that these protections are put into place, and I acknowledge your involvement, Mr Acting Deputy President, in this as well.

With personal responsibility also comes a series of obligations. I certainly didn't come into this place or become a senator to protect people from the consequences of their own words and their own actions. I'm all for freedoms, but I appreciate that we do live in a society, in a community, and that the freedom to swing your arm actually ends at the start of the other person's nose. It's called being responsible in the exercise of your freedom of speech. In reality, if you say something stupid when exercising your freedom of speech, the government shouldn't and can't penalise you or sanction you, but you can't protect other people from thinking that you're stupid. So I think it is extraordinarily important that we make sure that we get the provisions in place to make sure that we have an adequate number of protections, but, at the same time, we can't go to the extent of protecting people from admitting to the world by their actions that they're actually stupid.

I foreshadow the fact that there are a number of amendments that are coming into this place in relation to a number of key areas, and there is one thing that we need to make sure that we do with these protections, because, if we do nothing, the opportunity is actually there to weaponise activists. I think we need to be very careful to protect people against the minority out there in the public who would seek to make hay over the next few months as the legislation settles in. I have to say I've always found it quite extraordinary that somebody who seeks to do something and requires the services of another would actually think that they would want to go and ask somebody to participate in their very special day—in this instance, a wedding—when they know that the person who is going to provide that service is not somebody who supports their values or views in life. Sadly, we need to make sure that we protect the people who might otherwise have a differing view from the weaponisation of activists who would seek to make a point by going out there and demonstrating, and I don't have to go very far to find a number of examples where people, for the purposes of trying to make a point, actually victimise other people in our community. So I call on everybody to apply a little bit of common sense here to make sure that they don't go out there to try to make a point by making somebody else's life more miserable.

Nonetheless, as I said, I foreshadow the fact that I certainly will be supporting a number of amendments. I look forward to coming into this chamber and debating them. I believe that a parent's right over the education of their child is a fundamental right. I believe it is my right to decide how my child is educated. I believe it's my right to determine that the values that I hold and that my family holds are the views that my child is exposed to in their education, and I believe it is absolutely my right for my child not to be exposed to views that are contrary to my beliefs. I am very, very strong on ensuring the parents' rights to determine educational outcomes. There is no right for a government or an institution or the education system to override my rights about my child, so I will certainly support amendments to that effect. I also believe that charities should have the right to protect their religious beliefs in their actions into the future, particularly as so many of our charities in Australia are fundamentally underwritten by religious organisations.

Very, very particularly, I think that we need to include no-detriment provisions, because I believe that, if I hold a belief, I should not be detrimentally impacted on by a law or an action of another. I'm entirely entitled to my opinion. As long as I don't breach any other law that might say that my view is of substantial and material damage to somebody else, I am still absolutely entitled to hold that view. And indeed, equally, I don't believe that anybody should be forced or compelled to endorse a view that they don't actually support.

So I think that there are a number of amendments that will be before this chamber for debate in the committee stage or as second reading amendments that have very, very strong and powerful provisions in them that will enable this particular piece of legislation, this landmark piece of legislation, to proceed, taking into account a number of views of people who possibly didn't vote yes. I think it will demonstrate to the whole Australian public that this is going to be a very mature and adult debate and that we can move forward with the minimum amount of impact on those people who possibly would have chosen not to proceed with this particular piece of legislation.

I'd also draw to attention that the reason that, in this federal legislation, we need to be so strong in focusing on this is the fact that so many of our state laws are quite different from other state laws. We can't have a situation where we've got an overarching piece of legislation as important as this piece of legislation and, for many of the underlying freedoms and discrimination provisions that sit so closely aligned with this particular piece of legislation, see one state being able to apply and interpret them differently to another. So I commend the amendments that are going to make sure that this is a harmonised approach to make sure that we give this particular piece of legislation—which, as I said, is so, so important to so many people in Australia—the best possible chance to come into effect and not be detrimentally impacting on members of our community.

