Stephen Jones (Whitlam, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The history of attempts at achieving marriage equality in Australia will not be a tale of courage or conviction—certainly not in this place. It will not be a story about how this parliament came together and ended discrimination against same-sex attracted people and it will not be a story about the will of the Australian people being given effect to by their representatives, for those of us seeking to achieve an end to discrimination are hostage to those who seek to delay, obstruct and frustrate. The Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016 before the House today is evidence of that strategy.

The history of social reform across the world shows that ending discrimination is only a matter of time. It is only a matter of time until marriage equality becomes a reality in Australia. It could happen very, very soon. When I first spoke about marriage equality in this House it was 15 November 2010; it was not long after my first election. I said:

…marriage is an important institution in our society. It is a special relationship where two people say to each other and to the rest of the world that they agree to be bound together in love, exclusive of all others, for life. I believe it would diminish us all as a society if we were to say that we may exclude gay and lesbian couples from this celebration. That marks them as somehow less worthy or even as biological oddities. I respect the right of religious organisations and others in our community to disagree with this view and to continue to practise in accordance with their beliefs. Indeed, no motion or act of this place can of itself change those beliefs. But it is an entirely different thing to ask of the state to enforce it.

As many in the House know, I had the enormous privilege of introducing the first bill to give effect to Labor's national platform, which was changed in November 2010 to recognise marriage equality. That private member's bill was just one of 18 bills that have been introduced into this House and the other place since that time. My own private member's bill was introduced on 13 February 2012 following a period that enabled all members to consult with their communities. It is a matter of history that my bill did not succeed. It was voted down in this place by a majority of 56 votes. Obviously many people abstained. This is despite the fact that polls then showed, and now show, that more than 60 per cent of Australians support marriage equality—so it seems that the 45th Parliament remains just as out of step with community attitudes as the 43rd Parliament was.

Labor rejects that the false choice that is being promoted by the government: that there is either a plebiscite or nothing when it comes to achieving marriage equality. We could make this a reality within the next 10 days. That would be possible. The plebiscite, as I said earlier in this debate, is a colossal waste of money. Just imagine what good we could do with the $200 million if it were spent on our health system, on our schools, on legal services, on mental health services or on domestic violence front-line services, just to name a few. That is $200 million which would otherwise be wasted.

From the experience of advocating for this from 2010 to this date, I have garnered some small exposure to the level of vitriol, hatred and fear directed against the LGBTI community that emanates from those who are strongly opposed to marriage equality. I am a privileged, white, heterosexual male. I hold a position within the community that gives me great privileges and benefits. I can say that I have never experienced the sort of institutional discrimination that many people who have come to me and expressed their concerns have experienced. However, the very limited experience of proposing a change to the marriage laws has led me to take their concerns very seriously.

When the plebiscite was first proposed, I have to say that I had an open mind to the question. This was before the issue of the cost was brought to my attention, but it was also before I sat down and spoke to many members of my community and to many people within my friendship networks and, in fact, around the country. I spoke to them about their very real concerns. I think it would have been an abrogation of my responsibility for me—as I have said, as a privileged, white, heterosexual male—to say, 'C'mon, we can toughen up; we need not be concerned about these issues,' and not listen to their concerns and their lived experiences. To a person, they were concerned about the impact of the plebiscite on their children or on young LGBTI people.

I can attest to the hundreds and hundreds of emails that I have received from opponents of same-sex marriage who thought it was fit and appropriate to commit to writing and to communicate to me and to many other people some of the most egregious statements and comments about our fellow Australians. That is a private communication to a member of parliament; I can only imagine what it would be like if this bill proceeds and that is let loose in a full-blown public debate. People say that we are a robust country and good people, that they have confidence and faith in the Australian community and that the majority of Australians will not stoop to that level of debate. I understand that. I actually agree with it. I actually agree that the majority of Australians will not engage in that sort of debate. But it is not the majority of Australians that I am concerned about and it is not the majority of Australians that raise the concerns the LGBTI community have made direct representations to me about.

