Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Leader of the Nationals) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in this debate on the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016. I think it is vitally important. I would also like to reflect on the way it is being conducted. I believe that the way that it is being conducted now with the sense of decorum and respect is something that, obviously, can be transferred across the nation.

I think that, from the very start, people should know my position and the reason I hold that position. I believe in the current definition of marriage—the traditional definition of marriage. I see marriage as a fundamental institution that existed long before this parliament. I am a realist. There will come a day when this parliament and this form of government does not exist. I believe that the institution of marriage will still exist then. It has been tested by time, through multiple cultures and multiple faiths who have no connection with one another and live in different corners of the world, as being overwhelmingly the union between a man and a woman.

More importantly, as part of that—and I recognise that this issue is now passed on—I believe that every child has a right to know their biological mother and biological father. I think that is absolutely imperative for the formation of a person. We have all taken to this debate with the people we have met and the people it affects. I have certainly met children from same-sex couples. The concern that they expressed to me was precisely that. They do not actually have a view on support of gay rights. They are in support of everything that their mothers and partners who brought them up. They respect that but they say, 'I have a right to know and I have been denied that right. Other people have made a statement that precluded my right.' Now, I think that it is only fair that, if you want to stand up for rights, then stand up for their rights to know what it is that is the fundamental essence of who they are and how that person was made.

I suppose that affects my carriage in this debate because I see changing the definition of marriage as extenuating those problems and not actually dealing with those problems. I believe that over time these problems will become more manifest in other people as they come forward and say, 'Not only do I have the right to express my view that I should be able to know my biological mother and my father, and noting that they didn't act in that position as I grew up', and as they also demand the respect that their story be heard without them being pilloried or held up as some form of recalcitrant.

These are my views. Whether they are Australia's views is an entirely different subject. It is for determination what Australia's views are. I also recognise that I come to this place not as a priest nor a pastor; I am far from that. I have all my flaws like everybody else around this place. I come here as a politician. Therefore, I must respect the view of the Australian people. If it is the view of the Australian people that they have a different view to me, then it is my job to respect that view. That is precisely what I will do. Not to be a spiv, but I want to reflect on how we deal with the challenge of presenting ourselves for a debate which I believe will be conducted in the same way that political debates are conducted in Australia at every election on every issue. We are so lucky to live in a nation where people are not assassinated for their political views. In fact, I think we are very pallid in how we accept the outcome of the adjudicator—the Australian people. Even so, with the concerns people have brought up, I reflect on Herodotus. In his discussions, 400 years before Christ, he said:

It is better by a noble boldness to run the risk of being subject to half of the evils we anticipate, than to remain in cowardly listlessness for fear of what may happen.

I think that is an instruction that offers an avenue.

I am also a realist. My realistic view is that a plebiscite would pass, and therefore, early next year, you would have a change in the Marriage Act. From my discussions with my colleagues, you would have two choices. I do not even know how the House would divide on this, because I do not know who would say they wanted a division. You would have to get the call—no, I do not know who would say that. Nonetheless, I think it is obligatory, after the will of the Australian people is known, that you have two choices: you can abstain or you can vote for it. They are your two choices.

This is an issue on which people say, 'I am constant in my view, and it has never changed,' or that other people do not change their views, or that somehow the view of the parliament is a constant and an appropriate reflection of the Australian people. That is not right. It is not even an appropriate reflection of the view of the Labor Party. I know Shorten had a different view in 2013, when he clearly said, and it is on the record, that it should not be the decision of 150 people. It was not the view of former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. Whether it is now, I do not know. Who could determine that? I think in an earlier manifestation it was not the view of Kevin Rudd. So we know it is a view that changes. Therefore, why should the Australian people be bound to the views of people who by their own actions have shown they change their views?

If we believe that this is purely a vote of the parliament and only a vote of the parliament, then of course it has to be the case that at a future stage we can change it back by a vote of the parliament. I do not think anyone wants that. I do not think that is something that we would be encouraging—that we would move it back.

I am really skeptical, to be honest—because it is turning into a political tactic—when people say, 'We do not want to cause an incendiary atmosphere by talking about the pros and cons of the plebiscite.' In so doing, they are talking about the pros and cons of the plebiscite. That is precisely what is happening now. I do not believe that we are seeing wild riots on the street. People are dealing with it in a very respectful manner. By its very nature, the debate is happening right now. It is happening in this parliament right now. It is happening in the streets and in the papers right now.

If you truly believe that the debate is so incendiary that it 'cannot mention its name', then stop talking about it. Just stop, from this night forward. Never mention it again. Of course, that is not going to happen either. Why? Because we trust the Australian people, we trust the decency of the Australian people and we trust that they will be able to conduct themselves in a manner that does not cost those who may have a different position.

Do we honestly believe that the conditions and the qualities of the people in this room are beyond compare. beyond those out there in the public? They are not. We have the same mechanism, with good and bad politicians, with all their faults and all their failings. And we can find them on both sides; I am not denying that. But I do not think people are going to be saying that Sam Dastyari is more deserving of a vote than someone out in the street. And you can pick out for yourself a person on our side that you wish to mention—same deal. I think that the person on the street has their own common sense and they will approach this in a commonsense way.

An issue that the member for Eden-Monaro brought up was that it should be binding. I think that, as we speak, George Brandis, the Attorney-General, has basically brought forward what the changes to the Marriage Act would be. I do not think anybody is equivocating about what the changes would be, and I am sure the Attorney-General would be only too happy to have that discussion at the table in the other place about exactly what the intended changes to the Marriage Act would be. I do not think anybody is seriously saying that a vote determined by the Australian people would somehow not be carried through both houses of this parliament.

It is no secret that in the Nationals the majority view, but not the exclusive view, is that we believe in the current definition of marriage. But I have always, always strongly believed that those who have a different view—and the member for Gippsland has a different view—are to be totally respected and given the space to express their views, which we do. There is no-one held out as an example, and everyone is allowed that space. And there are other people as well, and that is completely and utterly their right. Within the National Party, more than any other party, we say, 'If you really wish to cross the floor, you can; if you really wish to express a different view, you can; you just have to put some cogency into your reasons as to why.'

That is why I have some skepticism when I hear that there is a unanimous view in the Labor caucus. Really? Not one person? Not one person with a different view? Not one person who has a view that they want to remain with the current definition of marriage? Were they given that space? Were they given that respect? Were they given that place to clearly express their views? Is it really the case that we cannot find one person? I will not call them out now, but I think I could quickly suggest quite a few who might have a different view. But their view has been corralled. That builds on the cynicism that we on this side of the House have about how we are actually going to conduct the debate. If you believe that the debate would be incendiary, then let your own people clearly state their own case, where they have a different view. We know they are there. We know they exist, and you know they exist, as well.

I think it is an incredible indictment of this nation if we say that it cannot have a civil debate. Then, where do we go on other issues? I brought up before that I support Indigenous recognition, and I want to see that happen. What are we saying—we are not capable of that either? That one will have to go to a referendum, and I suggest that there will be people with different views from mine. I will not support those views, but there will be different views. I do not think they will win the debate and I do not think that will cause any form of riot on the street, either. If we make it a precedent that there are certain times when the Australian people are of a different ilk to what they have proven themselves to be over such a long period of time—all the way back to the 1967 referendum, to note but one major change in policy—then I think that is an insult to the Australian people.

What I can say is there is the opportunity. Believe you me: people who believe in the current definition of marriage, of which I am one, have moved to this position. We have given ground. We have put forward a case and we have moved. The previous coalition speaker gave a very good and powerful speech on this bill, and I respect his views. I believe that they are completely and utterly genuine and different to mine. But both have moved to find themselves in this position where there can be a resolution to this issue. If we are really honest, we know what the path will be. If we go back to a realistic approach, the plebiscite would pass through both houses of parliament, a vote would be conducted in early February and a change of the Marriage Act would happen almost immediately after that. That is the path, but it needs people out there to say, like Herodotus, if you only have to live with half the ills that you suspect then it is worth the fight. It is worth the fight to then move forward and say, 'We will do that.'

Believe you me: this is absolutely a level 1, class 1 major decision. We are talking about changing the definition of an institution that is vastly, vastly older than this parliament and—as it is vastly, vastly older than this parliament—it does live in a different realm to other decisions that are made. If that is what you wish to do, then there must be some respect for those who have a different view. That is achieved by making an equivalence between the vote of every person in this chamber and every other person outside this chamber—every other person in regional Australia and every other person in the metropolitan capitals.

I doubt very much whether there is a person in this place who does not have people affected by this, whether it is gay people in their office, which I have, or close relations or people in their family who are gay, which I have. Everybody says that and let us just get the palaver over and done with. But to think that they are all precious petals, as was stated in an article I saw in the paper, and that they cannot be part of a debate is also an insult to them. Also, to think that they all have exactly the same view is ridiculous; they do not. There are many and varied views in the lesbian and gay community as there are in any other community. So I think it would be best for our nation to vote for this plebiscite, to have this issue dealt with and to move on.

See this speech in context