Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I have spoken, in this chamber, in support of marriage equality on a number of occasions now and am very happy to do so again today. Last March I was visiting Dubbo and caught up with a very close friend of mine, Tom, and his partner, James. Tom and I have been friends since our first year at uni and that friendship has developed, over the last three decades, through the great times and the ups and downs of life. We have often talked about and reflected on the concept of marriage and the importance of relationships being recognised not just in our community but also in having that legal recognition and what that means for partners.

Tom made an announcement. He said to me, 'James and I are getting married,' which should always be a joyous and happy occasion. Like most people when they hear such news, I was incredibly thrilled for them both. But that news gave me very mixed emotions. As it sank in, I realised that that wedding was not going to be in Australia. That wedding was not going to be an occasion in which all of the important people in the lives of both those men would be present. As Tom explained to me, 'We have waited 15 years, Sharon. We are not awaiting any more. We are sick of the fact that you guys can't get your act together in parliament and get this business done.'

So they went to Copenhagen and, as I understand it, they made their vows before a very conservative member of the Copenhagen establishment and are now married. Fortunately, they both come from incredibly supportive farming families who acknowledge their relationship and, indeed, feel blessed by the love that these two men have for each other. Whilst some of their very close family were able to be there, recognition is still a very real issue for those men. For anybody who is married overseas, it is about the recognition of their marriage back in Australia. But I am so saddened that they were forced into that position in the first place. Had they had the opportunity to take their vows before all the people they loved—their friends and the people who are important in their lives—it would have been a different kind of occasion for them both. The fact that they were married overseas does not mean that there love means less, but it is a deep shame that that could not happen here in Australia.

I think this parliament will live to regret it if we cannot come to an accommodation where this parliament is able to take a free vote on a piece of legislation in the same way that we vote on any other pieces of legislation dealing with discriminatory laws and practices that are on our books. I find myself in furious agreement with the Honourable Justice Kirby in this respect that a plebiscite vote is an alien concept to our representative democracy. Indeed, it is a threat to that mode of representative democracy. Imagine the mess we would be leaving this nation if we outsourced our responsibility to deal with laws on a range of controversial issues that come before the parliament. It would be unforgivable. Imagine if in 1902, when women suffragists championed the cause of getting the vote for women, the Australian Parliament had said: 'Hit the pause button there. We can't possibly contemplate giving Australian women a vote. Let's give a plebiscite to those who already have the privileged position of being able to vote in the first place and outsource that responsibility.' How would we have dealt with Indigenous rights and the rights of people with disabilities? These are things the parliament should rightly address and should in fact lead.

It is the responsibility of each of us, as community leaders, to have these kinds of debates within our communities, and I am sure there are many colleagues who have been doing that. I have listened to many contributions in the House around this issue where people have sought to have genuine consultations with the community at large. Yes, there may be some mixed views from time to time. But it is my firm view that this parliament is ducking its historic duty to protect and, indeed, further the rights of our citizens. That is the role of this parliament.

My constituents in Newcastle are gobsmacked that we continue to have this discussion in the parliament. Most people who come to talk to me around this issue say: 'For goodness sake, have you guys not done this yet?' It is not just that people want this issue done and dusted, although there may be an element of that now; it is unimaginable to the vast majority of Australians that we would outsource our obligation to protect and advance citizenship rights in Australia. As I said, it is a matter that many people in my community of Newcastle have spoken to me about over the years. Before I was elected to the parliament in 2013, I made sure that my view was very clearly articulated to my community. I wrote opinion pieces around the fact that I have spent my whole life fighting discrimination in various guises. That is the lens through which I examine the issue of marriage equality; for me, it is a fundamental human right.

I applaud previous Labor governments for the removal of discriminatory practices and laws from 85 different pieces of legislation that were on our statute books. I think we should always acknowledge those who came before us and the tremendous work that has happened. This is the one remaining piece of unfinished business for the parliament. The parliament was able to get its act together and eradicate discrimination from 85 pieces of legislation. Why can't we do it for that one final piece of legislation, the Marriage Act? John Howard himself changed that act without going to a plebiscite. If we did not have to go to the Australian people in order to change the Marriage Act in the first place and confine marriage to the union of a man and a woman, how can the conservatives argue today that we must go to a plebiscite in order to undo the change that their conservative hero John Howard made without any consultation with the Australian people back in 2004?

That seems to be a fundamental flaw in the conservative argument on this issue, and it is one that is often raised with me in my conversations with people in Newcastle on this issue.

I have been contacted by literally hundreds of people from Newcastle on this matter. Of those, 300 or more are constituent contacts. There have been six who have asked me to proceed in support of a plebiscite. I respectfully responded to each of those six people—indeed, all of the hundreds of others as well—to say that I acknowledge and respect their point of view here.

But I made clear, as I said, from day one as a candidate, before people voted for me for the first time and, again, the second time, what my position is and where my conscience stands on this issue. So I say to those who have asked me to proceed in support of a plebiscite that I respect our point of difference—and I believe that their articulation of their point of view is an important part of the political process.

But if this plebiscite does not proceed, which I strongly believe it should not, then what will be the course to eventually recognise marriage equality in Australia? That is, I think, an issue that weighs heavily on everybody who is articulating the 'no' vote on the plebiscite. But my decision-making is made so much easier by the fact that, without exception, of those hundreds and hundreds of people who have contacted me on this issue and who are from the LGBTI community, not one person wants me to vote in favour of that plebiscite—not one.

It seems to me that we have a profound obligation to listen carefully to those people who will feel the brunt of the divisive nature of the discussion and discourse around marriage equality. We have a very strong obligation to protect those citizens who feel most vulnerable in this debate, when it is those who come forward to you and say: 'Since when is it okay to outsource our human rights as a minority group to a popular opinion poll of the majority?' I have reflected deeply on that, and the fact is that it is never okay to subject the most vulnerable in your community to an onslaught of division, hate and trauma.

I say 'trauma' because a number of my constituents have contacted me of late and have revealed some of the most personal aspects of their lives that I would not even begin to repeat in this parliament. Just the discussion of the possibility of having this plebiscite and what that has already opened up in the community and is subjecting some of these people to is reopening trauma in the lives of these men and women. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that they are protected from that kind of abuse and despicable behaviour. Nobody in this parliament would condone some of the behaviour that I have heard about of the lived experience of some of my constituents.

In closing I do want to acknowledge that one of the very bright spots, however, of this otherwise traumatic debate around the plebiscite that is happening in the community is the strength of advocacy that has been shown by the parents and friends of the lesbian and gay community. In particular, I want to acknowledge PFLAG in my region and Michelle Lancey, who heads up the PFLAG group in the Hunter.

Michelle is a friend of mine. I have known her for many years now. Although she feels a little weary and a little battle fatigued from time to time, this has been a deeply personal issue for her. She describes herself as a straight, Christian woman with three amazing, beautiful kids, one of whom happens to be gay. She wants him to have the same rights as her other two children. I think that that is a perfectly reasonable aspiration for any parent to have and one that this parliament should be doing everything to support. I beg members opposite to revisit this issue, allow a free vote— (Time expired)

See this speech in context