During the historic debate, there was inevitably a focus on a number of people's bad behaviour, but I'd just like to point out that very little of it was bad. There was a bit, and I know that the people who were responsible for that behaviour have certainly been called out for it. They were a minority, and I'd like to commend the vast majority of Australians, and particularly those that were advocating very strongly for either the 'yes' vote or the 'no' vote, because they conducted themselves in a very dignified manner. I think it sets the scene well for the implementation of this new legislation, assuming that it passes this chamber and the other place, that we continue to do this in a mature, responsible and respectful way and respect all of the views of all Australians. With 80 per cent of people turning out to the polls, it's obviously something that the Australian public is really keen to participate in. I think that the fact that we have gone about this process in a very respectful way has given the Australian public the confidence to move forward in a respectful way as well.

One of the great things about Australia is the wonderful democracy, and I think that one of the things that we've seen through this process is democracy working. Our Constitution says that democracy is every Australian's birthright, and we are extraordinarily lucky as a country that that is the case. We came to our democracy by peaceful means, and it's crucial that we never, ever take it for granted. It takes a lot of things, sometimes including great sacrifice, to ensure that we are secure in our democracy. It takes an informed electorate of individuals and communities properly holding the government to account. It takes an objective and fearless media. It takes people who are prepared to run for office and people who are prepared to help them. It requires the enforcement of people's will, as well as the expressions expressed in law, in keeping the civil peace. It requires protection of the nation's sovereignty and independence by armed forces against exterior threats. All too often, it simply requires hard work. Winston Churchill said:

… democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms …

It is, in fact, the best form of government, but it is also the hardest. It's supposed to be the hardest because it's the most worthwhile. It's important not to make the mistake of thinking that democracy is about giving everyone what they want or to make things easy for people. It's about giving you, the public, and others a voice in government and the freedom to express your views—and sometimes your views don't prevail. It's also about accepting the results even if you don't agree with them.

Australia is a democracy. It is not only a conversation; it is absolutely a compact. This bill doesn't play favourites either. It affords ministers of religion, celebrants and organisations protections from penalty and sanctions. With the amendments that are being put forward, there is the opportunity for us to end up with a bill that is able to represent what Australia's democracy stands for, what it's always stood for. I believe we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity as a parliament, as a Senate and as a House of Representatives, and as a government to show the absolute best way for democracy, as we present our face to the rest of the world in the way we debate this bill—not only in the way we debate this bill, and, I assume, pass this bill; also in the way we roll it out into the community and the respectful and responsible way that everybody in society accepts that we need to move on.

We will be judged on how we are able to deliver this bill. We will be judged on how we implement it. We will be judged on the responsible and respectful way that we treat the people who didn't necessarily agree with our point of view, whether we were on the winning side or whether we were on the losing side. As a representative of all South Australians, like you, Acting Deputy President Fawcett, I will reserve my right to consider all of the amendments that come before this chamber over the course of this debate, particularly in relation to future legislation to protect religious freedoms for those people who would seek to have them protected.

I commend the bill to this house in its current state. However, as I said, I look forward to making sure that we make it the strongest possible bill by the time it goes to the vote. I will respect the view of the people of South Australia, who overwhelmingly voted for the Marriage Act to be amended. However, I hope that we will be able to achieve a bill at the end of this week that enables us to protect the freedoms of religion of those people who voted no.

Mitch Fifield (Victoria, Liberal Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the third free vote debate that I have had the opportunity to contribute to since I've been in this place. Previously we have had the issue of who should determine the safety and efficacy of RU486—should that be a minister or the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Previously we've had come before this place whether embryonic stem cell research should be legal. On both occasions this chamber saw the best of our colleagues in the manner in which each contributed, often with different views but universally they were presented respectfully. I think on those occasions this place operated in the way that Australians would hope and like to believe that the Australian parliament operates. What I've seen unfold so far in this debate on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 is a similar debate and I hope that that does continue.

What has brought us to this point today really is two things: firstly, the fulfilment of a government election commitment; and, secondly, a change in community views. In terms of fulfilment of a government election commitment, colleagues will recall that before the last election the coalition said that, if re-elected, it was going to provide the Australian people with the opportunity to express their views in relation to a change to the marriage law. What we put before the Australian people was that there would be a compulsory-attendance plebiscite. Despite endeavouring to give effect to that election commitment through this place, the Senate was otherwise minded. The government then set about looking for an alternative mechanism to give effect to its election commitment, and what the government put forward was a postal survey. I think all colleagues, regardless of their view about having a postal survey, would now recognise and accept that it was a very successful exercise. There was high attendance and there was a very clear result. That has had the benefit that the nation, as a whole, has embraced the path that this parliament has embarked upon and I think it gives great community acceptance to what will ultimately occur.

The second thing that has brought us to this point, as I mentioned, is a change in community views. For those colleagues who were here, or can remember, it wasn't that long ago that during the Howard government legislation was introduced into this place to make specific reference to marriage being between a man and a woman. It wasn't that long ago and, at that time, that vote had the support of the Liberal Party, the National Party and the Australian Labor Party. But, clearly, views in the community and in this place have changed since that time. For that reason, no-one should be criticised for having changed their own point of view since then. Likewise, no colleague should be criticised for maintaining the view that they had at that time.

I am one of those people whose views have changed over time. I historically had a view that supported the maintenance of the status quo when it came to the definition of marriage. I always, I must admit, had a bit of a tension between that view and the libertarian in me that believed that, fundamentally, individuals should be able to contract with each other in the way that suits them. Ultimately, it is that latter view within myself that won out over time.

In terms of the recent public debate and discussion, the way that that was given effect to was twofold. Firstly, I voted yes in the postal survey. Secondly, I lent my name to the Libs and Nats for the 'yes' campaign in the form of an advertisement in the newspaper. I must say, I didn't partake in any other campaign activities, for the reason that I thought and believed that Australians were well capable of forming their own views on these matters without the benefit of extensive campaigns on either side. But, nevertheless, I thought it appropriate as a public figure to lend my name to that advertisement to indicate what my view was and what my disposition was.

We will shortly be coming to the end of this second reading debate. We will then be moving to debate amendments. I am, to some extent, satisfied by the protections for conscience and religious belief which are contained in Senator Smith's bill. I do, however, recognise that there are some cogent arguments for additional protections. I am going to follow the debate closely in the committee stage, and there may well be some additional protections that I will support in the committee stage. But it's also important, I think, to recognise that we do also have the Ruddock process which is looking at the broader issue of religious freedoms and protections in the community beyond those which relate directly to this marriage debate. There are a number of amendments that, I believe, would be better not supported so that the Ruddock committee can undertake its work. But there will be some additional protections in the context of this bill that I will be entertaining.

I started by saying that this is the third free vote and debate that I have taken part in in this place. They have, thus far, all been characterised by respect and by good dealings throughout the chamber. It's my hope and belief that that will continue to be the case here. I look forward, shortly, to supporting the second reading of the bill.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to join with colleagues around the chamber who have commended the way this debate has proceeded. In very general terms, there has been respect and dignity in its conduct. Other colleagues have referred to some of the extremes. I'd have to share with the chamber that I've experienced some of those extremes on both sides, but they have been that—extremes. I'd also like to say the way this debate has proceeded in this chamber, and coming into this chamber, should be commended, as well. Particularly, I commend Senator Fawcett for his conduct of the committee inquiry. The outcomes of that inquiry deserve to be highlighted. On behalf of the Australian Labor Party, Senator Kitching's contribution to that inquiry and the consensus views that came out of that inquiry have been, also, very helpful. And, indeed, I commend all senators who participated.

Senator Smith, now here in the chamber, has taken the outcome of that inquiry with some of his coalition colleagues and produced this bill, the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. I don't think Senator Smith himself or, indeed, many others would insist that the bill is the perfect outcome. Indeed, there are outstanding matters that the committee report referred to and that we may not be able to resolve in the limited time we have available now. I can share with the chamber, I think, that it's a rare find to find a perfect bill. It's part of our legislative process that further work is often required, but I think all senators have engaged with this process with respect, and that deserves to be acknowledged.

I'd also like to highlight the amount of work that Senator Fawcett has put into the amendments that are circulating in the chamber now. Senator Fawcett, following the Senate inquiry, has engaged with a range of parties in a valiant attempt, I think, to try and resolve a range of issues, some of them falling within the scope of same-sex marriage, some of them dealing with issues that relate to the interface between same-sex marriage and some broader issues related to religious liberty, religious freedom, freedom of expression and belief, and such matters. The goodwill and intent of those parties, I think, deserves to be highlighted, also.

There is one matter, though, that I would like to dwell on for a moment. Senator Fifield was referring to his previous engagement with conscience vote matters. I've been reflecting, over recent days, my own experience dating back over 20 years of dealing with these types of issues. The one exception to those thanks and commendations that I just made has been the way in which some have chosen to make these debates quite partisan. I have not appreciated hearing reports, for instance, that Labor senators are scared or gutless. I won't name the senator in this debate now, but the suggestion that those on the other side of the chamber who have similar concerns are gutless is unworthy. That's perhaps not the only area where some partisanship has carried over this debate. Many senators have referred to the Liberal Party election promise to hold the plebiscite and the challenges that occurred because the opposition had a different view on how that plebiscite should be conducted.

But I think we should perhaps go back to an earlier stage in history. Of course, as Senator Fifield referred to, public opinion on this issue has changed and has been changing now for quite some time—perhaps the last decade. I agree that, in 2004, when these provisions were codified in the Marriage Act, the general public opinion was probably with that codification. Since that time public opinion has shifted markedly. The Labor Party have, until our last national conference, had a conscience vote on this issue. At our last national conference many in the Labor Party expressed quite a deal of frustration that, on the other side of the chamber, the capacity to exercise a conscience position was not matched. Indeed, in the lead-up to the last election we had this issue kicked down the road a bit more with the position that a plebiscite should occur.

The survey that ultimately occurred did not surprise me at all. That public opinion in Australia on the issue of same-sex marriage is roughly 60-40 is no shock. It has been no shock to me for possibly about the last five years—the same period of time that the Labor Party has been grappling with whether a position of conscience should be maintained on that issue. The pragmatic consideration there, of course, is that the Labor Party considered that issue at a time when a position of conscience wasn't provided on the other side.

That's the background to the position that Labor senators find themselves in today, and it is with some relief that I will be able to exercise a position of conscience on this issue. In doing so, I want to highlight my thanks and reflection of the support that I receive across the Labor Party despite having a different view on this issue. I can perhaps best explain my position as representing the Victorian vote in relation to same-sex marriage. Labor senators are taking positions that, in general terms, reflect the vote that came out of Victoria. Senator Carr has long held a view supporting same-sex marriage as, indeed, has Senator Marshall. Senator Kitching supports same-sex marriage if the balance is right with respect to religious freedom. She exercised considerable work on the committee inquiry to progress these issues and I'm sure will continue to do so.

The last time I spoke on this issue was back in 2012. Despite some occasions where my position has been represented or highlighted for often a little bit of mischief sometimes, I have not addressed this issue since my contribution in this chamber when I was Manager of Government Business back in 2012, and that view has not changed. So I will be accepting the very generous offer from my colleague Senator Marshall that I pair his vote rather than him returning from New York. People may understand that Warren Entsch has suggested that he may come back to Australia to participate in the vote in the House next week. Senator Marshall and I are exercising our collegial respect in balancing each other's vote on this occasion, and I thank Senator Marshall for providing that respect and that opportunity.

The other little bit of mischief I would like to address at this stage is the suggestion that Labor senators are bound on the amendments. This is not the case. Labor senators have a conscience vote with respect to the issue of same-sex marriage, whether it's the vote at the end of the bill or issues related to same-sex marriage in the amendments. As I have explained to some people during the course of this debate, the Labor Party has established a process, which has been the case since I've dealt with conscience matters in this parliament over the last 20 years, in relation to this matter. We have established a working group representative of all of the views within the Labor caucus to manage this process respectfully. What I can indicate to the chamber, though, is that no Labor senator, in the circumstances where the Prime Minister has kicked certain issues down the road with the Ruddock review, has sought to exercise a position of conscience in relation to the amendments before us at this stage.

It might be timely for me to touch on some of the areas where those amendments have been sought, because, like Senator Ruston, I am concerned that we not weaponise activists. This bill represents, in the Australian ethos—and it certainly has been argued during the community debate—the application of a fair go. There's another Australian ethos that I would like to draw into and follow Senator Ruston's admonishments with, which is the ethos of 'live and let live'. If we don't have activists at each extreme weaponised and if we work with the existing Australian antidiscrimination framework, warts and all, and respectfully engage with the Ruddock review process, I think we can continue.

In relation to the amendments, again, I respectfully say to Senator Fawcett: we appreciate the amount of work that has gone into this process, but, for example, I have not been convinced that we need to split the definition of marriage in order to respond to the issue of same-sex marriage. I don't think we need to say to 'no' voters: 'It's okay, because we left in the Marriage Act the definition that marriage is between a man and a woman and we just added to that definition that marriage is also between two persons.' I don't really see what that definitional device achieves. But to suggest that I have been bound to a position to that effect is simply wrong. Another area in the amendments where I don't agree is the proposal that celebrants be allowed to refuse to conduct a same-sex marriage. If you're not a religious celebrant and you're operating in the common field, so to speak, then I think you should be prepared to deliver marriage services, as with other services, across the field. I don't think the issues around celebrants in general should allow for that type of discrimination.

With respect to the amendments around freedom of expression or freedom of religion or freedom of belief, again, I understand the intention and all the work that's gone into attempting to reach a formulation that might be acceptable but—and I've already said to Senator Smith, I think, that Sharia law was one step too far—I can see that there may be unintended consequences from the current formulation or, indeed, that we have not had sufficient time to address it in detail. Similarly, I have concerns about the standing of charitable organisations or religious organisations delivering social services. This is probably the key area that Senator Ruston raised—that we do not want to weaponise activists within. Senator Smith, I was pleased to see yesterday that some of the material coming forward from the tax commissioner and I think the charities commission were helpful in that respect, but this is going to be a very serious job for the Ruddock process, and I hope that this Australian ethos of live and let live is allowed to prevail.

Labor in government dealt with this issue, and I've heard it raised a few times in some of the commentaries around this bill. We dealt with this in detail when we were in government in relation to access to aged-care services. Indeed, the debate around these issues as it's represented in the Labor Party platform highlights this live and let live ethos—that the exemptions that currently apply to religious organisations are important. The countervailing issue that we need to balance, though, is to ensure that all Australians have access to appropriate services. It was found in aged-care services that there were some issues, particularly in rural and regional Australia, where access was becoming an issue for same-sex couples. As an exception in that area, we determined that the exemption would not apply to the provision of that particular service. This was not a precedent; it was an exception based on ensuring that all Australians have access to appropriate community services. It was not an argument that church based agencies would be denied public funding. It was not an argument that charitable organisations would lose tax status. None of these things occurred in that debate, nor do I think they need to be the result of this bill dealing specifically with same-sex marriage and a consensus around dealing with religious freedom.

Now, that takes me back a moment to some of the scuttlebutt about the Labor Party. The suggestion that the Labor Party does not support religious freedom is simply wrong. It's in our platform. It's one of our key values. That some on the other side have sought to beef themselves up and argue that they're the only ones that can deliver religious freedom is poppycock—absolute poppycock! A comment yesterday in, I think, The Australian re-enforced this point, so I went back to our leader's comments on these issues because I think some on the other side argued that Labor had been silent on the issue of religious freedom. That, too, is far from the truth. One example—and it's only one example, because Bill Shorten has said this on several occasions—is from 16 November, where Mr Shorten says:

We are interested and committed to religious freedom and the ability of churches to practise wedding ceremonies and marriage ceremonies according to their own tenets, and we respect that …

…   …   …   

… we will obviously consider and have look at any amendments, but we are not up for new discrimination and new delay.

That's the Labor position. We have had a conscience vote in relation to the bill and the amendments regarding same-sex marriage. We have looked at the amendments to date and, as I mentioned, given now that the Prime Minister has kicked the issue down the road with the Ruddock review, the likelihood that some of these issues can be addressed within the limited time frame of this week leaves us with reservations about a number of the amendments as they are currently before us.

I also want to reflect briefly on the issue of representative democracy. I don't agree with this view that a poll has now been taken and, therefore, you should vote that position. It's a very limited view about how democracy operates. The suggestion made as recently, I think, as yesterday by Greg Smith at a marriage forum in Bennelong—again attacking Kristina Keneally, probably following the Prime Minister's behaviour here, in an unworthy fashion—

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Appalling.

Jacinta Collins (Victoria, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

An appalling fashion, as Senator Farrell highlights. It is just another example of this very unhelpful partisanship that, I think, again, is unworthy of those who practise it. I have not criticised any member or senator of this place for having a different view on this issue, and I have not reflected on their strategies or their tactics, but, equally, I have not been gutless. (Time expired)

Don Farrell (SA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Centenary of ANZAC) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017. I'm a supporter of the traditional definition of marriage, and I continue to be so. When this vote is taken in the next day or two, I shall be voting no to this legislative change.

At the time I was first elected to the parliament, in 2007, it was the policy of the Australian Labor Party to support the traditional definition and traditional view of marriage, that it be between a man and a woman. While the policy was subsequently changed at a national conference of the Australian Labor Party following the 2010 election, that policy significantly, as you would be aware, Mr Acting Deputy President Sterle, provided a conscience vote to members of parliament on this issue. The question was again considered at the last national conference of the Australian Labor Party before the 2016 election, and, again, the conscience vote was re-endorsed by the Labor Party. This will be the second time that I have voted on this issue. The last time I voted on this issue, I voted with the majority and, of course, on that occasion, it led to the defeat of this legislation. On this occasion, of course, the vote will be different. When the vote is taken in this parliament, same-sex marriage will be legalised in Australia.

I have thought deeply about this issue since both the last time I voted and, in particular, the so-called survey that was conducted over recent months in this country. I've discussed the issue quite extensively with my family, my friends and members of my religious belief, the Catholic Church. While it's true that the Australian population voted by a roughly 60-to-40 margin in favour of same-sex marriage, the issue that I've considered since that vote was determined is: should that be determinative of the view I should take in this place in terms of voting on this legislation?

The conclusion I've come to is no, it should not be determinative. There are a range of reasons for that. The first reason is, of course, that the ALP opposed what was originally proposed, which was the plebiscite, and then opposed the survey. I believe we opposed it on good grounds, namely, the cost of the survey. The ALP was, at all times since the last election, prepared to vote on this issue and have it determined by the parliament, and would have done so so that this vote would have been taken very much earlier had the ALP's position been accepted by the government.

Secondly, almost five million Australians voted no and, included in that vote, of course, were many ALP voters. Lots of those people would have voted no for reasons of faith. I don't believe it's an unreasonable position for me to adopt, that I should reflect the views of those no voters and, in particular, those people who support the Labor Party who voted no. The vote was not a unanimous vote, and I believe that my no vote in this place reflects the view of those people who voted no in this most recent survey.

Finally, on that issue, I fought for the conscience vote in my party, and my conscience, on this occasion, tells me that I should vote no and support the traditional definition of marriage. I know that some people will be very disappointed in this decision. Some people who are very close to me will be very disappointed. But I believe I must vote according to my conscience, and I will do so.

I listened with interest to the contribution that Senator Collins made about the issue of religious freedoms, and I'm aware that there are going to be a number of amendments to this legislation linking the issue of same-sex marriage with religious freedoms. I think Senator Collins explained the process that the Labor Party has set-up that deals with this issue internally, and I can indicate to you, Mr President, that I am on the committee in the Labor Party that has dealt with this issue. We have determined that we will be voting no to the additional amendments to the religious freedom issue. That's not because we're not interested in the issue of religious freedom—in fact, far from it. The Labor Party is deeply concerned about this issue, but the Prime Minister has now set up a committee to look at this issue more generally and how the issues of religious freedom should be dealt with in this country. I certainly look forward to participating—as other members of the Labor Party will surely do—and dealing with that issue in the new year. This appreciates that there are concerns in our community about how religious freedoms are being reflected and, of course, the need to ensure that those issues are dealt with properly and in a timely fashion but not be linked to this bill because the issues of religious freedom are wider than simply the issue of same-sex marriage and, therefore, should have their own respectful debate.

Also on the issue of respect, I'd like to thank the members of my own political party on the respectful way in which they have conducted this debate. It had the potential to be a difficult debate, but I'd like to thank, in particular, my Senate leader, Senator Wong, and my parliamentary leader, Mr Bill Shorten, both of whom have been actively involved in this discussion and have ensured that, within the Labor Party, this has been a respectful vote.

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

) ( ): On Wednesday, 2 August 1972, Mr Murray Hill, a Liberal member of the South Australian Legislative Council, rose to move the second reading of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act Amendment Bill. The effect of the bill was to provide that homosexual acts between consenting adult males should no longer be offences under the criminal law. The bill passed the Legislative Council. A few weeks later it was moved by the member for Bragg, Dr David Tonkin, in the House of Assembly, where it also passed. I never met Murray Hill, although most of us know his son, Robert Hill, the longest-serving leader of the Liberal Party in the Senate. Dr Tonkin would go on to become a Liberal Premier of South Australia.

Murray Hill's bill was the first step taken in any Australian parliament to reform the laws discriminating against homosexual people. The word 'gay' had not entered the vocabulary at that time—at least not in the sense that we use it today. In the quarter-century that followed, all of the states and territories, under governments of both political persuasions, followed suit. The last was Tasmania, where private consensual homosexual acts continued to be a crime until as recently as 1997.

The decriminalisation of consensual homosexual acts removed a stigma which had blighted the lives of hundreds of thousands of Australians. There would, I dare say, be very few people today who would argue that the removal of that stigma was not a good thing, although it is surprising to think that it only occurred so recently. But merely to decide that conduct should not be the subject of the criminal law is a long way short of acceptance. By decriminalising consensual homosexual acts the Australian community only began its long, halting journey to recognising the complete equality of gay people—a journey first of toleration, then of acceptance, then of respect and, at last, of embrace.

In the coming days, 45 years since Murray Hill and his colleagues in the South Australian parliament set Australia on that journey, this week in the Senate and next week in the other place we will complete it. These late spring and early summer days of 2017 will always be remembered as a time when the parliament heeded the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Australians that ours should be a society defined by greater decency, truer equality, more complete freedom. The full legal equality of gay people will, at last, have been recognised. Marriage equality will be a reality by Christmas.

To change the legal definition of 'marriage' so as to include same-sex couples is a profoundly important social reform. Significantly, it is a reform which began on the conservative side of politics. Those who have followed the intellectual history of this issue locate its commencement to a single point in time—the publication in the New Republic magazine in August 1989 of the article 'Here comes the groom' written by the leading American conservative writer Andrew Sullivan. It proved to be one of the most influential articles of the late 20th century because it kicked off the gay marriage debate. It is noteworthy that Andrew Sullivan is also the author of one of the finest contemporary essays on conservatism—The Conservative Soul. In the 1990s, left-wing opinion leaders condemned Sullivan's argument for gay marriage, not because they were against gays but because they were against marriage, recognising that marriage is an intrinsically conservative institution. It is only in more recent years that those on the left have changed their tune and belatedly adopted gay marriage as a cause.

Profoundly important though the acceptance of same-sex marriage may be as a social change, its symbolic significance is even greater still. With the passage of this bill, we will demolish the last significant bastion of legal discrimination against people on the grounds of their sexuality. At last, Australia will no longer be insulting gay people by saying, 'Different rules apply to you.' So this bill is important not merely because it will enable gay people to marry, just as everybody else is able to marry; it is more important than that. After centuries of prejudice, discrimination, rejection and ridicule, it is both an expiation for past wrongs and a final act of acceptance and embrace.

I want to reflect for a moment on the message this will send in particular to young gay people—to the boy or girl who senses a difference from their friends which they find difficult to understand and impossible to deal with. In his first speech in the parliament, my friend Tim Wilson spoke movingly of his own experience of confronting that knowledge as a tormenting fear that took an energetic 12-year-old and hollowed his confidence to eventually doubt his legitimate place in the world. How many hundreds of thousands of young Australians have known that fear? How many have lived with it silently and alone? How many have failed to come to terms with it and been overborne by it? By passing this bill we are saying to those vulnerable young people: 'There is nothing wrong with you—you are not unusual, you are not abnormal, you are just you. There is nothing to be embarrassed about, there is nothing to be ashamed of, there is nothing to hide. You are a normal person and, like every other normal person, you have a need to love. How you love is how God made you. Whom you love is for you to decide and others to respect.'

Wednesday, 15 November, when the result of the postal survey was announced, was a day the like of which Australia has seldom seen. At a time when the prevailing public mood is one of frustration and cynicism, that cynicism gave way to rejoicing. As the Prime Minister said, the Australian people have spoken in their millions. They voted yes for fairness, they voted yes for commitment, they voted yes for love. It is important to acknowledge that people who were not persuaded about the desirability for change accepted the result with generosity and grace.

As the long road to homosexual law reform in Australia was begun 45 years ago by a Liberal politician, and the seminal intellectual case for same-sex marriage was made 28 years ago by a conservative writer, it is appropriate that it should have been brought to fulfilment by our Liberal government. Malcolm Turnbull is the first Australian Prime Minister to have advocated and prosecuted this cause, and it will stand as one of the signature achievements of the Turnbull government. It rises above tawdry day-to-day politics as an imperishable legacy.

If I may draw a comparison: nobody today remembers the arguments about the state of the economy, the policy controversies or the political intrigues that took place during the government of Harold Holt—like all political ephemera, they have faded into history—but people do remember the 1967 referendum, that great act of inclusion of Indigenous Australians. As the years and decades pass, its significance only grows. I predict that, like the 1967 referendum, this decision by the Australian people, enabled by their government and enacted by their parliament, will come to be seen as one of those occasional shining moments that stand out in our nation's history about which people will still speak with admiration in decades, indeed centuries, to come as one of those breakthroughs that has, as the will of history turns, defined us as a people.

As Senator Smith said in his speech introducing this bill, success has many fathers. Although this achievement was brought to fulfilment by a Liberal government and a Liberal Prime Minister, it would be churlish not to knowledge the role of so many in the Labor Party in also promoting this cause. I can well imagine their frustration during the six years of the Rudd and Gillard governments when the cause was delayed, because it is the same frustration I have felt at times with leaders on my own side of politics. But, in the end, after many years and false steps on both sides of politics and through many stops and starts, we have come, at last, to this end. As Martin Luther King famously said, 'the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice'.

The bill we are debating tonight is the work of many hands, but it is our colleague Dean Smith who was the author of the final version. Dean has, through a long and politically difficult process, displayed abundant tenacity and conspicuous moral courage. I was privileged to have been Dean's confidante at critical times in the last several weeks, and I know better than most the burdens of stress, of loneliness and of hurt he endured to make Australia a better place for countless others. Whatever else he may achieve in what has already been a significant political career, Dean Smith will always be remembered for this. Dean is one of a group of parliamentarians who, in the 45th Parliament, resolved, at some considerable risk to their own political careers, that they would not allow this issue to be pushed off any further. Among them, we should recognise, in particular, the member for Goldstein, Tim Wilson; the member for North Sydney, Trent Zimmerman; and the member for Brisbane, Trevor Evans.

But, of course, towering above this debate, we must acknowledge the seminal role of the member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch. Warren Entsch deserves to be remembered as—and, I dare say, is already well on the way to becoming—one of the great folkloric figures of Australian politics. Many think him an unlikely champion of the cause of same-sex marriage. And, yet, he is, in many ways, its ideal champion, embodying, as he does, in his exuberance, his generosity, his larrikin spirit and his gentle soul, so many of the qualities which are so essentially Australian. In the years to come, he deserves to be celebrated in song and story as an icon of our age.

I also acknowledge the important role in the 44th Parliament of the former member for Longman, Wyatt Roy, who, more than most, kept this issue alive during the time of Prime Minister Abbott. I find it amusing and not a little satisfying that so many of those on my side of politics who have made marriage equality possible have come from the Queensland LNP.

I want to acknowledge the contribution of a few others. My own office has worked with many to bring about this reform for a long time. I say to my staff, in particular to my former Deputy Chief of Staff, Josh Faulks, my Senior Adviser, Dr Susan Cochrane, and above all my Chief of Staff, Liam Brennan: you have played a crucial role in the history which is being made today. I wish also to acknowledge the officers of the Attorney-General's Department led by Ashleigh Saint who worked tirelessly on the initial exposure draft of the bill published last year from which much of the current bill is drawn and who have also prepared the technical amendments which I will move in the committee stage which will ensure consistency between this bill and the rest of Commonwealth law.

Australia may have been slow to reach this day—we are the last of the English-speaking democracies and one of the last countries in what was once called 'Western Christendom' to embrace marriage equality—but when that day did come it came triumphantly, it came joyously and it came, most importantly, from the Australian people themselves. Like all of the best and most enduring social change, it was not imposed from above. The will for it germinated in the hearts and minds of the people themselves. Now that the Australian people have spoken, it is for us, their elected representatives, to respond. And so let us now complete the task which they have set for us and for which so many of us have worked for so long.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.