As former Justice of the High Court Michael Kirby has said:

A plebiscite campaign unfortunately would be likely to bring out hatreds and animosities in our country that are bad for minorities generally and for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender minority in particular.

From my own experience, I have no reason to doubt this. Michael Kirby has put forward 10 reasons against the plebiscite, including this one. These are compelling reasons against the plebiscite, including the controversial precedent that it would set in our history as to how such matters are determined within our political system, in the view of former Justice Michael Kirby and in my view; and including advocacy that we have heard this week on behalf of Professor McGorry, who has warned that a public campaign could and probably would increase the risk of self-harm and suicide in an already vulnerable community. We cannot blithely dismiss these concerns.

The experience in Ireland has been pointed to as precedent within this debate. In my view, that is misplaced. There is a good reason why the people of Ireland conducted a national referendum to determine this question, and the reason is this: the provisions concerning marriage were entrenched in their constitution. Our Constitution is entirely different species, which gives this parliament the right to make laws in respect of marriage. And it is indeed this place where a bill will have to be considered at the conclusion of any plebiscite, were it to proceed. The Irish experience is pertinent. Australian researchers have identified that Ireland's same-sex marriage referendum 'no' campaign had a deeply negative impact on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people and their families. Dr Sharon Dane in from the University of Queensland School of Psychology found that over 1,600 people within the LGBTI community— (Time expired)

Craig Kelly (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak on the Plebiscite (Same-Sex Marriage) Bill 2016. Firstly, I would like to note that this debate is not about the merits or the pros and cons of the same-sex marriage debate. What we are debating is whether we should go ahead with a plebiscite in February next year to make a determination to give every single Australian the opportunity to have their say on this issue.

What has been a bit disappointing during the debate on this particular bill is that it has shown there has been a growing disdain on the Left side of politics from Labor and the Greens—a disdain for our democracy. The issue we are debating was taken to the last election. At the last election, on one side we had the coalition. We set out our position. We said that, if there were to be a change, a redefinition of the term 'marriage' in the Marriage Act, changing a definition that was centuries-old through Western civilisation, that change should be done through a national plebiscite where every single Australian has the opportunity to have their say. In the alternative, we had the Labor Party and the Greens. Their position going to the election was that, if they were successful, they would legislate to change the Marriage Act during this term of parliament. We had that debate during the election period. The different positions were crystal clear. Many Australians went to the ballot box at the last election and cast their vote knowing that there was a clear choice. We saw the results of the election. Labor and the Greens lost the election. The coalition was able to form government.

If we are to have any respect for our democracy, once we have had that debate during the election period, the opposition should not come into this parliament and try to block the will of the Australian people as demonstrated at the election. Otherwise, why even have elections? Why have debates during elections if the result of the election is not going to be respected by those on the other side? The positions were clear at the last election. The vote was held. Our position to have a plebiscite was crystal clear. We have formed government. The opposition should allow us to continue with this process.

Sadly, this is not just a one-off incident where we see those on the Left side of politics having a growing disdain for our election process and our democracy. In 2013, we saw the then Labor Prime Minister go to the election with the promise, 'There will be no carbon tax under a government that I lead.' To make that commitment before an election and reverse it afterwards simply shows a complete disdain. We again saw it at the last election. Yes, there was vigorous debate about many issues, and that is the way it should be, with one side putting up one proposition and the other side countering it. That is how our democratic process should work—a contest of ideas.

At the last election we saw the Labor Party creating false electronic documents—millions of them. They sent those false documents out to millions of Australians—which created the false impression that this was some type of official communication from Medicare, a government organisation—with what was the complete untruth, that the coalition would privatise Medicare. Rather than be embarrassed about that act, rather than come in and be a bit contrite and say, 'Yes, we need to change these laws,' the Labor Party came into this parliament and laughed and said, 'Ha-ha, we tricked you.' They tricked millions of Australians at the last election, and there is no embarrassment, no apology—it is just, 'Ha-ha, we've tricked you.' That is the disdain that we are seeing for the democratic process in this country. If that were undertaken in trade or commerce, it would be an offence. We have also seen disdain for democracy. We saw it with the Orwellian Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal—