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

Marriage equality is not a fringe issue; it is something that affects us all—our parents, children, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, friends and work colleagues. We are all entitled to equal protection of the law, and all people should be treated equally, regardless of who we are or who we love. This bill would help achieve that. It seeks to put an end to existing discriminatory law and as such should pass through the parliament with the strong support of all who are determined to end discrimination in all its forms. Regretfully we know that that will not be the case. The fact that there is more than one bill on marriage equality before the House today points to the determination of some in this parliament to ensure that this matter is not resolved any time soon. This should not be a political argument. It is an issue of human rights, social justice and equality before the law. But our Prime Minister has worked hard to ensure that it is political, forever resetting targets to be met in order for a vote on marriage equality to occur in this parliament.

More than 12 months ago the member for Sydney wrote to all coalition members inviting them to co-sponsor a bill for marriage equality. Just one of the 99 members opposite was needed for this matter to progress, but none came forward. With no coalition co-sponsor, the only choice the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy leader had to progress this important issue of equality was to table the bill before us today.

In speaking to this bill in parliament, the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister if he would allow his party a free vote on this issue. Rather than allow a free vote, the Prime Minister focused instead on unfairly attacking Labor for an alleged lack of parliamentary consultation. He said:

If our parliament were to make a big decision on a matter such as this, it ought to be owned by the parliament and not by any particular party.

In response, common-minded, equality-focused members from all parties in this place united to bring forward a bill, as introduced by the member for Leichhardt today, to be, as the Prime Minister put it, 'owned' by this parliament. The Prime Minister set the terms and the parliament responded.

Then, of course, we saw the hullabaloo of last week, when the Prime Minister was presented with what he had asked for, a bill owned by the parliament, not by a party. That is when the Prime Minister decided to switch back to character once more with various acts of sabotage up his sleeve. First was the argument there was no time to debate this matter. Second, as described by the Leader of the House, was the issue of the alleged branch stacking by bringing the National Party into the Liberal Party room to have this debate. Third, after six hours of closed-door debates with the result of no free vote being allowed for the coalition, the Prime Minister said that, if the Liberals were to change their stance, 'people who voted for us were going to feel dudded'. Well, Prime Minister, I am not sure how many times one can be dudded, but I would suggest that many people who voted for you, and those who did not, are already feeling well and truly dudded by your broken promises about so many issues before this parliament.

As a result of being presented with a personally unpalatable option, the Prime Minister returned to character and moved a new act of sabotage, calling for a referendum or a plebiscite, against his own words from a few months ago, against a High Court ruling, and against the determination of the Attorney-General and many others. Mark Kenny put the position aptly in the Fairfax press:

This is the game now: push for a public vote, dress it up as the virtuous pursuit of a truly democratic outcome, and thus delay and then destroy the push through a tsunami of fear-based advertising (some of it government funded if there is a public ballot) claiming the rights of children are being compromised.

It is clear the only plan the Prime Minister has is to do whatever it takes to prevent same-sex marriage legislation being debated by this parliament.

I have spent much of my life fighting discrimination in all its versions, and this is the prism through which I view marriage equality. Yet as we watch the Prime Minister lurch from one crisis to another, pushing for plebiscites one minute and referenda another, it is now apparent he will do anything to ensure this parliament does not get to vote. The Prime Minister's behaviour makes clear that there is only one way for this to occur. You can have marriage equality or you can have Tony Abbott—you cannot have both. To get marriage equality you will have to make a choice at the next election. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.

Sitting suspended from 12:58 to 15:59