Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

As the person who moved one of the bills that was the subject of this inquiry, I would like to place on the record my thanks to the chair, the deputy chair and the excellent secretariat staff for the attitude that was taken towards an issue that a number of people would have some very strong views on. It is no easy feat to begin the process of canvassing the views of the Australian public about changing the Marriage Act to remove one of the last vestiges of discrimination. The fact that we were able to work cooperatively, and ultimately assess and canvass the views of over a quarter of a million Australians, is testament to the bipartisan and cross-partisan spirit of the members of the committee, and also the excellent support we received from the secretariat.

One of the things that became apparent from this committee inquiry is that the public is ready for change. We had over a quarter of a million responses to the survey that was initiated by the committee, and 64 per cent supported the bill that I and the member for Denison are cosponsoring. That number, 64 per cent, matches almost every other poll that has been taken on this subject. It is a reflection of the fact that the Australian public is now quite relaxed about two people who love each other marrying each other and expressing that love, not only to each other but to their families and to their friends. Ultimately, though, the change that we are called upon to make as a parliament should be done not just because it is popular but because it is right. There is no excuse, and the Australian public recognises this, for continuing to discriminate against a group of people simply because of who they love. It is not just those individuals, their families and their friends who will benefit from a change in the law.

The attitude that this parliament takes to whether or not having two classes of people in this society will continue on into the future is significant not just for the individuals who are directly affected but for the young boy in a country town who is working out who he is attracted to or the girl at high school who wants to take her female partner to the formal and is told she is not allowed to do so. What the public, especially those who might not be old enough to vote, hear from us matters. At the moment what they are hearing from parliament is that their love is not equal and is not good enough. When we know that same-sex attracted people have at least four times the risk of committing suicide as the remainder of the community and that that number grows the further out from the cities and into the country you go, it is absolutely critical that we in parliament do everything we can to say to every member of the community, 'You are valued and your love is equal.'

One only needs to look at the arguments against marriage equality to understand the futility of standing in the way of change. Indeed, during the course of the inquiry one of the proponents for the status quo said, 'Marriage should be between a man and a woman and it should be for life.' When we responded, surely people should be able to have no-fault divorce, they said, 'No, that's when the rot sets in.' It is that attitude—the fact that people who are opposing this either say there should never be any change or say, 'We do not agree with homosexual and lesbian relationships'—which shows there is no rational argument for opposing these bills. However, we have a situation where on one side of the House there is a split and on the other side of the House they are not even able to exercise their freedom of speech and vote according to their conscience.

It is for that reason that, as will be seen from the additional comments, I will not be suggesting that my bill goes to a vote soon. We need more time to make sure this reform happens. At a minimum—and I call on all members who are moving bills to adopt this position—we need the Leader of the Opposition to grant members on his side a conscience vote. That way we will see reform in the time of this parliament. (Time expired)

See this speech in context