House debates

Thursday, 10 August 2017

Matters of Public Importance

Marriage

4:03 pm

Photo of Susan LambSusan Lamb (Longman, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have four sons, four boys aged between 17 and 27. I love them dearly. I love each and every one of them. If you walked through my house or swiped through my phone, you would see lots of photos of those boys—smiling, laughing, growing up. There are photos of them at school, photos of them playing sport, photos with their families and friends, and photos with their partners, all over the walls in my house. And, like I said, you can look through my phone and you will see lots of photos of them there too. I raised each and every one of them to have the same values: to be kind, to be loving, to be compassionate and to show empathy with every single person they share this world with. They've all grown up into very different people. One's a tradie, one's a small-business owner, one's currently studying a bachelor of mathematics degree and working in hospitality at the same time, and one's a year 12 student who has a vision of heading off to uni next year. So they are all very different. While their interests have led them into different paths in life, they've all used the values and the morals that they were raised with to guide them into becoming very, very fine young men. They're men who I am really proud to call my sons.

I love each of those boys equally. They'll probably tell you that's not true. They'll probably tell you that I prefer one over the other, but that's not true. I do love each of those boys equally. It's because of that that I am truly hurt, as their mother, that this government sees one of them not the same as the others. This government has set out on a campaign to marginalise, offend and discriminate against one of my sons. He's a 27-year-old man, he's a university graduate and he's gay. As a young man, my son used to say to me that he worried about not having children, about not getting married. He says that he knew his brothers had a different right to a commitment that he didn't, a commitment that made life worth living. I was talking to him on the phone just this week. He said to me: 'Marriage isn't just about love, Mum; it's about sharing your life. Marriage is about the legal right to decide on financial and property matters with the person you love.' He's frustrated by how much time—that's what he said to me—and how much money has been wasted on this issue already, and how the government is happy to waste another $122 million simply to delay the inevitable. Because it is inevitable. It's inevitable because Australia is full of kind and passionate people. They are in the majority. They're not bigots who try to make the most noise. It is inevitable because we in Labor 100 per cent support equality for all Australians and we will deliver it, no matter what. We don't need a $122 million rigged opinion poll or household survey to tell us what a small population in the country think, to do our job.

After weeks of infighting and being undermined by his party's ultraconservative hard right, this PM knows how weak he looks. No-one could possible believe he's a strong leader when, after claiming to support marriage equality, he forces through this $122 million household survey. We could use that money to put more teachers in schools, employ more nurses or make more aged-care places available to our seniors. If this PM really wanted equality he could call a vote today. I tell you what: I'll sit down right this second. I'd gladly stop speaking if it meant they would call a vote right now. I would do what I was elected to do. But, instead, we know this Prime Minister has resorted to a postal method which he himself has recognised as a calculated method, designed to 'disenfranchise Australians, particularly young people.' These are not the actions of a strong leader, a weak leader or any form of leader at all; these are the actions of someone who is being led by others, being led by ultraconservatives in his party.

I hope that the Prime Minister sees the light, I really do. I hope he decides not to proceed with this $122 million household survey and calls a free vote in parliament. But I can tell you, no matter what, no matter how we have to vote, I can 100 per cent guarantee you I will be voting yes for my son. I will be voting yes for every single son, daughter, mother, father, every family and friend who has a loved one and who wishes to marry the person they love. I will be voting yes for marriage equality.

Comments

Andrew JACKSON
Posted on 17 Sep 2017 11:19 am (Report this comment)

Susan Lamb was elected by ALP and GReen vote that supported SSM along with preferences from ALL other minor parties that ALL opposed SSM. THis was 39.74% of vote. She was in effect deemed to be a preferable by 11% of voters who thought the the alternative to Wyatt ROy who was an active supporter of SSM.


She needs to remember that without the preferences of opponents of SSM such as KAP, FF, PHON and ALA she would still be a TEacher's Aide. ALl minoor parties chose not to allocate preferences.

As one of those involved in the negotiations within minor parties over preferences I can assure her that the chances of the likes of FF and other minors preferencing her again are verging on ZERo.

She needs to remember that the electors of LOngman are moire interested in ELectricity prices, TRaffic jams and house prices than SSM. WE more interested in the fact that we can not express our views on SSM because we risk Jail time if we express our views than in the issue of SSM itself.

REpresentatives are not Agents but when they cease to represent they will be ONe TERm wonders.

She needs to remember that the only reason she is in Parliament is because minor parties failed to preference Roy.

To win again she needs to reach out to the voters who contributed 15 of 50.79%. THese Social conservatives will not approve of most of her speeches in Parliament. IF Liberal Party put up a Socially Conservative with the economic policies of Malcolm FRaser I will distribute copies of her speeches to key decision makers in LOngman. IT will only require 1390 VOtes to change to return Mrs Lamb to employment with Education DEpartment.

She needs to remember that all of the local LNP candidate MLA's promised to repeal civil unions legislation in QLd prior to 2012 STate election, All voted against the same exact Repeal Bill that LNP had been put up during ANna BILigh's PREmiership And ALL OF THEM WERE DEFEATED in Jan 2015.


I preferenced Susan Lamb ahead of Roy when she was elected and her only hope of getting my preference again is if LNP put up a candidate with the views of Wyatt Roy. (ie anti-society economically neoliberal)

Susan Lamb was aware of the fact that negotiations were taking place prior to last Federal election. So in effect her advocacy of SSM is biting the hands of those of 1390 VOters whose preferences elected her.

Andrew Jackson
apjackson@hotkey.net.au

Log in or join to post a public comment.